NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS 
 
 By John C. Van Dyke 
 
 PRICE 
 
 I. London — National Gallery, Wallace Collection. 
 With a General Introduction and Bibliog- 
 raphy for the Series net %1. 00 
 
 II. Paris — Louvre . . . , net .75 
 
 III. Amsterdam — Rijks Museum ") 
 
 The Hague — Royal Gallery > bound together . ne< .75 
 Haarlem — Hals Museum 3 
 
 IV. Brussels — Royal Museum ") , , , ,, . __ 
 
 . , ^ , ^r > bound together . net .75 
 
 Antwerp — Royal Museum ) 
 
 V. Munich— Old Pinacothek "^ 
 
 Frankfort — Staedel Institute > bound together . net 1.00 
 
 Cassel — Royal Gallery ) 
 
 VI. Berlin — Kaiser-Friedrich ^ 
 
 Museum >boimd together . net 1.00 
 
 Dresden — Royal Gallery ) 
 
 VII. Vienna — Imperial Gallery '\ 
 
 Budapest — Museum of Fine > bound together . net 1.00 
 
 Arts ) 
 
 VIII. St. Petersburg — Hermitage In Press 
 
 IX. Vmice-Academy | bound together . In Press 
 
 Milan — Brera, Poldi-Pezzoli ) 
 
 X. Florence — Ufflzi, Pitti, Academy . . , . In Press 
 
 XI. Rome — Vatican, Borghese Gallery .... In Press 
 
 XII. Madrid— Prado In Press 
 
RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 HALS MUSEUM 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2007 witin funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/amsterdamliaguehaOOvandrich 
 
Photograph by Hanfstaengl, Munich 
 
 DE hooch: the buttery 
 The Rijks Museum, Amsterdam 
 
NEW GUIDES TO OLD MASTERS 
 
 AMSTERDAM, 
 THE HAGUE, HAARLEM 
 
 CRITICAL NOTES ON THE RIJKS MUSEUM, 
 THE HAGUE MUSEUM, HALS MUSEUM 
 
 BY 
 JOHN C. VAN DYKE 
 
 AUTHOB OF "aBT FOB ABT's SAKE," "THE MEANING OF PICTDBE8,' 
 
 "HISTOBY OF PAINTING," "OLD DUTCH AHD 
 
 FLEMISH MASTEB8," ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1914 
 
V3 
 
 Copyright, 1914, by 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 Published April, 1914 
 
7/f 
 
 PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 There are numerous guide-books, catalogues, and 
 histories of the European galleries, but, unfortunately 
 for the gallery visitor, they are either wholly descrip- 
 tive of obvious facts or they are historical and ar- 
 chaeological about matters somewhat removed from art 
 itself. In them the gist of a picture — its value or mean- 
 ing as art — is usually passed over in silence. It seems 
 that there is some need of a guide that shall say less 
 about the well-worn saints and more about the man 
 behind the paint-brush; that shall deal with pictures 
 from the painter's point of view, rather than that of 
 the ecclesiastic, the archaeologist, or the literary ro- 
 mancer; that shall have some sense of proportion in 
 the selection and criticism of pictures; that shall have 
 a critical basis for discrimination between the good and 
 the bad; and that shall, for these reasons, be of ser- 
 vice to the travelling public as well as to the art student. 
 
 This series of guide-books attempts to meet these 
 requirements. They deal only with the so-called "old 
 masters.'' When the old masters came upon the 
 scene, flourished, and ceased to exist may be deter- 
 mined by their spirit as well as by their dates. In 
 Italy the tradition of the craft had been established 
 before Giotto and was carried on by Benozzo, Botti- 
 
 393593 
 
vi PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 celli, Raphael, Titian, Tintoretto, even down to Tie- 
 polo in the eighteenth century. But the late men, 
 the men of the Decadence, are not mentioned here 
 because of their exaggerated sentiment, their inferior 
 workmanship — in short, the decay of the tradition of 
 the craft. In France the fifteenth-century primitives 
 are considered, and also the sixteenth-century men, 
 including Claude and Poussin; but the work of the 
 Rigauds, Mignards, Coypels, Watteaus, and Bouchers 
 seems of a distinctly modern spirit and does not be- 
 long here. This is equally true of all English painting 
 from Hogarth to the present time. In Spain we stop 
 with the School of Velasquez, in Germany and the 
 Low Countries with the seventeenth-century men. 
 The modern painters, down to the present day, so far 
 as they are found in the public galleries of Europe, 
 will perhaps form a separate guide-book, which by its 
 very limitation to modern painting can be better 
 treated by itself. 
 
 Only the best pictures among the old masters are 
 chosen for comment. This does not mean, however, 
 that only the great masterpieces have been considered. 
 There are, for instance, notes upon some three hun- 
 dred pictures in the Venice Academy, upon five hun- 
 dred in the Uffizi Gallery, and some six hundred in 
 the Louvre or the National Gallery, London. Other 
 galleries are treated in the same proportion. But it 
 has not been thought worth while to delve deeply into 
 the paternity of pictures by third-rate primitives or 
 
PREFACE TO THE SERIES vii 
 
 to give space to mediocre or ruined examples by even 
 celebrated painters. The merits that now exist in a 
 canvas, and can be seen by any intelligent observer, 
 are the features insisted upon herein. 
 
