THE DUTCH SCHOOL

WE have already followed the development of the early Flemish or Netherlandish art during the fifteenth century, and observed how it eventually passed under the Italianising influences which are unmistakable in the pictures of Barend van Orley (1495?–1542) and his contemporaries. The early painters of Holland as distinct from Flanders cannot be traced with any certainty much farther back than Albert von Ouwater (fl. 1420–1460), who worked at Haarlem from 1430 to 1460. As we have already seen, the early Flemish painter, Gerard David (1460?–1523), was born at Ouwater, which may well have had its school of painters. Neither Albert von Ouwater, who is represented to-day by a single work, theRaising of Lazarusin the Berlin Gallery, nor his unidentifiable contemporary who painted theExhumation of St. Hubert, in the National Gallery (No. 783), are included in the collection of pictures at the Louvre.

The influence of these painters and Dierick Bouts is seen in the rare works of Geertgen tot S. Jans, or Gerard of Haarlem (1465–1493) whoseRaising of Lazarus(No. 2563a) in this collection is an achievement of the highest order, and was purchased as recently as 1902 for £4000 from Baron d’Albenas, after having been for many years in Spain. This pupil or follower of the Ouwater master was a native of Leyden, and worked at Haarlem. He took his name from the commandery of the Knights of St.John at Haarlem for whom he worked, as we see from the careful inscription, “Gerardus Leydanus pictor ad S. Io. Baptist. Harlem pinxt,” on his triptych at Vienna.

Among his contemporaries were Cornelis Engelbrechtsen, who was born in 1468 at Leyden, where he died in 1533, and Lucas van Leyden (1494–1533). The latter played an important part as an engraver quite as much as a painter in the university town of Leyden, which now possesses his largeLast Judgmentand became famous as the birthplace of Rembrandt in 1606. The Louvre possesses no picture by either Engelbrechtsen or Lucas van Leyden.

Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen (fl. 1470–1533) is also unrepresented here. Portraits by painters in this group are often confused, as in the case of thePortrait of the Duke of East Friesland, in the Oldenburg Gallery, which has been attributed to both Lucas van Leyden and Jacob Cornelisz. A pupil of the latter may have painted theCana of Galilee(No. 2640c). It is safe to assign to “the Master of the Female Half Figures,” theYoung Lady Reading(No. 2641c), which has a close analogy with the well-known picture in the Harrach collection at Vienna, representing half-length figures of three young ladies in crimson velvet dresses cut square at the neck, and singing to the accompaniment of a flute and a lute. The name of this painter is not known, but his pictures, which are neither numerous nor of any conspicuous merit, are easily recognisable.

To this period of transition and mediocre painting belongs Jan Scorel (1495–1562), whosePortrait of Paracelsus the Doctor(No. 2567a) is inscribed:

“FORMOSO DOCTOR PARASELSUS,”

and is in every way superior to thePortrait of a Man(No. 2641b), which is labelled with the name of Scorel, but catalogued as beingby an unknown artist. From Scorel, a much travelled Dutch artist, who at one time worked at Nuremburg with Albrecht Dürer and visited Venice and the East, we naturally pass to Jan Mostaert of Haarlem. Mostaert of Haarlem is unrepresented at the Louvre, a remark which equally well applies to the anonymous “Pseudo-Mostaert,” who painted so much in his style that a large number of inferior productions have been credited to him from time to time. Pictures of this type vary so considerably that the name “Pseudo-Mostaert” is little more than a generic designation for unassignable Flemish and Dutch pictures of the middle of the sixteenth century; such pictures bear some relationship to theChrist bearing His Cross(No. 2299), and theAbraham’s Sacrifice(No. 2300), officially attributed to the little-known and quite negligible painter Alart Claeszoon (1498–1564) of Leyden.

From Leyden we may pass to Utrecht, which was the birthplace of the much-travelled, distinguished, and cosmopolitan painter, Antonis Mor (1512–1578?). He was a pupil of Jan Scorel, but soon freed himself from the hard manner he acquired under that master by his study in Italy of the best works of the Venetians. Indeed, some of his pictures have passed as the work of Calcar, the pupil of Titian. Mor, or Moro, excelled as a painter of vigorous and truthful portraits, and the portraits and replicas he painted of Queen Mary are well known. The Prado Gallery at Madrid and the Vienna Gallery contain good examples of his art, and he is fairly well represented in the Louvre. While he was in the service of Philip II. of Spain he lived in much splendour, and was amply paid for his work. His close intimacy with the monarch induced him on one occasion to take the liberty of touching with a brush dipped in red paint the hand of the king. This seriousbreach of Court etiquette created a profound impression on the courtiers present; and, although the painter sued for pardon and obtained it from the king, he soon recognised that he had made himself obnoxious to the Inquisition, who asserted that Moro had got from the heretic English, while painting the portrait of Queen Mary, a charm that enabled him to bewitch the Spanish monarch. Being thus compelled to leave Spain, he settled in Antwerp, where he died between 1576 and 1578.

