100 



NETHERLANDS (PAINTERS.) 



ml insect pieces. James Jordaens (born 1 594), liow- 

 ever, excelled all those who made Rubens their model, 

 Abraham Janssen, and his pupil Theodore Rombouts 

 (neater than his teacher) equal Rubens in colouring, 

 but not in conception. The industrious Luke van 

 I ' i Im executed the landscapes for Rubens's paintings ; 

 and his views of the sky at dawn are worthy the 

 study of every artist. Anthony van Dyk (born 

 1599) obtained the name of the king of portrait 

 painters. He excelled Rubens in correctness and 

 ueauty of forms. Cornelius Schiit, for whom John 

 U ildens often painted the landscapes, distinguished 

 himself as an historical painter ; Adrian Brouwer 

 acquired fame by his excellent representations of 

 scenes from common life ; John van der Meer by 

 his pastoral pieces ; Anthony Francis van der 

 Meulen by his battle pieces ; Francis and John 

 Milet, father and son, by their landscapes. Besides 

 these, we might mention the names of John Bol, 

 Wenceslaus Koeberger, Henry Goltzius, Henry van 

 Balen, Francis Hals, William Nieuwland, James 

 Fonquieres, Philip de Champagne, Erasmus Quellin, 

 Abraham Diepenbeck, Theod. van Thulden, John 

 Goeimar, James of Artois, Bonewent Peters, David 

 Kickaert, Gonzalez Coques, Peter Boel, Samuel van 

 Hoogstraaten, John Bapt. Monoyer, Abraham 

 Genoels, Gerard Lairesse, Arnold von Vuez, John 

 Francis van Bloemann, John van Cleef, Pet. Eykens, 

 Richard van Orley, Louis Deyster, Nicolas Largil- 

 liere, Verendael, Robert van Oudenaerde, John An- 

 thony van der Leepe, Caspar Verbriigen, John van 

 Breda. The Dutch school is distinguished for a 

 faithful copying of nature, great finish, good chiaro- 

 scuro, and skilful disposition of colours, and delicate 

 penciling ; but it is reproached with choosing often 

 ignoble subjects, and with incorrectness of drawing. 

 Its founder is Luke of Leyden (q. v., born 1494). 

 Its most prominent artists are Octavius van Veen, of 

 Leyden (born 1586, died 1634), who deserves men- 

 tion, also, as the teacher of Rubens. Abraham Bloe- 

 mart (q. v.), of Gorcuni (died 1647), painted histori- 

 cal subjects, landscapes, and animals, in good taste. 

 Cornelius Poelenburg, of Utrecht (born 1586, died 

 1663), was peculiarly happy in painting small land- 

 scapes, with figures. Worthy pupils of his are 

 Daniel Vertange and John van Haensberge. John 

 Weynants, of Harlem (born 1600) is distinguished as 

 a landscape painter ; and John Daniel de Heem, of 

 Utrecht (born 1604, died 1674), for his faithful imi- 

 tation of flowers, fruits, carpets, vases, &c. The 

 highest place belongs to Rembrandt, whose masterly 

 colouring atones for all his defects, and Hermann 

 Sachtleben (Zachtleevens), who painted fine land- 

 scapes. In the delineation of common life, the fol- 

 lowing are distinguished : Gerard Terburg, of Zwoll 

 (born 1608, died 1681); in landscapes, John Both, of 

 Utrecht (born 1610, died 1650); Hermann Swane- 

 veld.of Woerden (born 1620, died 1690). Asselyn 

 (born 1610, died 1680) painted battles, landscapes, 

 and pastoral pieces, with a brilliant colouring and a 

 delicate pencil. But it will be difficult to find any 

 painter who draws more correctly, colours more 

 beautifully, and distributes light more truly, than 

 Gerhard Dow, or Douw (born 1613, died 1680). 