 In giving the relative rank of pictures, a system of 
 starring has been followed. 
 
 Mention without a star indicates a picture of merit, 
 otherwise it would not have been selected from the 
 given collection at all. 
 
 One star (*) means a picture of more than average 
 importance, whether it be by a great or by a medi- 
 ocre painter. 
 
 Two stars (**) indicates a work of high rank as art, 
 quite regardless of its painter's name, and may be given 
 to a picture attributed to a school or by a painter un- 
 known. 
 
 Three stars (***) signifies a great masterpiece. 
 
 The length of each note and its general tenor will in 
 most cases suggest the relative importance of the picture. 
 
 Catalogues of the galleries should be used in con- 
 nection with these guide-books, for they contain much 
 information not repeated here. The gallery catalogues 
 are usually arranged alphabetically under the painters' 
 names, although there are some of them that make 
 reference by school, or room, or number, according to 
 the hanging of the pictures in the gallery. But the 
 place where the picture may be hung is constantly 
 shifting; its number, too, may be subject to alteration 
 with each new edition of the catalogue; but its painter's 
 
viii PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 name is perhaps less liable to change. An arrangement, 
 therefore, by the painters' names placed alphabetically 
 has been necessarily adopted in these guide-books. 
 Usually the prefixes "de," "di," "van/' and "von" 
 have been disregarded in the arrangement of the names. 
 And usually, also, the more familiar name of the artist 
 is used — that is, Botticelli, not Filipepi; Correggio, not 
 Allegri; Tintoretto, not Robusti. In practical use the 
 student can ascertain from the picture-frame the name 
 of the painter and turn to it alphabetically in this guide- 
 book. In case the name has been recently changed, 
 he can take the number from the frame and, by turning 
 to the numerical index at the end of each volume, can 
 ascertain the former name and thus the alphabetical 
 place of the note about that particular picture. 
 
 The picture appears under the name or attribution 
 given in the catalogue. If there is no catalogue, then 
 the name on the frame is taken. But that does not 
 necessarily mean that the name or attribution is 
 accepted in the notes. Differences of view are given 
 very frequently. It is important that we should know 
 the painter of the picture before us. The question of 
 attribution is very much in the air to-day, and consider- 
 able space is devoted to it not only in the General In- 
 troduction but in the notes themselves. Occasionally, 
 however, the whole question of authorship is passed 
 over in favour of the beauty of the picture itself. It 
 is always the art of the picture we are seeking, more 
 than its name, or pedigree, or commercial value. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SERIES ix 
 
 Conciseness herein has been a necessity. These 
 notes are suggestions for study or thought rather than 
 complete statements about the pictures. Even the 
 matter of an attribution is often dismissed in a sentence 
 though it may have been thought over for weeks. 
 If the student would go to the bottom of things he 
 must read further and do some investigating on his 
 own account. The lives of the painters, the history of 
 the schools, the opinions of the connoisseurs may be 
 read elsewhere. A bibliography, in the London vol- 
 ume, will suggest the best among the available books 
 in both history and criticism. 
 
 The proper test of a guide-book is its use. These 
 notes were written in the galleries and before the pic- 
 tures. I have not trusted my memory about them, nor 
 shall I trust the memory of that man who, from his 
 easy chair, declares he knows the pictures by heart. 
 The opinions and conclusions herein have not been 
 lightly arrived at. Indeed, they are the result of more 
 than thirty years* study of the European galleries. 
 That they are often diametrically opposed to current 
 views and beliefs should not be cause for dismissing 
 them from consideration. Examine the pictures, guide- 
 book in hand. That is the test to which I submit and 
 which I exact. 
 
 Yet with this insistence made, one must still feel 
 apologetic or at least sceptical about results. However 
 accurate one would be as to fact, it is obviously impos- 
 sible to handle so many titles, names, and numbers 
 
X PREFACE TO THE SERIES 
 
 without an occasional failure of the eye or a slip of the 
 pen; and however frankly fair in criticism one may 
 fancy himself, it is again impossible to formulate judg- 
 ments on, say, ten thousand pictures without here and 
 there committing blunders. These difficulties may be 
 obviated in future editions. If opinions herein are 
 found to be wrong, they will be edited out of the work 
 just as quickly as errors of fact. The reach is toward 
 a reliable guide though the grasp may fall short of full 
 attainment. 
 
 It remains to be said that I am indebted to Mr. and 
 Mrs. George B. McClellan for helpful suggestions re- 
 garding this series, and to Mr. Sydney Philip Noe not 
 only for good counsel but for practical assistance in 
 copying manuscript and reading proof. 
 
 John C. Van Dyke. 
 
 Rutgers College, 1914, 
 
THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
NOTE ON THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 The Rijks Museum at Amsterdam contains the most 
 considerable collection of Dutch pictures in the Neth- 
 erlands, or for that matter in the world. Dutch art 
 cannot be comprehended in whole or in part without 
 reference to this gallery. Aside from the masterpieces, 
 there are here many examples of the Little Dutchmen 
 and many pictures by painters who are not seen at all 
 in other galleries. The pictures are also very important 
 for the history of the Dutch people. Aside from court, 
 town, and country life as depicted by the Steens, Os- 
 tades, De Hoochs, and Terborchs, there is here a great 
 gathering of regent and shooting-company pictures, of 
 historical portraits, of battle-pieces on sea and land, of 
 pictorial documents illustrative of Dutch history. The 
 story of Holland is on the walls of the Museum. 
 