The pictures of Mor, who was the contemporary of Titian, at different periods of his art bear traces of the Dutch, Spanish, and Flemish schools. He in turn also had an influence on the portrait painters of Spain half a century before the birth of Velazquez. ThePortrait of a Man(No. 2478), which is signed and dated:

“ANT MORO pingebat, 1565,”

was in the past held by some writers to bear the features of Sir Francis Drake, who was, however, at the date here given only twenty-one years of age. The two large paintings in the Duchâtel Bequest which pass as thePortrait of Louis de RioandHis Wife(No. 2480 and No. 2481) are, judging by the attitudes of the figures and the shape of the panels, the wings of a large altarpiece.The Dwarf of Charles V.(No. 2479) reminds us that the painter, while still young, was taken into the service of that emperor.The Portrait of Edward VI. of England(No. 2481a) bears a very suspicious-looking inscription.

The political events of the reign of Philip II. of Spain, the mistaken, mischievous, and oppressive policy he adopted with regard to his territory in the Netherlands, and the contempt with which he treated his Dutch subjects, soon alienated their sympathies;but the Duke of Alva by his harshness and bigotry incited them to frenzy. When he set forth in 1567, all hope of peace and mercy fled before him, and within a short period his tyranny and ferocity fanned the flame of rebellion, which after a struggle of eighty years was to end in the Peace of Münster of 1648. In that year Spain ignominiously surrendered, and the independence of the northern Netherlands was recognised. During the long period which elapsed between the Union of Utrecht in 1579 and the negotiations at Osnabrück and Münster in 1648 must have been destroyed innumerable religious pictures, the loss of which renders it almost impossible for us to estimate the full significance of artistic endeavour in Holland in the closing years of the sixteenth century.

A new era in Dutch history, social life and art was beginning to open out by the year 1612, when Abraham Blomaert (1564–1651) painted and signed his very largeNativity(No. 2327), which was formerly attributed to Bernardino Fassolo. Blomaert’sPortrait of a Man(No. 2327a) is also a signed work.

Blomaert’s contemporary, Michiel Jansz Mierevelt (1567–1641), who was at one time Court painter to the Princes of Orange at The Hague, and was with undue flattery hailed as the “New Xeuxis of Delft,” is represented by thePortrait of Olden Barnevelt(No. 2465) and three other portraits, one of which (No. 2466) is in a very bad state. Stiff but characteristic is thePortrait of a Woman(No. 2534), which was painted by Jan van Ravesteyn (1572–1657) in 1633, while his initials are also found on a panel (No. 2535) which was commissioned of him in the following year. Although Gerard Verspronck (1600–1651) was many years his junior, and in 1641, in the period of his maturity, achieved thePortrait of a Lady(No. 2576a), the top corners of which have been added, he painted on the lines of tradition, and showed little originality. He came under the influence of Frans Hals, under whose name his pictures often pass.

Nor can it be said that the numerous portraits which Cornelis Janssen van Ceulen (1593–1664?) undertook in England, give signs of the new artistic impulse which was daily manifesting itself in Holland in the early works of Frans Hals. Janssen, who was baptized at the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London, throve until the establishment in England of Van Dyck, before whom he quickly had to give way; although he withdrew to Kent and lived in retirement, he did not receive the Speaker’s warrant to pass beyond seas until 1643. That “Cornelius Johnson Picture Drawer” made use of pallid flesh tones and lifeless grey tones, is obvious from the two portraits (No. 2338 and No. 2339) exhibited in the Louvre.

The very modern lookingPortrait of a Young Man(No. 2303a), signed “d. bailly,” is officially held to be the work of a Leyden painter of that name who would appear to have been a contemporary of Cornelis Janssen.

Although the great Dutch painter, Frans Hals (1580?–1666) was born at Antwerp, his parents were natives of Haarlem, whither he removed about 1600, and where he settled for the remainder of his eventful, irregular, and improvident career. This lusty and unromantic master by his forceful characterisation, his rapid wielding of his brush, and his frank realism, in a few years transformed the earlier portrait-making of Holland, and the renderingof the commonplace and obvious likeness of an individual, as seen in the works of Moreelse and others, into the region of great art. He was by about a quarter of a century the senior of Rembrandt, who is the greatest genius among Dutch painters, and developed his art on logical lines. It is, however, necessary to know the outstanding facts of his personal history, the fluctuating circumstances under which he worked, and the grinding poverty of his latest period. Perhaps no other painter in the whole range of art was so affected by his environment as Hals.

