PLATE XXXIV.—JAN STEEN(1626?–1679)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2580.—BAD COMPANY(La Mauvaise compagnie)
PLATE XXXIV.—JAN STEEN(1626?–1679)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2580.—BAD COMPANY(La Mauvaise compagnie)
The scene takes place in a tavern. A young man has fallen asleep with his head in the lap of a girl, who is seated to the right of the composition, and holds a glass of wine in her right hand. Another girl has just taken the young man’s watch from his pocket and is giving it to an old woman, who receives it with evident glee. On the left a man sits at a table smoking his pipe, and another is playing the fiddle.Signed in full in the left bottom corner.Painted in oil on panel.1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 2¼ in. (0·47 × 0·36.)
The scene takes place in a tavern. A young man has fallen asleep with his head in the lap of a girl, who is seated to the right of the composition, and holds a glass of wine in her right hand. Another girl has just taken the young man’s watch from his pocket and is giving it to an old woman, who receives it with evident glee. On the left a man sits at a table smoking his pipe, and another is playing the fiddle.
Signed in full in the left bottom corner.
Painted in oil on panel.
1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 2¼ in. (0·47 × 0·36.)
The Louvre contains only two paintings by Pieter de Hooch, who was born in 1629 at Rotterdam, a town which played a relatively unimportant part in Dutch painting. He also lived at Delft and Leyden. TheInterior of a Dutch House, with a Woman preparing Vegetables(No. 2414), is a good example, and is fully signed in the bottom left-hand corner. TheDutch Interior, with a Lady playing Cards(No. 2415,Plate XXXV.), is full of incidents, contains six figures, and is signed on the base of one of the columns supporting the mantelpiece in the left foreground. No museum in the world exhibits the art of Pieter de Hooch in such excellence as does the National Gallery, which contains three masterpieces from his hands that have indirectly been the cause of assessing the whole of the artist’s life-work on too generous a basis. It is indisputable that during the last ten years of his life, of which nothing is known later than the signature and date, 1677, on theMusic Partyin the collection of Baron H. A. Steengracht at The Hague, his art deteriorated very considerably both in colouring and draughtsmanship. He may well have been a pupil of Karel Fabritius (1624–1654), but it is almost incredible that he can have been a pupil of the Italianiser Nicholaes Berchem, as Houbrakenventured to assert. This museum contains nothing by Ochtervelt, many of whose pictures have from time to time been accepted as the work of Pieter de Hooch.
From the shortlived artist Karel Fabritius derives the almost incomparable master Jan Vermeer van Delft (1642–1675), whose fifty authentic pictures are to-day among those most coveted by collectors. As apainterskilled in the technicalities of his profession Vermeer must be accorded the highest rank. The subtle and mysterious handling of hisLace Maker(No. 2456,Plate XXXVI.), with its cool colour scheme and dominant tones of blue and lemon-yellow, make it difficult for us to realise that until twenty years ago his works were neglected. Indeed, this small canvas was acquired in 1870 at the Vis Blokhuyzen sale for the ridiculous sum of £290. Jan Vermeer (or Van der Meer) van Delft is not to be confused with Jan Van der Meer of Haarlem (1628–1691), who is included in the official catalogue as the painter of theOutside of an Inn(No. 2455, marked No. 2022 on the frame). It is fully signed, and bears the date 1652.
One of the last lingering influences of Rembrandt is seen in the art of Nicolas Maes (1632–1693). The genre pictures of his early period are so vastly superior to his later portraits that it was formerly assumed that there might well have been two artists of the same name. He certainly delighted in painting several versions, which vary considerably in size, ofGrace before Meat(No. 2454). In his pictures we see the mind that broods, and women who meditate rather than act. The best examples of his domestic scenes are finely graduated, although the sadness of advancing age becomes monotonous in time.