 But, of course, the visitor asks for the masterpieces 
 of art rather than those of history. The Rijks Museum 
 responds with some famous names and pictures. First 
 of all there is the great Night Watch of Rembrandt, 
 with a room and an attendant to itself, and always 
 several rows of tourists for an audience. It is perhaps 
 the best known of all the Dutch pictures. Besides 
 this there are three other excellent Rembrandts — the 
 early Elizabeth Bas portrait, the late Jewish Bride, and 
 
 3 
 
4. . . NOTE .ON.THEEIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 the Five Syndics. By his pupils, Flinck, Bol, and 
 Eeckhout, there are some fairly representative examples, 
 as also by his predecessor, Frans Hals, who appears 
 well in the Jolly Toper. De Keyser and Mierevelt are 
 seen in many single portraits, Elias in regent groups. 
 Van der Heist in several shooting-company pictures of 
 marked interest and excellence. Of the other Dutch 
 painters of extended fame, Pieter de Hooch is seen at 
 his best in the Buttery; Terborch is finely shown in 
 some small portraits ; Steen is represented by examples 
 both good and bad, as is also Vermeer of Delft, while 
 there are many pictures by Paul Potter, the Ruisdaels, 
 Hobbema, and Everdingen. One fine example of 
 Heemskerck, the Sibyl, several remarkable pictures by 
 Scorel, some figure pieces by Geertgen tot St. Jans 
 should be mentioned among the unusual and notable 
 pictures of the gallery. 
 
 The collection is practically made up of Dutch pic- 
 tures. There are some early Flemings, and a few 
 Italians, but they "just happened'* in this gallery, 
 and seem as strangely out of place as might pictures 
 from Spain or Portugal. The nucleus of the collec- 
 tion was the various pictures from the palaces of 
 William V, which were brought together in Amster- 
 dam in 1808, under the King, Louis Bonaparte. The 
 growth has been gradual and largely by gift of private 
 collections, made up of Dutch pictures — such collec- 
 tions, for instance, as the Van de Poll and the Van 
 der Hoop. Besides these there have been of recent 
 
NOTE ON THE RIJKS MUSEUM 5 
 
 years many additions by purchase. To-day the collec- 
 tion numbers over twenty-five hundred pictures and is 
 still growing. 
 
 The building is large, commodious, but perhaps over- 
 filled with material. There is always the feeling of too 
 many things crowded and pushed into place. As for 
 the lighting, it is not very good, and on dark days some 
 of the pictures are seen largely by faith. The hanging 
 is occasionally disconcerting, owing to the fact that the 
 gallery has been embarrassed by gifts of pictures en bloc, 
 which the donors have stipulated should be hung to- 
 gether. This causes some confusion and places many 
 questionable pictures upon the walls. The student will 
 have to make his way through them, or past them, as 
 best he can. The gallery is worthy of very careful study, 
 and the student should not be discouraged because it 
 is not ideal in arrangement. 
 
 The catalogue, illustrated and translated into En- 
 glish, is candid, usually accurate, and decidedly helpful. 
 Photographs of the pictures can be had at the entrance 
 to the gallery, and there is a cheap reproduction of 
 many of them, in book form, published by Hanfstaengl. 
 The churches of Amsterdam have little worth seeing, 
 but permission should be obtained to visit the Six Col- 
 lection, which has a few excellent pictures. 
 
RIJKS MUSEUM, AMSTERDAM 
 
 5. Aertsen, Pieter. The Egg Dance. The com- 
 position lacks in centralised grouping, and has no 
 great unity. The figures are somewhat huddled, 
 but the drawing of the individual types is strong. 
 There is no grace or charm of touch about the 
 painter's brush, but he has power in his realism. 
 The picture of the Adoration (No. 7) is a better 
 example of his strength. 
 
 6. The Adoration of the Shepherds. A frag- 
 ment, supposed to be part of a triptych of the 
 Nativity painted for the New Church of Amster- 
 dam. It has the Aertsen strength and brutal 
 truth in both man and beast. Formerly attrib- 
 uted to Rubens. 
 
 7. Adoration of the Wise Men. There is grip 
 
 * and force in it that makes for virile art. The draw- 
 ing and painting are vigorous to the last degree. 
 Notice the man and woman below. The face of 
 this panel, showing the Presentation in the Tem- 
 ple, is less interesting, being somewhat unhappily 
 arranged in the figures and scattered in the colour. 
 See also No. 7a, a somewhat injured panel. 
 
 367. Antolines, Jose. Coronation of the Madonna. 
 
 It is better than the Murillo near it — better both 
 in drawing and in colour. Moreover, it has life 
 and force to it without being a strong or vigorous 
 
 7 
 
8 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 work. It is helped by the inevitable contrast with 
 Murillo. 
 