PLATE XXVII.—FRANS HALS(1580?–1666)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2384.—THE GIPSY GIRL(La Bohémienne)

She wears a red dress, which is open at the neck; she smiles as she turns her eyes to the right; half-length figure.Painted in oil on canvas.2 ft. 6 in. × 2 ft. 3 in. (0·76 × 0·68.)

She wears a red dress, which is open at the neck; she smiles as she turns her eyes to the right; half-length figure.

Painted in oil on canvas.

2 ft. 6 in. × 2 ft. 3 in. (0·76 × 0·68.)

Whether he was a pupil of Cornelis Cornelissen, Hendrick Goltzius, and Karel van Mander (the Dutch Vasari), is not known with any certainty, and no picture painted by him earlier than 1613, when he may have been thirty-three years of age, is known to-day. Early in the year 1616, when he painted his famousBanquet of the Officers of the St. Joris Shooting Guild, one of his early masterpieces still preserved in the small gallery at Haarlem, he was summoned before the Burgomaster of the “town of the tulip,” and reprimanded for his cruelty to his first wife. Exactly a year later he married a second time, and as the years went on he became the father of at least six sons who adopted the profession of the painter but earned no permanent success. The Louvre possesses no example of his Doelen-pieces of archer-groups which won him his earliest fame in his own country, but is fortunate enough to contain the famousGipsy Girl(No. 2384,Plate XXVII.), which alone would have earned for him the title of “the master of the laugh.” It passed through the Ménars sale in 1792 for 301 livres. The three pictures of the Beresteyn family were bought for £4000 in 1884, when his paintings were not as highly prized as they are to-day. They give an excellent idea of the virility his art had attained by about 1629. The best of these is thePortrait of Nicolaes van Beresteyn(No. 2386), which is inscribed, “Aetat suae 40. 1629.” His hands are superbly painted; while the companionPortrait(No. 2387) of hiswife is equally striking. The large and imposingPortrait-Group of the Beresteyn Family(No. 2388) is marred by the excessive use in places of a strong red, and has been enlarged by the addition down the right side of the canvas of a strip about fourteen inches broad, but yet shows a certain felicity of grouping, and a joyous and exuberant outlook.The Portrait, of René Descartes, the French Philosopher(No. 2383) is so simple in treatment and so easy in pose, that it makes an instant appeal to the student. AnotherPortrait of Descartes(No. 78), by Sébastien Bourdon, is in this gallery, and a third was in the Arsène Houssaye collection. ThePortrait of a Lady in a Black Dress(No. 2385,Plate XXVIII.) is unaffected and lifelike, while the subtle and hasty brushing in of the gloves could only have been done by a great painter. It seems to have been generally overlooked that a study for this picture is in the collection of Lord Ronald Gower, and has for some time past been on loan to the FitzWilliam Museum, Cambridge. In the study, however, the artist had not yet thought of the gloves.

In 1654, Hals had to appear before a public notary of Haarlem at the instance of his landlord, who sued him for debt. The great Dutch painter in his testimony affirmed that his only possessions were two pictures by Vermander and Van Heemskerck, and three by himself and one of his sons, as well as three mattresses and bolsters, a cupboard and a table! The Louvre exhibits no pictorial record of Hals’s latest phase, when he was deserted by his friends, neglected by art patrons, and no longer possessed any inner moral support.

The colouring of his early portraits is vigorous, the tone deep, and the execution careful; gradually he employs richer colouring, subordinates the local colours, and becomes broader in treatment. From about 1650 his olive-greens gradually take on a more ash-grey hue, until we are inclined to the belief that if the masterhad been able to dispense with colour altogether, he would have willingly done so. It is then that the colours on his palette, like the outer world, became grey and black for him.

PLATE XXVIII.—FRANS HALS(1580?–1666)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2385.—PORTRAIT OF A LADY IN A BLACK DRESS(Portrait de Femme)

A middle-aged woman wearing a black dress, with white collar, cuffs and cap, is seen at three-quarter length, standing and turned three-quarters to the left; in her hands, which are superposed, she holds her gloves.Painted in oil on canvas.3 ft. 3½ in. × 2 ft. 7½ in. (1·00 × 0·80.)

Painted in oil on canvas.

3 ft. 3½ in. × 2 ft. 7½ in. (1·00 × 0·80.)

This great master of the brush some time before his death had to avail himself of poor relief granted by the municipality of Haarlem, and after his death, in 1666, his widow received an allowance of fourteen sous a week! Such was the tragic end of one of the most accomplished of portrait painters in the whole range of art.