PLATE XXXV.—PIETER DE HOOCH(1629–1677?)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2415.—DUTCH INTERIOR WITH A LADY PLAYING CARDS(Intérieur hollandais)
PLATE XXXV.—PIETER DE HOOCH(1629–1677?)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2415.—DUTCH INTERIOR WITH A LADY PLAYING CARDS(Intérieur hollandais)
By the fireplace to the left a lady is seated. She is playing cards with a gentleman, and shows her hand to a cavalier who stands beside her. In the background stand two lovers, and a boy is entering the room, a richly appointed room, hung with gilt leather.Signed on the base of one of the columns supporting the mantelpiece:—“p. d. hooch.”Painted in oil on canvas.2 ft. 2½ in. × 2 ft. 6½ in. (0·67 × 0·77.)
By the fireplace to the left a lady is seated. She is playing cards with a gentleman, and shows her hand to a cavalier who stands beside her. In the background stand two lovers, and a boy is entering the room, a richly appointed room, hung with gilt leather.
Signed on the base of one of the columns supporting the mantelpiece:—“p. d. hooch.”
Painted in oil on canvas.
2 ft. 2½ in. × 2 ft. 6½ in. (0·67 × 0·77.)
GABRIEL METSU
A high place among the painters of “Conversation-pieces” must be accorded to Gabriel Metsu (1630?–1667), a shortlived artist who was born at Leyden and learnt the first principles of his art from Dou. As early as 1644 he seems to have earned some reputation as a painter, his signature appearing on hisCourt Physicianin that year. He came under the influence of Rembrandt, and in later life practised as a painter at Amsterdam, where he died.
Metsu, whose work is at first sight not easily distinguishable from Terborch’s, acquired a facility in the control of the expression and the ever-varying gesture of the hands in his pictures, that was denied to many of his contemporaries. Instances of this are the figure of the Christ writing a long Latin inscription on the ground in theWoman taken in Adultery(No. 2457), the ease with which the young lady in a white satin dress runs her fingers over the keys of the spinet in theMusic Lesson(No. 2460), and the treatment of theDutch Lady(No. 2462), who holds a jug in her right hand. The last-named panel is evidently the companion to the very thinly paintedDutch Cook peeling Apples(No. 2463), which is signed “g. metsu.” Perhaps his best outdoor scene of humble life is theVegetable Market at Amsterdam(No. 2458), although his handling of the trees suggests that his forte was the Conversation-piece of Dutch tradition, and that he would not have risen to high rank as a landscape painter. The placing of the signature on a letter, which in this instance lies on the ground, is a favourite device with Metsu. He has derived much pleasure from the treatment of the textures of the tablecloth, the curtain, and the chair in theOfficer visiting a Lady(No. 2459). TheAlchemist(No. 2461) may be the companion picture to theSportsmanin the Gallery at The Hague. Muchspeculative criticism has been indulged in by critics as to whether the so-calledPortrait of Admiral Cornelis Tromp(No. 2464) represents that admiral, and some doubt has also been cast on its attribution to Metsu.
The naturalistic treatment of the landscape background in the religious pictures of Jan van Eyck and his successors, Memlinc, Bouts, Hugo van der Goes, and other painters in the Netherlands, in time brought about the promotion of landscape painting to an independent art. Among the earlier Dutch artists who approached the study of Nature were Arent Arentzen (1586?–1635?), as we see from hisLandscape with a Fisherman(No. 2300a), and Roeland Roghman, who was born a year later than Jan van Goyen, and lived as late as 1685. He painted theLandscape(No. 2555b), which was formerly in the Paul Mantz collection. Indeed, several Dutchmen of the period sought to commit to panel views of nature, as in the case of Pieter de Bloot (1600–1652), who gives us aLandscape with a River(No. 2327b).
The romantic feeling which so often pervades the background of Rembrandt’s paintings, and is so apparent in such etchings as theThree Trees, can only be touched on here. This new tendency is best exemplified in the works of Jan van Goyen (1596–1656), who may be regarded as the founder of a self-centred school of landscape painting in Holland; but it was his ever handy sketch-book that enabled him to outstrip his rivals in this branch of Dutch art. He is seen to great advantage in his very fineBanks of a Dutch River(No. 2375), his superbRiver View with eight Men in a Boat(No. 2378), a signed and dated work of 1649, a large light-brown-tonedRiver in Holland(No. 2377), a goodBanks of a Canal(No. 2379), as well as aDutch Canal(No. 2376) and aDutch River(No. 2377).