 382. Asselyn, Jan. The Enraged Swan. A mad swan 
 surmounted by a wild cloud, with floating feathers 
 on air and water to rival the celebrated Floating 
 Feather picture by Hondecoeter in the next room. 
 It is not badly painted. The lettering on the eggs 
 at the right, and on the water, was put there after- 
 ward to enforce some sort of political allegory. 
 The picture was evidently not at that time con- 
 sidered serious art. 
 
 417. Bakhuysen, Ludolf . View of the Building Yard 
 of the Admiralty, Amsterdam. A very superior 
 Bakhuysen, with good colour and a fine sky. The 
 light-and-shade is also exceptionally well handled, 
 and the painting is facile. 
 
 468. Berchem, Claes Pieterz. Italian Landscape. 
 
 A good example of Berchem, who, in spite of 
 Dutch birth and training, was influenced by the 
 late Italian and early French landscape painters. 
 The colour here is warm, the atmosphere quite 
 good; and there is considerable knowledge of moun- 
 tain forms, and some rather good rock drawing. 
 
 493. Beresteyn, Claes van. Road in the Dunes. A 
 
 fine little landscape, good in light and air — good 
 enough to have the false signature of Ruysdael 
 upon it. 
 
 657. Beuckelaer, Joachim. A Well-Stocked Kitchen. 
 
 * The scene at the back, as in many Beuckelaers, 
 merely offers a title for a picture that is really a 
 study of still-life. A strong and fine piece of 
 painting, interesting almost solely on account of 
 its painting rather than its subject. The people 
 
BOL, FERDINAND 9 
 
 at the left are painted in the same way, in the same 
 spirit, as the dead chickens they hold. The heads, 
 hands, arms, legs are all well drawn, and the heads 
 mean no more than the legs or hands. The painter 
 did not intend them for intellectual creations. 
 This is painting for painting's sake, pure and 
 simple, and colour for decoration's sake, pure and 
 simple. Compare it with No. 2091, attributed to 
 Ryck. The Beuckelaer is the better. 
 
 514. Bisschop, Cornells. The Apple-Peeler, By no 
 
 means a poorly painted interior. There is nothing 
 inspired about its colour or light or handling or 
 thinking; but it is well drawn, has good atmosphere, 
 and the painting of the dress is acceptable. The 
 surface is now greyed. 
 
 522. Bles, Herri met de. Paradise. With a round 
 world and an ocean about it. A delightful little 
 landscape of the Patinir variety, with nicely drawn 
 figures of miniature proportions. It is not like 
 pictures elsewhere put down to this master save 
 at Vienna, where he is practically the same as 
 Patinir. Bles is at present merely a hook upon 
 which all sorts of pictures are hung. He is confused 
 with Patinir, Bosch, and several painters of name 
 unknown. 
 
 552. Bol, Ferdinand. Abraham Receiving the Visit 
 of Angels. The angel at the right is the same model 
 that Bol used in his Jacob Wresthng with the 
 Angel (No. 828) in the Berlin Gallery, there 
 ascribed to Rembrandt. Again this model ap- 
 pears in an Ideal Portrait of a Young Man, by 
 Bol (No. 809a), in the Berlin Gallery. For other 
 Bol models m other Rembrandts, see the Hague 
 note on Rembrandt (No. 560). This picture has 
 
10 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 small value as art, and is referred to merely to 
 suggest the origin of the so-called Rembrandt at 
 Berlin. 
 
 540. Six Governors with the Doorkeeper of the 
 
 Huiszittenhuis. A portrait group of considerable 
 strength for Bol. Observe the hands on the 
 table and the face at the far left. 
 
 567. Bor, Paulus. Finding of Moses. A picture of 
 * much charm and technical excellence, with an un- 
 usual landscape. The diagonal composition throws 
 the light figures on a dark ground, making a strong 
 contrast. The figures are well drawn and distinctly 
 impressive in mass and weight. The faces are 
 heavy, but full of charm, the handling easy and 
 effective, the colour fine. Nor is the landscape to 
 be despised. Look at the lake and sky. The 
 backs and faces of the women are somewhat cleaned. 
 A comparatively unknown painter, but of consider- 
 able ability, as regards this picture at least. The 
 same painter did No. 377 at the Haarlem Museum 
 (put among the unknown masters), but it is not so 
 good as the picture here. 
 
 587. Bosch, Jerome van Aeken. An Operation. 
 
 The attribution may be correct, but the picture, 
 whether by Bosch or not, has no great merit. 
 The colour is pallid, the landscape formal, the draw- 
 ing poor. It has the owl sign of Herri met de 
 Bles at top, but the owl was also used by Bosch. 
 See notes on Bles in the Vienna Gallery. 
 
 597. Both, Jan. Popular Life in Rome. With a view 
 of the Colosseum in the distance. A Dutch view 
 of Italian life. The figures are probably by Andries 
 Both, as the catalogue points out. The air and 
 light rather warm, but effective. 
 
CLEVE, JUSTE VAN 11 
 
 591. Artists Studying from Nature. A very large 
 
 Italian landscape, well composed and held together, 
 considering its size. The colouring is hot, but not 
 wanting in truth. The atmosphere is largely a 
 formal after-scumble. 
 
 590a. Both, Andries. The Card Players. Very facile, 
 easy work. Notice the way the shed is painted; 
 also the costumes and the man's shoulder. With 
 a good colour effect. 
 