Holland after a terrible struggle had ultimately succeeded in throwing off the Spanish yoke before the art of Hals was on the wane. Dutch art then became gradually more independent, self-centred, democratic in outlook, and Protestant in tendency. Religious subjects became less frequent, and domestic scenes dealing with indoor and outdoor life were before long largely on the increase. Before we pass to the detailed study of the most striking characteristics of art in Holland in the last half of the seventeenth century, we must examine at some length the far-reaching influence and the world-famous achievements of Rembrandt, for whom Hals may be said to have prepared the way.

As his name denotes, Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn (1606–1669) was born on the banks of the Rhine, his father being a miller at Leyden. When fourteen years of age he entered the university of his native town and had a classical education, which stood him in good stead through his long and troubled career. Although he was at first placed as a pupil of Jacob van Swanenburgh, he at an early age removed to Amsterdam. There he worked under PieterLastman (1583–1633), whoseAbraham’s Sacrificing Jacob(No. 2443a) of 1616 is hung opposite the works of his illustrious pupil. The independent spirit of Rembrandt soon asserted itself, and as early as 1627 he placed his name on pictures which still exist, notably in the Berlin and Stuttgart museums. His earliest picture in the Louvre is theOld Man Reading(No. 2541a), which is signed and dated 1630, and was presented by M. Kaempfen, a former Director of this gallery, on his retirement. Three years later came the two small and very similar versions (No. 2540 and No. 2541) of thePhilosopher in Meditation, the former of which is signed and dated; in 1633 was painted thePortrait of the Artist(No. 2552), while another oval picture of the same subject (No. 2553) is inscribed 1634. In this early period the artist was in the habit of portraying members of his own family, who were naturally his most accessible models.

At this moment of his career Rembrandt had to measure himself with many rivals in Amsterdam, notably with Thomas de Keyser (1596?–1667), whosePortrait of a Man(No. 2438a) was formerly in the Rodolphe Kann collection, while a half-lengthPortrait of a Man(No. 2438b), also by de Keyser, was formerly at Versailles. From the trammels and restrictions which the art of de Keyser would have been likely to impose on a less gifted and original mind, Rembrandt readily set himself free; and he must have had great hopes for the future when, in 1634, he took to wife the wealthy Saskia van Uylenborch. However, the ovalPortrait of Himself wearing a black cap(No. 2554), dated 1637, is of marked inferiority to the dignified and deeply religious panel,The Archangel Raphael leaving Tobias and his Father Tobit(No. 2536), of the same year. A year later he must have painted thePortrait of an Old Man(No. 2544), and his first pure landscape.

The influence of domestic bereavements on Rembrandt’s art isclearly reflected in the choice of his subjects, in their more intimate setting, and in the deep feeling which evidently inspired them. No better example of this side of his character and his art could be found than theHoly Family in the Carpenter’s Shop(No. 2542), which he painted in 1640. In that year his mother died, an event which followed rapidly on the death of his two infant daughters and his son, and his wife’s frequent illness. He, however, still went on painting such varied compositions as thePortrait of a Man(No. 2546), of 1645, and theWoman Bathing(No. 2550), which he achieved two years later.

PLATE XXIX.—REMBRANDT(1606–1669)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2539.—THE PILGRIMS AT EMMAUS(Les Pèlerins d’Emmaüs)

In a lofty room in front of a shallow niche in a wall, Christ and the two disciples sit at table; a young serving-man enters from the right, carrying a dish. Christ, whose bare feet are seen underneath the table, gazes heavenward as He breaks bread, by which act the disciples recognise Him as their Lord. The room is lit from the left.Painted in oil on panel.Signed below on the left:—“Rembrandt f. 1648.”2 ft. 2¾ in. × 2 ft. 1¾ in. (0·68 × 0·65.)

Painted in oil on panel.

Signed below on the left:—“Rembrandt f. 1648.”

2 ft. 2¾ in. × 2 ft. 1¾ in. (0·68 × 0·65.)

The famousNight-Watch, in the Amsterdam Gallery, testifies to his inventive faculty in 1642, the year in which the death of his beloved Saskia caused him intense grief. From this he never really recovered, as we see from the frequency with which during the remainder of his life he painted pathetic subjects. What artist in the whole history of painting has been able to impart to his rendering of theGood Samaritanthe kindly solicitude of the principal character in this parable, and the feeling of complete collapse seen in the body of the wounded man, as Rembrandt has done in his superb canvas (No. 2537) of 1648 in this gallery? No less poignant is the grief depicted on the face of the barefooted Man of Sorrows in theChrist and the Pilgrims at Emmaus(No. 2539,Plate XXIX.) of the same year. Here we see convincing proof of the dexterous use that the Dutch “magician-painter” could make of chiaroscuro, which he has handled with such masterly effect in thePortrait of Hendrickje Stoffels(No. 2547,Plate XXX.). All these paintings belong to the same period as the soul-movingPolish Rider, which in 1910 passed from the collection of Count Tarnowski at Dzikow in Galicia into that of Mr. H. C. Frick in New York for £60,000. ThePortrait of a Man holding a Bâton(No. 2551), in the La Caze collection in this gallery, was painted three years later than theBathsheba, orWoman Bathing(No. 2549),of 1654. The wonderfully realistic and in no way repellentCarcase of an Oxin this gallery (No. 2548), like the picture of the same subject at Glasgow, is an achievement of a very different kind, and belongs to the year 1655.