PLATE XXXVI.—JAN VER MEER VAN DELFT(1632–1675)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2456.—THE LACE MAKER(La Dentellière)
PLATE XXXVI.—JAN VER MEER VAN DELFT(1632–1675)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2456.—THE LACE MAKER(La Dentellière)
A girl, wearing a yellow bodice and a blue skirt, is seated behind a table. She is bending her head over a light-blue lace pillow as she adjusts the bobbins with both hands. A dark-blue cushion and a book are on the table to the left.Signed in the upper right-hand corner:—“J. v. Meer,” the first three letters being intertwined.Painted in oil on canvas.9½ in. (0·24) square.
A girl, wearing a yellow bodice and a blue skirt, is seated behind a table. She is bending her head over a light-blue lace pillow as she adjusts the bobbins with both hands. A dark-blue cushion and a book are on the table to the left.
Signed in the upper right-hand corner:—“J. v. Meer,” the first three letters being intertwined.
Painted in oil on canvas.
9½ in. (0·24) square.
Aert van der Neer (1603–1677) painted with strong contrasts of light, as in hisBanks of a Dutch Canal(No. 2483); and his monogram is to be found on the seat at the foot of a tree in hisDutch Village(No. 2484), where his propensity for painting moonlight scenes is well illustrated. Herman Saftleven’s (1609–1685)Banks of the Rhine(No. 2563); Jan Asselyn’sView of the Lamentano Bridge on the Teverone(No. 2301),Landscape(No. 2302), andRuins in the Roman Campagna(No. 2303); and the twoLandscapes(Nos. 2332 and 2333) by Jan Both (1610–1652), who worked in Rome and painted Italian landscapes under the influence of the French artist Claude Lorrain, show the gradual introduction of foreign influences. Joris van der Hagen (died 1669) takes a new line in the representation of a very low horizon in hisEnvirons de Haarlem(No. 2382); but hisLandscape with Peasants crossing a Ford(No. 2381) is dull in tone and composed of unrelated parts.
TheBanks of a River(No. 2561d) is a superb example of the art of Salomon van Ruysdael (1600?–1670), one of the founders of the Haarlem school of landscape, and the uncle of Jacob van Ruisdael. TheLarge Tower(No. 2561c) gives a better idea of his power than theFord(No. 2561b). Another painter in the same school, Cornelis Decker (1618?–1678), has aLandscape(No. 2346). although Isack van Ostade at times gave himself up to trivial subjects, as we have already seen, the merit of his frozen river scenes (Nos. 2510, 2511, 2515) is firmly established, and the happy way in which he combined a genuine appreciation of nature with great skill in the placing and treatment of his figures has earned for him a high place among the Dutch landscape painters.
Unlike most of the artists of his time in Holland, Aelbert Cuyp (1620–1691) was highly esteemed by his contemporaries, his socialposition and his good fortune in money matters freeing him from the poverty which Hobbema and others endured. He painted portraits with much skill, as we see from hisPortrait of a Man(No. 2345a) and hisPortrait of a Boy and a Girl with a Goat(No. 2344); but he is best known as a cattle painter, his sturdy cattle being artistically grouped in thick green pastures flooded with sunshine, as in hisHerdsman with Cattle(No. 2341). He attained much success also with his riding pictures, and theStarting for the Ride(No. 2342) and theRiding Party(No. 2343) are in every way preferable to hisBoats on a Rough Sea(No. 2345). Following his usual habit, he has placed no date on any of these six pictures. He had no pupil in the proper sense of the term; but a host of imitators, such as Jacob van Stry and the much later English Royal Academician Sidney Cooper, failed ignominiously in their feeble attempts to copy his methods.