 627. Brekelenkam, Quieringh Gerritz. Mother and 
 Child. A simple bit of domestic life, given with 
 plain colour and some painter's feeling, if not with 
 good drawing or painting. 
 
 644 ] Brueghel, Jan the Elder (Velvet). Landscapes. 
 
 645 } Several small works of picturesque Dutch scenes, 
 647 J done with charming little figures and good colour 
 
 results. No. 647 is a fine study of trees with figures 
 below. 
 
 681. Cappelle, Jan van de. Fete on Board Yachts. 
 
 The composition is not very satisfactory and the 
 picture is not in Cappelle's best vein. Some of 
 his attributed works have to be accepted with 
 reservations. He is confused with De Vlieger and 
 Van de Velde, and where once his pictures had the 
 forged names of others upon them there is just 
 now pecuniary incentive the other way, and his 
 name appears on inferior Van de Veldes and De 
 Vliegers. This picture has De Vlieger's name 
 upon it. 
 
 21. Cleve, Juste van der Beke van (Master of the 
 Death of the Virgin). Portrait of a Young 
 Man. A good, strong work with character about 
 it, but there is no particular reason to think it 
 
12 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 by Van Cleve the Elder. It is, perhaps, too firm, 
 too strong for him. 
 
 701 1 Codde, Pieter. Portraits of a Man and Wife. 
 
 702 / Small, miniature-like pictures with clean drawing 
 
 and exact painting. The woman^s face is a little 
 over-modelled, so that it protrudes beyond its ruff 
 and head-dress. 
 
 723. Gornelisz van Oostsanen (or Van Amsterdam), 
 Jacob. Mount Calvary. Overcrowded with fig- 
 ures and lacking in unity, but full of beautiful de- 
 tail in robes and ornaments. Notice the kneeling 
 figures in the foreground, with their pathetic ap- 
 peal and their fine robes; also the little angel at 
 the feet of the Christ and those with the cups at 
 the top. There is no certainty about the painter 
 of this picture. Work somewhat similar to this 
 is sometimes given to Herri met de Bles. 
 
 722. Saul and the Witch of Endor. A good piece 
 
 of drawing and painting as regards the individual 
 figures, but somewhat scattered in the arrange- 
 ment of the figures, although there is a crescent- 
 shaped swoop from right to left that is intended 
 to bind them together. The colour is effective 
 and the painting of the ruined architecture very 
 cleverly done. The work does not at all agree 
 with No. 723, put down to the same man. This 
 No. 722 has a Bosch feeling about it. 
 
 735. Craey, Dirck. Maria de la Quevellerie. A very 
 considerable portrait of good quality in the paint- 
 ing of the face, head-dress, and costume. Notice 
 the pearls and earrings and the nicely painted hair. 
 
 748. Cuyp, Aelbert. Portrait of Young Man. By no 
 
 means lacking in painter qualities, but they are 
 
DOU, GERARD 13 
 
 hardly those of Cuyp. It comes nearer to a fol- 
 lower of Rembrandt. The costume is well done, 
 the face a little weak, the style rather good. 
 
 750. Fight between Birds. Excellent in colour and 
 
 in painting. It rather goes beyond Hondecoeter, 
 of the famous Floating Feather. Look closely at 
 the masterful handling in the cock. The attribu- 
 tion has been questioned. 
 
 745. Landscape with Figures and Cattle. A large 
 
 upright landscape with the yellow sunlight that 
 Cuyp was so fond of painting. Some of the yel- 
 low was probably derived from poor varnish, and 
 as a result the light is now slightly exaggerated. 
 
 744. Mountainous Landscape. This landscape is a 
 
 little thin in quality, perhaps, but has good sky, 
 light, and colour. 
 
 768a. Decker, Cornells G. A Weaver's Shop. A 
 
 rather fine interior with fair colour and some fat 
 painting. 
 
 773. Delff, Jacob Wlllemsz. Portrait of a Little 
 Girl. It is interesting as an illustration of Dutch 
 child life and is not without some good w^ork in 
 the painting of it. 
 
 798. Dou, Gerard. A Hermit. A picture handled 
 with some breadth and sense of large truth. The 
 colour is not bad. It may be by Brekelenkam rather 
 than Dou. The warmth of colour suggests the 
 imitator rather than the imitated. 
 
 795. The Evening School. A popular and well-known 
 
 picture with a candle-light effect and a very smooth 
 surface. Done with infinite patience and skill. All 
 the detail is there. But the picture, in its final 
 
14 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 analysis, is in the category of peanut-and-postage- 
 stamp art. Dou was a great man in little things, 
 and a correspondingly little man in great things. 
 Mere detail, done with patience, is not art. 
 
 791. Portrait of the Painter. With a blue curtain 
 
 that puts one's teeth on edge by its falsity in value 
 and want of quality. It is astonishing that so good 
 a workman as Dou should have so little feeling for 
 colour. 
 
 794. Portrait of Man and Wife. The woman is 
 
 rather fine in costume and pose, as also the man. 
 They keep their places in the landscape. The lat- 
 ter is supposed to have been painted by Berchem. 
 