The Louvre authorities have been well advised in recent years in hanging all the pictures by Rembrandt in this collection in one Bay of the Long Gallery. Here now we may study thePortrait of a Young Man(No. 2545), the wonderful and rather laterPortrait of the Artist at his Easel at the age of Fifty-four(No. 2555), and the strikingSt. Matthew(No. 2538) of 1661. Before these three works were painted, the great Dutch master had been declared bankrupt, the sale of his most treasured possessions realising a ridiculously small sum in the winter of 1657.

Although Rembrandt’s own standard of morality offended his neighbours, and his relations with Hendrickje Stoffels seem to have caused much scandal in Amsterdam, we are not concerned with the morals of one of the greatest and most esteemed of the world’s painters, but only with hisœuvre, a high place in which must be accorded to thePortrait of Hendrickje Stoffels and her Child as Venus and Cupid(No. 2543), which was painted in 1662, the year that the largeSyndics, now in the Amsterdam Gallery, was completed.

He is also to be credited with the alternative version of thePilgrims at Emmaus(No. 2555a), a painting of the same date, which for many years was at Compiègne, where, however, it passed only as a school picture. This profoundly creative painter, who learnt as time went on to handle his chiaroscuro with increased effect, was also an etcher of the highest order.

We may here note that the art of Jan Lievens (1607–1674), a fellow-pupil with Rembrandt under Pieter Lastman, is seen in the large but far from imposingVisitation(No. 2444).

PLATE XXX.—REMBRANDT(1606–1669)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2547.—PORTRAIT OF HENDRICKJE STOFFELS(Portrait de Hendrickje Stoffels)

She is seated, and looks at the spectator. Over her rich brown hair she wears a grey cap with narrow red ribbons; pearl pendants are in her ears, and she wears a brooch on her breast. Life-size half-length figure.Painted in oil on canvas.2 ft. 4½ in. × 1 ft. 11¾ in. (0·72 × 0·60.)

Painted in oil on canvas.

2 ft. 4½ in. × 1 ft. 11¾ in. (0·72 × 0·60.)

THE PUPILS OF REMBRANDT

That Govaert Flinck (1615–1660) was a pupil of Rembrandt, is evident from hisAnnouncement to the Shepherds(No. 2372) rather than from hisPortrait of a Young Lady(No. 2373), a signed work of 1641. Ferdinand Bol (1617–1680) was a pupil and imitator of the great Dutch master, and hisPortrait of a Mathematician(No. 2330) is one of his best paintings; but hisPhilosopher in Meditation(No. 2328) compares most unfavourably with Rembrandt’s two early pictures of the same subject which hang opposite it.

The ineffectual productions of Jan Victoors (1620–1670) include thePortrait of a Young Lady(No. 2371), a typical example of the “niche” portrait which became so popular, and a largeIsaac blessing Jacob(No. 2370), which vividly recalls his small canvas in the Dulwich College Gallery that in less critical days passed as a Rembrandt.

G. van den Eeckhout (1621–1674) in his picture (No. 2364) shows his dependence on Rembrandt; and Cornells Drost’s repulsiveBathsheba(No. 2359a) has no claim to be regarded as a “fort bonne peinture,” as a French critic has thought fit to term it.

Bartholomeus van der Heist (1612–1670), a native of Haarlem, who painted under the early Dutch master, Nicholas Elias, surnamed Pickenoy, and subsequently worked at Amsterdam, has fully signed hisShooting Prize(No. 2394,Plate XXXI.), which is dated 1653. It has been regarded as a replica on a very reduced scale ofThe Officers of the Brotherhood of St. Sebastian at Amsterdam, in the Amsterdam Gallery, which, curiously enough, bears the date 1657, and is also signed on a slate.

Pieter van der Faes, who is better known as Sir Peter Lely(1618–1680), after painting at Haarlem in the school of Pieter de Grebber, went to England in 1641. He there succeeded Van Dyck as Court painter, and at the Restoration became the favourite Royal painter. The affectation and mannerism of hisWindsor Beauties, now at Hampton Court, is well known. He had a certain facility in painting

“The sleepy eye that spoke the melting soul.”