Jan Wynants was another landscape painter in the Haarlem School, although he settled in Amsterdam and died there in 1682. HisOutskirts of a Forest(No. 2636) is signed and dated 1668, and is superior to theLandscape(No. 2637) which bears his own signature as well as that of Adriaen van de Velde, who on numerous occasions inserted the figures for him. Wynants has also placed his name on a smallLandscape with Sportsman and Falconer(No. 2638).
Adriaen van de Velde has been careful to sign and date each of the seven pictures by which he is represented (Nos. 2593–2599). By Allart van Everdingen (1621–1675), who travelled in Norway and painted rocky scenes and waterfalls, we find twoLandscapes(Nos. 2365 and 2366).
The greatest of all Dutch landscape painters, with the possible exception of Jan van Goyen, is Jacob van Ruisdael (1628?–1682),who occupied himself more especially with rushing waterfalls and undulating country. HisStorm on the Coast(No. 2558) is a fine achievement, but his best picture in this collection is theLandscape(no No.), which was bequeathed by Baron Arthur de Rothschild. HisWoody Landscape(No. 2559), theRoad(No. 2559a),Landscape(No. 2561), and theEntrance to a Wood(No. 2561a), cannot, however, compare with hisSunny Landscape(No. 2560), which bears the artist’s monogram.
The talents of Meindert Hobbema (1638–1709) were so disregarded by his countrymen that in disgust he, at the age of thirty, took a humble post in the Customs. His woody scenes seen in the pale sunlight of the early afternoon are not copied from any chance scenery, but composed; and hisWater Mill(No. 2404), fine though it is, contains passages that will be met with elsewhere. TheFarm(No. 2404a) is a very good picture, as also is theLandscape(No. 2403) from the Nieuwenhuys collection. A very large number of painters, including Wyntrack, who gives us aFarm(No. 2639), painted the figures into the foregrounds of Hobbema’s best works.
In a large number of Philips Wouwerman’s pictures the landscapes are of secondary importance to the figures; and although the execution is careful and conscientious, the frequenter of picture galleries is apt to tire of his make-believe genre-pieces, landscapes with horses, riders, sportsmen, soldiers, robbers, gipsies, and the like. The Louvre presents an imposing array of fifteen of the twelve hundred or more pictures by Philips Wouwerman (1619–1668), and his brother and pupil Pieter is credited with a poorbut historically interestingView of the Porte de Nesles, Paris, in 1664 (No. 2635).
It will be convenient here to group Adam Pynacker (1622–1673) with his three pictures, Willem Romeyn (1624?–1696?) with one, Abraham Begeyn (1637?–1697) with one, Guilliam de Heusch (1625?–1692) with one, Dirk van den Berghen (1645–1690?) with two, and Glauber (1646–1726) with a singleLandscape(No. 2374) in which the figures are inserted by Gerard de Lairesse. Mention must, however, be made of Paul Potter, the highly esteemed cattle painter, who died in 1654 at the early age of twenty-nine. One of his latest canvases is theCows and Sheep in a Field(No. 2527), of 1652; but hisHorse in a Field(No. 2528) of the following year, and theWood at The Hague(No. 2529), give an excellent idea of his art. These and theHorses at the Door of a Cottage(No. 2526) show that Paul Potter had a sound knowledge of animal anatomy. He is seen at his best in small compositions such as are here exhibited, in which the construction andmise-en-scèneare simple and the details delicately rendered. It is a popular fallacy that his chief contribution to the fame of Dutch art was his largeBullof 1647, which measures 8 ft. by 12 ft., in The Hague Gallery. He did not live long enough to form a “school.”
The Italianising influence was already beginning to make itself felt, to the lasting detriment of Dutch painting, and the typical example of this downward movement is Nicolaes Berchem (1620–1683), who was founded on his father, Pieter Claesz, and on Pieter de Grebber, and Jan Wils at Haarlem, while he also was impressed by Claes Moyaert and J. B. Weenix at Amsterdam, where he removed in 1677. There is scarcely a well-furnished gallery in Europe that does not seek to pride itself on possessingone of Berchem’s renderings ofCrossing the Ford, or aWoman upon an Ass in conversation with another Person. The Louvre is no exception to this rule, and exhibits hisCattle crossing a Ford(No. 2315) and nine other canvases and panels, nearly all of which bear his much-vaunted signature. His art is to-day deservedly out of fashion with discerning collectors.