 797. The Hermit. Carry in your mind the drawing 
 
 and handling of this hermit's head and skull to the 
 Louvre, at Paris, and compare it with the Hermit 
 (No. 2541a) there assigned to Rembrandt, but prob- 
 ably by Dou. The pictures are not far apart. 
 
 N. N. Old Woman Reading. A picture large in 
 
 scale for Dou if minute in method. It is in his 
 smoother style, very well done, and fairly good in 
 colour. It is an important Dou, and though it 
 is reminiscent of Rembrandt one can see in it 
 that smallness of method that afterward led 
 Denner and others far astray. Acquired by the 
 Museum in 1913. 
 
 175. Dutch SchooL The Sister of Dirk Baltus. A 
 
 little picture without name or ancestry, hard in 
 drawing but uncommonly well done, and full of 
 right feeling. What good eyes! And what a 
 fine type of Dutch womanhood! 
 
 43a. Burial of a Patriarch. An excellent picture 
 
 in colour and in sentiment. The heads are full of 
 
DUTCH SCHOOL 15 
 
 character. The little figures in the middle dis- 
 tance at right and left are the most picturesque. 
 The drawing is hard and the robes angular — espe- 
 cially the white ones in the foreground. Notice 
 the trees and the sky. The picture is nearer, per- 
 haps, to the Flemish School than to the Dutch. 
 See also No. 43. 
 
 43. Madonna, Child, and Saints. This picture has 
 
 been scrubbed in the hands and faces and also re- 
 painted. It is still rich in brocades and ornate in 
 jewelling, but none of it is very well done. There 
 is good feeling about it. The small figures at the 
 left and right are nice in pose and in the fall of their 
 robes. 
 
 48. Two Panels of a Triptych. Shewing the 
 
 strong individual heads of a familv/group. The 
 robes and altar clothes are rich ^n colour, well 
 drawn, and well painted. Notice the curious little 
 angels with the coats-of-arms, and the attractive 
 landscapes. To be compared with No. 47. 
 
 53 \ Panels of a Triptych. Two panels with much 
 
 54 / fine colour. There are beautiful garments, hats, 
 
 armour, with good architecture (in No. 54) and a 
 good Bosch landscape (in No. 53). The work of 
 an early and apparently unknown master. On 
 * the reverse of the panels are figures in white in 
 architectural framings. 
 
 151. Andrew, Bastard of Wassenaer. It has some 
 
 distinction about it and is well done. The painter 
 of it knew what was refined and dignified. 
 
 47. Christ on the Cross between the Thieves. A 
 
 small triptych in which the figures on the crosses 
 hang heavily. The foreground figures lack in 
 
16 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 drawing but have good colour. With Httle angels 
 bearing coats-of-arms as in No. 48. The triptych 
 is possibly of German origin. 
 
 855. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Johannes Bap- 
 tista Franck. It has been scrubbed and retouched 
 so much that Van Dyck should hardly be held re- 
 sponsible for it. The hand is quite wrecked and 
 the face is in not much better condition. Origi- 
 nally it came from the School of Rubens, but it 
 was not necessarily done by Van Dyck. 
 
 854. Portrait of Frangois i?) van der Borght^ Un- 
 happily, the canvas has been restored until there is 
 little of Van Dyck left in it. The face has the 
 colour and texture of an old-time false face or 
 mask, the hands are blackened by dark under- 
 basing, the sea and sky at the left are ruined. It 
 has the lofty air of a Van Dyck composition and 
 that is about all. Look at the now dreadful ruff 
 and cuffs. The value of the white is lost. 
 
 853. Mary Magdalen. In its present condition 
 
 the picture is of questionable value. It is badly 
 restored in the left arm, right shoulder, face, hands, 
 and elsewhere. The drawing is faulty. The pic- 
 ture was probably never wonderful in colour. No. 
 853a is no better. 
 
 856. Portrait of Nicolaes van der Borght. A con- 
 ventional, somewhat over-posed portrait. The back- 
 ground above and to the right of the head, and 
 also at the feet, is much hurt by cleaning. The 
 right cheek and the jaw are out of value, perhaps 
 as the result of retouching. The scene at the left 
 is also damaged. The head is not wanting in force 
 nor the figure in some nobility of air. 
 
ELIAS, NICOLAES 17 
 
 857. Prince William II and the Princess Mary 
 
 Stuart. In Van Dyck's smoother and weaker 
 vein, with more effect in the costumes than in the 
 faces. The faces and hands have probably lost 
 some of their original flesh-notes, and also some of 
 their drawing, through retouching. The look of 
 cosmetics is apparent in both faces, and the eyes 
 and noses are hard. Painted at the end of Van 
 Dyck's career, and said to be the last picture he 
 painted in England. 
 
 877. Eeckhout, Gerbrandt van den. Woman Taken 
 in Adultery. Good grouping and good colour 
 effect are here apparent. The kneeling woman 
 and the bulky figure back of her, as well as the one 
 at the right, are very forceful. Eeckhout was often 
 rambling in his drawing and careless with heads, 
 hands, and feet, but he almost always succeeded 
 in giving bulk, body, grouping, and atmosphere. 
 In getting the ensemble he is, perhaps, the best of the 
 Rembrandt followers, and frequently leads people 
 to think him Rembrandt^s self. The central figure 
 with the white turban is the same model as in the 
 Berlin picture (No. 828 j), there ascribed to Rem- 
 brandt. See also the background landscape in 
 No. 879 for resemblances to the backgrounds in 
 the Rembrandt pictures at Berlin. 
 