Three pictures (Nos. 2367–2369) are placed to his credit here, but

“The bugle eyeball and the cheek of cream”

have done their magic now.

The name of H. van Vliet (1611?–1675) is, doubtless, correctly connected with two portraits on canvas (Nos. 2605 and 2605a), while his contemporaries, Cornelis Saftleven (1606–1681) and D. van Santvoort (1610–1680), are represented byThe Artist’s Portrait(No. 2562) and thePilgrims at Emmaus(No. 2564) respectively. Jakob van Loo (1614–1670), who became a naturalised Frenchman, may be judged by his diploma picture (No. 2451) and a very poorNude Female(No. 2452).

Such mediocre producers of uninspired and unconvincing panels as Dirk Hals (1591–1656), the brother and pupil of Frans Hals, whoseFestive Repast(No. 2389) hangs in Room XXIII.; Cornelis van Poelenburg (1586–1667), whose art is here admirably illustrated (Nos. 2518–2523); Hendrick Pot (1585–1657), who evidently derived some satisfaction from the elaborate inscription he has placed on his quite ineffectual, but fortunately diminutive,Portrait of Charles I.(No. 2525); and the little-known and less-esteemed L. F. Zustris (1526–1600), whose absurdVenus and Love(No. 2640) shows what a waste of time it was for him to study under Titian in Italy—these and many more worked as “business artists” for undiscriminating patrons. In the same category come Adriaenvan de Venne (No. 2601), Pieter Codde (No. 2339a), Jacob Duck (No. 2360–2361), and A. Palamedesz (No. 2515a).

PLATE XXXI.—VAN DER HELST(1613–1670)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2394.—THE SHOOTING PRIZE(Les Chefs de la Gilde des arbalétriers)

The four officers of the Brotherhood of St. Sebastian at Amsterdam are seated at a table in the foreground, with the insignia of the Brotherhood displayed before them. By the side of the officer who, seated to the right, is addressing his companions, is a slate on which are inscribed their names. In the background to the right are three young men with bows and arrows. From the left enters a maid-servant with a drinking-horn.Signed on the slate:—“bartholomeus van der helst fecit, 1653.”Painted in oil on canvas affixed to panel.1 ft. 7¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·50 × 0·67.)

Signed on the slate:—“bartholomeus van der helst fecit, 1653.”

Painted in oil on canvas affixed to panel.

1 ft. 7¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·50 × 0·67.)

This rough sketch must suffice for our study of the History and Portrait Painters of Holland. Although, of course, portraiture played a most important part throughout the whole range of Dutch art, we must now deal with those of their contemporaries and successors who are classed as painters of genre subjects, Interiors, Conversation-pieces, and Rustic Scenes. The compositions of these men at first show high technical excellence, and a refined feeling for light and shade; they depict simple scenes and homely incidents which make a wide appeal in any age. By the end of the seventeenth century their scenes become festive, and eventually boisterous, and so degenerate into unimaginative renderings of far-fetched incidents which are treated with a parade of mere imitative skill. In the last phase of their art the subjects become even more uninviting, the panels are smoothly painted, and all originality disappears.

Adriaen van Ostade (1610–1685), as a pupil of Frans Hals at Haarlem, occupies an important position in his school. He is seen to very great advantage at the Louvre. From his earlyInterior of a Cabaret(No. 2506), which is signed on a form

“A. V. OSTADE 1641,”

we see the direction his life’s work was to take; and hisInterior of a Cottage(No. 2498) of the following year, strengthens that view. althoughReading the Gazette(No. 2505), of 1653, is paintedon a very small panel, it heightens our appreciation of this able and careful painter, who, a year later, must have spent a long time in the completion of aFamily Group, which traditionally passes as theFamily of the Artist(No. 2495). TheToper(No. 2401), of 1668, and the intensely realisticSmoker(No. 2500), are highly characteristic, while theSchoolmaster(No. 2496) shows great observation. TheFish Market(No. 2497), theBusiness Man in his Study(No. 2499), theMan Drinking(No. 2502), theMan Reading(No. 2503), theReading(No. 2504), and theInterior of a School(No. 2507), are both in subject and handling good examples of his methods, which were affected by a study of Adriaen Brouwer and Rembrandt.

Adriaen van Ostade was the elder brother and the master of Isack van Ostade (1621–1649), who is equally well represented at the Louvre. although he painted twoInteriors(Nos. 2512 and 2514), aToit à porcs(No. 2513), aHalt(No. 2509), and an overcrowdedTravellers Halting(No. 2508), his best works, here as elsewhere, represent landscapes and frozen river scenes.

Adriaen van Ostade had also as pupils Cornelis Bega (1620–1664), by whom the Louvre possesses a very lateRustic Interior(No. 2312), of 1662; and H. M. Sorgh, called Rokes (1611?–1670), three of whose panels (Nos. 2571–2573) are exhibited.