Berchem’s pupil, Karel du Jardin (1622–1678), who is invariably at much pain to sign his pictures, is seen to some advantage in his very Italian and in every way characteristicItalian Charlatans(No. 2427), the typicalFord in Italy(No. 2428), and eight other works. His attempts to depict aCalvary(No. 2426) have not been crowned with success, as the composition is overcrowded and undramatic; nor do we experience any emotion on regarding hisPortrait of Himself(No. 2434), a small production on copper.
Breenberg (1599–1659?), who was born at Deventer, the home of Terborch, has depicted aView of the Campo Vaccino at Rome(No. 2334), and aRuins of the Palace of the Cæsars(No. 2335) in the Italian manner beloved by Berchem and Pieter van Laer. The latter, who is also named Bamboccio, is represented by two small oval panels. Lingelbach (1622–1674), who frequently collaborated with other Dutch artists, may be judged by hisVegetable Market at Rome(No. 2447) and three other canvases, and Frédéric de Moucheron (1633?–1686) by aLeaving for the Hunt(No. 2482). It will be convenient to mention here Reynier Nooms, whoseView of the Old Louvre from the Seine(No. 2491) has some historical interest.
A limited number of painters busied themselves in making faithful transcripts of the streets and the exterior appearance of the buildings. Jan van der Heyden (1637–1712) was perhaps themost successful in this direction, and hisView of the Town Hall of Amsterdamin 1688 is an excellent example of his methods, while the Louvre also possesses three small panels by him. Jan Abrahamsz Beerstraten (1622–1666), the son of a cooper at Amsterdam, travelled to Italy and the Mediterranean, proof of which is afforded by hisOld Town Gate at Genoa(No. 2310). The typical architectural painter is, however, Gerrit Berckheyde (1638–1698). Although he never went to Italy, hisView of Trajan’s Column(No. 2324) is a welcome relief from the many versions he painted, with conspicuous success, ofThe Market-Place of Haarlem.
Hendrik van Steenwyck (1580–1648) almost invariably contented himself with reproducing theInteriors of Churches(Nos. 2582, 2583); but hisChrist in the House of Martha and Mary(No. 2581) is an unusual subject with him, and must be his masterpiece. TheVestibule of a Palace(No. 2490), by Isaac van Nickelle (fl. 1660), is very good of its kind; but theInterior of a Guard-Room(No. 2453), by Aart van Maes, is a poor attempt at dramatic action.
The fact that the Dutch had fought with swamp and water and possessed a large maritime commerce, is reflected in theSeascapesof Simon de Vlieger (1600–1660), and in the art of Ludolf Backhuysen (1631–1708), who is represented by aStormy Sea(No. 2309) and five other canvases; but one of the best works of this class in the Louvre is theMarine-piece(No. 2600) by Willem van de Velde the Younger (1633–1707), who crossed over to England, and after a long career died at Greenwich. These men sought to carry on the earlier tradition of Jan van Goyen and the two Ruisdaels, but they showed less originality and power.