 Peter van Laar was the inventor of the Bamlocciate; 

 John Fyt (born at Antwerp, 1625) was a good 

 painter of beasts, birds, and fruits; Gabriel Metzu, 

 who worked in the style of Terburg, excelled him in 

 softness of penciling. The landscapes of Benenberg 

 of Utrecht are full of life and freshness. Philip 

 Wouvermann (born 1620, died 1668), the most 

 famous painter of horses, produced battle and 

 hunting pieces, horse-markets, travellers, and rob- 

 bers ; and his paintings, of all kinds, are highly 

 esteemed. His pupil John Griffer painted the beauti- 



ful views on the Rhine. The landscapes of Anthony 

 Waterloo, for which Weenix executed the fif-uns, 

 are sometimes cold, but please on account of the 

 accuracy with which he represents light play- 

 ing through foliage, and the reflection of objects 

 in water. Berg hen acquired the name of the Theo- 

 critus of printers ; and perhaps Paul Potter is the. 

 only one who can dispute the superiority with him. 

 Whilst Ludolf Backhuysen painted storms at sea 

 with an effect as true as it is terrible, Francis Mieris 

 distinguished himself by fine and accurate represen- 

 tations of many domestic subjects, and John Peter 

 Slingeland was hardly more accurate. Godfrey 

 Schalken, of Dort, has not yet been excelled in the 

 illumination of night scenes. Excellent market 

 scenes, animals, and landscapes were painted by 

 Charles du Jardin. Adrian van de Velde painted 

 landscapes and animals with almost unequalled per- 

 fection. For the representations of the beautiful 

 solitudes of nature, James Ruisdael is celebrated, 

 and for quiet, lovely moonlight scenes, Van der 

 Neer. The former is one of the most successful 

 painters that ever attempted to portray nature. 

 No painter has painted more delicately, and with 

 more finish, even. in insignificant trifles, than Adrian 

 van der Werf. The flower painter Peter van H ulst, 

 of Dort, is not equal to James van Huysum, who is 

 almost unrivalled in this department. We must also 

 mention Cornelius Ketel, John van Ravestein, John 

 Torrentius, John van Voyen, Anna Maria Schnur- 

 mans, Adrian van Ostade, John Booth, Bartholomew 

 van der Heist, Otto Marcellis, John Goedaert, Albert 

 van Everdingen, Henry Rokes, Gerbrandt van den 

 Eekhout, Theodore Helmbreker, James Lavecq, 

 Henry Verschuuring, Mary van Osterwyk, William 

 Kalf, Adrian van der Kabel, Jan Steen, Melchior 

 Hondekoeter, John van der Heyden, E. van der 

 Neer, John Glauber, John van Huchtenburg, Aug. 

 Terwestein, John Verkoolie, Cornelius de Bruyn, 

 Charles de Moor, Francis Peter Verheyden, the two 

 Honbraken, Rachel Ruisch, Cornelius du Sart, 

 Frederic Moucheron, Diedr. Valkenburg, Conrad 

 Noepel, John de Witt, and Cornelius Troost. It is 

 remarkable that, after a long decline of the. art of 

 painting in the Netherlands, it has begun to flourish 

 again in the southern, as well as northern provinces 

 of the kingdom. Among the modern painters, we 

 should mention Van Os, Van Spaendonk, Scheffer, 

 Pienemann, Hoges, Kuipers, Ommegang, Van Bree, 

 Wonder, Schotels. Pienemann's picture, the Battle 

 of Waterloo (eighteen feet wide, and twenty-five 

 high), was bought, by the king, for 40,000 guilders, 

 for the purpose of being presented to the duke of 

 Wellington. Respecting the living artists of the 

 Belgic school, information is to be found in the 

 Annales du Salon de Gand (1823). The reproach 

 of an almost exclusive adherence to common reality, 

 has been often made to the whole school of the 

 Netherlands, but is confined by some to the Dutch ; 

 whilst the Flemish school, they say, in its more ele- 

 vated productions, has striven to represent a nobler 

 nature. The chief question in painting, however, is 

 not what the artist attempts, but what he accom- 

 plishes ; and, if George Forster is right in saying 

 that, in the works of the Flemish painters, we 

 generally miss the spirit of the poet in the beauty 

 of the manual execution, then the Dutch school 

 would deserve the preference, because, though it 

 takes most of its subjects from common reality, it 

 often represents them with a poetic conception of 

 their character. It would be better, however, to 

 describe them both as deficient in ideal beauty, but 

 as distinguished, in the highest degree, for faithful 

 imitation of nature. There would still remain suf- 

 ficient distinction between the two schools. That 