Gerard Dou (1613–1675) was in his day a highly popular and prosperous painter of petty tragedies. As a boy of fifteen he entered the studio of “the skilled and far-famed Mr. Rembrandt,” who was, however, his senior by only seven years. One is apt to tire of his irritating parade of cleverness in the manipulation of light and shade effects, and over-scrupulous and niggling treatment of detail. Yet it is these very qualities that brought him financial success when in later life Rembrandt was receiving scanty treatment at the hands of the art patrons of Holland. TheDentist(No. 2355) is an early work. Dou’sPortrait of an Old Lady(No. 2358) is now held to be aPortrait of Rembrandt’s Mother, and is regarded as the companion picture to theOld Man Reading(No. 2567), by Dou’s pupil, Godfried Schalcken. TheGrocer’s Shop(No. 2350), which has been, with needless precision, “ranked about the seventh best of this master’s productions,” is signed in full on the slate, and dated 1647 on the mortar, while theCook with a Dead Cock(No. 2353) is signed on the window-sill, and dated 1650.

PLATE XXXII.—GERARD DOU(1613–1675)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2348.—THE DROPSICAL WOMAN(La Femme Hydropique)

In a well-appointed room, lighted by an arched window on the left, an old woman is seated in an arm-chair. The sick woman, who raises her eyes to heaven and is taking a spoonful of medicine from a young woman, gives her right hand to a girl who kneels on the left by her side. Towards the right stands the doctor, who holds up to the light a glass full of liquid. A chandelier hangs in the centre, and on the right are a large tapestry curtain and a wine-cooler.Signed on the edge of the book placed on the reading-desk in the left foreground:—“1663.g. dov. ovt. 65 jaer.”Painted in oil on panel.2 ft. 8¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·83 × 0·67.)

Signed on the edge of the book placed on the reading-desk in the left foreground:—

“1663.g. dov. ovt. 65 jaer.”

Painted in oil on panel.

2 ft. 8¾ in. × 2 ft. 2½ in. (0·83 × 0·67.)

TheTrumpeter(No. 2351) is perhaps the pendant to theGirl at a Window, of 1657, now in the Rothschild collection at Waddesdon Manor. On the window-ledge in theTrumpeterwe see the same silver flagon and a dish that also appear in theDropsical Woman(No. 2348,Plate XXXII.), a world-famous, but not on that account a great, picture. It bears a somewhat enigmatical inscription:

“1663. G. DOV. OVT. 65 JAER”

on the edge of the book placed on the reading-desk. Dou in 1663, the year here given, was only fifty years of age, and the statement of age in the second half of the inscription may be a later addition, or capable of another interpretation. The light comes in from the window on the left. The woman who is dying of dropsy is receiving a dose of medicine, while her daughter in grief kneels and kisses her hand, and the doctor holds up to the light the vial, the contents of which he is carefully examining. The artist in this his largest picture is at much pains to show the dexterity with which he can paint the fabric of the dresses, the large tapestry hanging in folds on the right, and the reflection of light on the chandelier. This panel, which is Dou’s masterpiece and is in an excellent state of preservation, was originally contained in an ebony case, the outside of which (in two pieces) was formerly the still-life painting of aSilver Ewer and Dish(No. 2349).

TheMan weighing Gold(No. 2354) is signed in full, and dated 1664; elaborate care and much time have been expended, if not wasted, on every wrinkle in his face, and every hair in his white beard. It has points of analogy with Quentin Matsys’sBanker and his Wife(No. 2029), which was painted in Flanders nearly a century and a half earlier. Dou’s meticulous art is also exemplified in theOld Man Reading(No. 2357),Reading the Bible(No. 2356), theDutch Cook(No. 2352), and the highly characteristic but quite negligiblePortrait of the Painter(No. 2359). In many respects this type of picture warns us that within a few years of Dou’s death, in 1675, the art of Holland passed into decadence.