 887. Ekels the Younger, Jan. A Writer. Rigid in 
 the drawing but effectively composed. The light 
 and colour have not the warmth or depth of Ver- 
 meer or De Hooch, but there is some very good 
 painting in the picture. 
 
 8941 Elias (Pickenoy), Nicolaes. Maerten Rey and 
 895 / Wife. Two smoothly finished portraits of no pro- 
 nounced strength but much carefully elaborated 
 
18 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 truth. The woman's portrait is, perhaps, the more 
 acceptable, but the face is too porcelain4ike in 
 texture. The ruff is well done, though hard. 
 
 897 \ Portraits of Hinlopen and Wife. The por- 
 
 898 / trait of the woman is the better of the two though 
 
 somewhat over-modelled and too high-keyed in the 
 high lights. The figure stands out too much. 
 This is also noticeable in the little coat-of-arms at 
 the right, which looks placed, not upon the wall, 
 but cut out and pasted on the panel. It is false 
 in value as is the coat-of-arms in No. 897. 
 
 49. Engelbrechtsen, Cornelis. Christ Taking Leave 
 of His Mother. The drawing leaves something to 
 be desired, but the handling and the colour are 
 excellent — particularly the colour. The spirit of 
 it is right. Notice the group of women at the left. 
 The catalogue says "in the style'' of Engelbrecht- 
 sen. It bears the false monogram of Albrecht 
 Diirer. See also the injured No. 904a. 
 
 907. Everdingen, Allart van. Landscape in Sweden. 
 
 Wherever located by name, this landscape is done 
 after the Dutch landscape formula of the time. It 
 is a little more varied than Ruisdael in theme, but 
 quite as mannered in the doing of the foliage, sky, 
 and water. Interesting in composition and subject, 
 but there is no reason to suppose the subject taken 
 from Sweden more than from the Harz Mountains 
 in Germany, or out of the painter's head. 
 
 909. Swedish Landscape. Much better in colour 
 
 quality than No. 907. The sky is good; also the 
 trees and the broken light under them. A moun- 
 tain scene with dashing water and some life about 
 it. Notice the trees against the sky. 
 
FLINCK, GOVERT 19 
 
 919. Fabritius, Bernaert. Family of Willem van der 
 Helm. A portrait group of a man, his wife and their 
 child, with a background of curtain, column, 
 Dutch house, flag, and sky. Also with a table- 
 cloth in the foreground as in the large Vermeer 
 at Dresden. The hands have sharp and pointed 
 fingers; they are mannered and not well drawn. 
 The eyes are round and wide apart. A picture to 
 be studied because the work of this painter has 
 been much confused with that of Rembrandt. 
 
 921. Fabritius, Car el. Beheading of John the Bap- 
 tist. A rather heavy piece of work once put down 
 to Rembrandt and now (with a little more of 
 probability) to Fabritius. It is foxy in colour and 
 belongs, perhaps, nearer to Drost than to Fabritius. 
 
 920. Abraham de Notte. A good portrait in spite 
 
 of its bad treatment. A personality of some 
 power. The drawing of the hands is a little heavy 
 and that of the head a little uncertain. The colour 
 is now very yellow. 
 
 340. Flemish School (15th Century). Our Lady of 
 Mercy iPieta). With some sincere feeling and 
 good, if hard, drawing about it. The man at the 
 right has character and is of good report. Attrib- 
 uted to the School of Roger van der Weyden. 
 
 926a. Flinck, Govert. Goze Centen. The eyes, mouth, 
 ears, white ruff, and shadows suggest a youthful 
 following of Rembrandt. It is immature work, 
 but starts out with a breadth of view and strength 
 of touch which Flinck hardly lived up to in after 
 work. Cleaned too much. 
 
 925. Fete of the Civic Guard in 1648. It is more 
 
 * of a pictorial effect than similar subjects by Hals, 
 
20 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 Codde, and Van der Heist. There is an attempt 
 at unity in the Hnes as in the grouping of the two 
 central figures near the white flag, but the result 
 is still two distinct groups at right and left. There 
 is also an attempt at atmosphere. Not wonder- 
 ful art, but, considering the difficulties of the sub- 
 ject, Flinck acquitted himself fairly well. 
 
 927. Isaac Blessing Jacob, Done with the types 
 
 * and in the style of Rembrandt. Worse pictures 
 than this by Flinck have passed for Rembrandts. 
 It is good in colour and light if heavy in handling 
 and somewhat weak in drawing. The striping of 
 the green sleeve looks like paint on the outside of 
 the cloth, and this does not improve as you draw 
 away from the picture as with the Rembrandts. 
 Notice the same ineffectual work in the turban at 
 the left and in the hands and head of Isaac at the 
 right. A good Flinck and quite in agreement with 
 pictures by him at The Hague, there assigned to 
 Rembrandt. He also did the Portrait of a Turk 
 at Munich (No. 325), there given to Rembrandt, but 
 in perfect agreement with the Isaac in this picture. 
 