STILL-LIFE PAINTERS
Much appreciation and some extravagant praise has been lavished on the still-life painters who, at the time when the higher aims of artistic endeavour began to die out in Holland, displayed remarkable ability. The cultivation of horticulture at Haarlem, the centre of the tulipomania fever in the middle of the seventeenth century, may have had an influence on the artistic presentation of inanimate nature; this feeling was no doubt stimulated by the display made by the goldsmiths in an age of great prosperity. Willem Claesz Heda, who was born 1594, is among the earliest of the Dutch still-life painters, and his picture (No. 2390) is dated 1637; he, however, did not die until more than forty years later. Jan Davidsz de Heem (1606–1684), the painter ofFruit and a Vase on a Table(No. 2391) and of another and much larger picture (No. 2392), was the pupil of his father, David de Heem; as he spent many years at Antwerp, he is sometimes regarded as a Flemish painter. That Abraham van Beyeren (1620–1675?), who painted several sea-pieces, was specially fond of copying the appearance of fish, is seen from hisStill-life: Fish(No. 2326a), at the Louvre, which has in recent years also acquired another work (No. 2312a) by him. Willem Kalf (1621?–1693) may have studied under H. G. Pot, the Haarlem genre-painter. He was evidently impressed with the chiaroscuro of Rembrandt, and often placed the drinking-cups, wine-glasses, and fruit on a richly-coloured tablecloth. He is here represented by four examples, of which theDutch Interior(No. 2436) is the best. Eight pictures by Jan Huysum (1682–1749), two by Jan van Os (1744–1808), and one by C. van Spaendonck (1756–1839) belong to the latest phase of art in Holland, and mark the decadence in full operation. It will be noticed that the Louvre has a much larger selection of still-life pictures than the National Gallery, which seems to regard achievements of this kind with disdain.
Melchior Hondecoeter (1636–1695), the painter of the farmyard, gives unmistakable proof of his power in his large signedEagle swooping down on a Farmyard(No. 2405), and two rather smaller pictures (Nos. 2406–7).
Jan Weenix (1640–1719), who usually concerns himself with dead game and birds, is working on the usual lines in three (Nos. 2610, 2611, and 2612a) of his four pictures in the great French museum; the other representsA Seaport(No. 2612). He was the fellow-pupil of Hondecoeter in the studio of his father, Jan Baptist Weenix (1621–1660), who studied for a time under the early Dutch master, Abraham Blomaert, and worked in Italy for four years. For that reason the latter has adopted an Italian mode of signing his only picture (No. 2609) in the Louvre.
Although Gerard Honthorst (“Gerard of the Night”) was born as early as 1590, and was a pupil of Blomaert, he may he relegated to the period of decline. Almost invariably he resorted to the trick of lighting the figures in his pictures, whether he was painting religious subjects, portraits, or conversation-pieces, with a candlelight effect. This habit he had acquired in Italy by studying the style of Caravaggio. Of his five pictures here, the best is perhaps thePortrait of Charles Louis, Duke of Bavaria(No. 2410), of 1640. HisConcert(No. 2409), painted sixteen years earlier, is an ill-balanced and overloaded composition.
Such artists as Abraham Hondius, who paints aMan Selling Pigeons(No. 2407a); Karel de Moor, who was a pupil of G. Dou, and gives us an insignificantDutch Family(No. 2477); Eglon van der Neer, whose name is signed on a small panel,A Man Selling Pigeons(No. 2485); Egbert van Heemskerck, whoseInterior(No. 2393) is in the La Caze collection; Jan Verkolie, whoseInterior(No. 2602)has been engraved; H. van Limborch, whosePleasures of the Golden Age(No. 2446) was in the collection of Louisxvi.; Louis de Moni, the painter of aFamily Scene(No. 2476); and Willem van Mieris, a replica of whoseSoap Bubbles(No. 2473) is at The Hague,—all these mediocre painters are the despair of the critic, and afford merely momentary entertainment for the curious.
It is apparent that by this period the art of Holland was marked by mechanical inventions, the surface of these eighteenth-century paintings being highly fused and metallic in appearance. The four panels of Adriaen van der Werff (1659–1722), which include an unpleasantMagdalene in the Desert(No. 2617) and a repulsiveDancing Nymph(No. 2619), are characteristic examples of his monotonous art. TheDisembarkation of Cleopatra(No. 2441) and theHercules between Vice and Virtue(No. 2443) of Gerard de Lairesse (1640–1711), have the enamel-like smoothness and meaningless expression of academic art, although they have their usefulness as museum pieces.
It is a remarkable fact that the Louvre does not contain a single example of the revival of art in Holland in the third quarter of the nineteenth century.