He had several pupils. Of these Quiryn van Brekelenkam (1620?–1668) holds a respectable place among the Small Masters of Holland, as we see from hisConsultation(No. 2337) in this collection rather than from hisMonk Writing(No. 2338). Herman van Swanevelt (1620–1655), who from his journeys south earned the name of Herman of Italy, gives us threeLandscapes(Nos. 2584–2586). Karel de Moor (1656–1738), a native of Leyden, who has signed hisDutch Family(No. 2477), worked under both Dou and Frans van Mieris the Elder (1635–1681). The latter owes much of his technique and meticulous work to Dou, as is revealed by a hasty inspection of hisTea Party(No. 2471), with two over-dressed women taking tea, and three other panels (Nos. 2469, 2470, and 2472). Ary de Vois (1632–1680) was a pupil of the German painter N. Knupfer and of his own countryman Abraham van den Tempel (1622–1672), who is here represented by aPortrait of a Lady with an Apple(No. 2586a); but he also came under the influence of the painter of theDropsical Woman(Plate XXXII.), as is testified by his small interiorPortrait of a Man(No. 2606), hisPortrait of a Painter at hisEasel(No. 2607), and his feebleWoman cutting a Lemon(No. 2608). Traces of Dou’s art are seen in J. A. van Staveren’s (1624?–1668)Philosopher in his Study(No. 2577); but P. C. van Slingelandt (1640–1691) was a direct pupil. HisDutch Family(No. 2568) is said to have been bought by Louisxvi.from an English brewer, and thePortrait of a Man(No. 2569) andKitchen Utensils(No. 2570) have long been in the collection. TheMagdalene(No. 2570a) andSt. Jerome(No. 2570b) were bequeathed to the Louvre.

PLATE XXXIII.—TERBORCH(1617–1681)DUTCH SCHOOLNo. 2589.—THE CONCERT(Le Concert)

A young lady in white satin dress and yellow bodice is seated in the centre before a table covered with a richly coloured tablecloth. She is singing to the accompaniment of a lady in the left background; a page-boy enters from the right.Painted in oil on panel.1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 5 in. (0·47 × 0·43.)

Painted in oil on panel.

1 ft. 6¾ in. × 1 ft. 5 in. (0·47 × 0·43.)

Gerard Terborch (1617–1681) was the creator of the “Conversation-piece,” and one of the earliest to portray the well born engaged in music lessons and similar occupations; he was one of the greatest of the Dutch “small-masters,” and in every way the superior of the uninspired Dou. Terborch invites us to join him in the fine decorum of a noble chamber where the appointments are carefully tended, while its occupants give themselves up to cultured, if not perhaps deeply intellectual, pursuits. We forget all about the carousing and bestial profligates who people the taverns of Jan Steen and much less accomplished painters, and watch the refined fingers stray over the keyboard of the open spinet or sweep the strings of a well-made mandoline, as in theConcert(No. 2589,Plate XXXIII.). Equally fine are the twoMusic Lessons(No. 2588 and No. 2591), the former being signed and dated 1660.

TheMilitary Galant(No. 2587) exhibits Terborch’s dexterity in the rendering of reflected light on a red tablecloth, although the subject has an innuendo which hardly adds to its charm. TheEcclesiastical Assembly(No. 2590) is only a small sketch on panel, and affords but a feeble echo of this painter’s masterpiece, theRatification of the Peace of Münster, in the National Gallery. Terborch was a pupil of his father, who had visited Italy, and he studied also under PieterMolyn the Elder at Haarlem previous to visiting England in 1635. He travelled much more extensively than most of his contemporaries, and went to Spain during the best period of art in the Peninsula. He does not seem to have been dependent on his professional success for his living, which was passed in easy circumstances. Nor did he busy himself as a teacher, his only direct pupil being Caspar Netscher (1639–1684), who gives us aMusic Lesson(No. 2486), of the approved stamp, and aVioloncello Lesson(No. 2487).

It is not known for certain whether Jan Steen (1626?–1679) was a pupil of Nicholaes Knupfer, a native of Leipzig who resided for a time at Leyden, but he certainly worked under Adriaen van Ostade at Haarlem, and later became a pupil of Jan van Goyen, whose daughter Margaretha he married as his first wife. Steen certainly leased a brewery in Delft for six years, and he is frequently mentioned in the archives of that town about 1656; he subsequently kept a tavern in the Langebrug in Leyden in 1672. His art is vivacious if not boisterous, and the strength and versatility he displayed in the nine hundred pictures with which he is justly credited give him a high place among the artists of Holland in the seventeenth century. The frequency with which he painted theInterior of a Tavern(No. 2578) has suggested that he carried on the tradition of the Flemish-Dutch roysterer Adriaen Brouwer; but such scenes, magnificently as they are handled, are apt to become boring in time. This large canvas is dated 1674, and the coat of arms of Charlesv.is fastened on to the balcony in which are spectators. TheMerry Company at Table(No. 2579) is somewhat sketchy in parts, but the lighting is well regulated, and the canvas is signed in full on the back of a blue-coveredchair to the right. That theBad Company(No. 2580,Plate XXXIV.) is admirably painted will be conceded by all, but refinement is not its distinguishing feature. A young man dressed in a red jacket is sleeping with his head on the lap of a girl, while another girl is relieving him of his watch. The scene is laid in a tavern, on the floor of which are painted with wonderful precision a number of tiny objects. It was not Steen’s habit to paint representations of cultured society such as Terborch delighted in.

Back to Index Next