 931. Portrait of John Uitenbogaert. An excellent 
 
 * portrait of an interesting historical character. 
 How well the hand is done ! The head is massively 
 conceived in flesh-and-bone structure but rather 
 timidly painted. The picture is yellow with oil, 
 excessively used in the pigments, perhaps. Once 
 put down to Rembrandt and now to Flinck though 
 it is hardly of Flinck origin. 
 
 935. Francken the Younger, Frans. Abdication 
 of Charles V. These now discredited painters, 
 who followed Italy and have been despised for 
 centuries therefor, how well they understood their 
 
GEERTGEN TOT ST. JANS 21 
 
 technique! What good craftsmen they were! 
 Look closely at the painting — the kneeling figures at 
 the right, for instance — and how surely it is done! 
 ' The spirit of the seventeenth-century Italianised 
 Flemings may have been all wrong, and their ec- 
 lecticism an impossible amalgam, but they were 
 craftsmen and painters for all that. 
 947. Garofalo (Benvenuto Tisi). The Holy Trinity. 
 A small but good Garofalo which holds its own 
 very well in a roomful of Dutch pictures. 
 
 950. Geertgen tot Sint Jans (Gerard of Haarlem). 
 * Allegory of the Sacrifice of Christ, The picture 
 is stained somewhat but is still good in colour. 
 The types of women are most interesting, as also 
 the little children in the centre and the altar group 
 at the back. Once regarded as a Van Eyck. It 
 is, in measure, in agreement with several other pic- 
 tures ascribed to Geertgen in the galleries at Berlin 
 and Vienna. See also No. 950a. 
 
 950a. Adoration of Magi. An over-cleaned panel 
 
 with much fine feeling and good colour still left 
 in it. Notice the garb of the kneeling king and the 
 golden crowns and gifts of the others. The com- 
 pany in the distance has good movement about it. 
 This picture seems different in painting and draw- 
 ing from No. 950. The pictures are not in agree- 
 ment. Study the difference in the drawing of the 
 hands and eyes. Also the painting of the robes 
 and the trees and the handling of the hair. This 
 Adoration is hardly by the painter known as Geert- 
 gen tot Sint Jans. 
 
 950b. Nativity. With pretty little angels showing 
 
 parti-coloured wings. The dress of the Virgin is 
 beautiful in pattern and colour. The picture was 
 
22 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 never very strong in drawing and is now somewhat 
 cleaned. The attribution will not do. It is too 
 poor in workmanship for the man who did the No. 
 2563a in the Louvre. 
 
 951. Geertgen tot Sint Jans (School of). Martyr- 
 dom of St. Lucy. Probably by the painter of 
 No. 951a. The composition is scattered but the 
 colour of the robes is good, and there is a fine 
 landscape at the back. 
 
 951a. Crucifixion. The figures are well set in the 
 
 landscape and good in colour. The drawing is 
 inferior. It is probably a school piece, though it 
 must be confessed that we know little about the 
 master and less about his school or followers. 
 
 965d. Gelder, Aert de. Christ Taken at Gethsemane. 
 
 This and No. 965e are two of a series, now scattered, 
 illustrating the Passion of Christ. It is fine in 
 brush work and rather good in grouping and colour. 
 
 965e. Cfirist Before the Sanhedrim. A Rembrandt- 
 
 esque composition, careless in drawing but with a 
 good effect of colour, air, and light. The effects of 
 Aert de Gelder are usually superficial. He breaks 
 down in knowledge of underlying construction. 
 Rembrandt had knowledge as well as genius, but 
 De Gelder had merely a glib facility in imitation. 
 
 17g. German School (about 1500). Descent from 
 the Cross. It is badly drawn but has tragic 
 power about it. Notice the figure of the Magdalen. 
 It is certainly convincing in its feeling. 
 
 1 7c. One of the Three Magi. A fragment of 
 
 No. 17b, odd in colour and striking in its harmony 
 of blues and greens with purples. No. 17b is not 
 
HALS, DIRCK 23 
 
 so interesting, perhaps, but has the same quality 
 of colour. 
 
 984a. Goes, Hugo van der. Portrait of a Man and 
 St. John, An excellent piece of characterisation. 
 Rubbed and scrubbed too much, but apparently 
 not repainted. It bears a little likeness to Van der 
 Goes work, but the attribution is by no means a 
 certainty. It is a detail of a larger picture. 
 
 990. Goyen, Jan van. Landscape. Large, but of in- 
 different quality. Nature is not quite so flabby as 
 this. The trees are mannered, the sky is grey and 
 a little stained in spots, the foreground pretends to 
 shadow, but it is only brown paint. 
 
 99L The Valkenhof, Nimeguen. Van Goyen 
 
 painted this subject several times in this same 
 tone of light. The sky here is rather poor, the 
 water is like the sky, and even the walls and the 
 buildings have a soft quality. It is astonishing 
 that Van Goyen could produce such very good 
 and, at the same time, such very bad pictures. 
 
 989a. Panorama in Guelders. A small but excel- 
 lent landscape, with a fine clouded sky, and a dis- 
 tant river with boats. Much better than Van 
 Goyen's larger pictures. 
 
 1021. Hackaert, Jan. The Ash Tree Avenue. A study 
 of trees and sunlight through them, not inspired 
 or too successful, but an effort at getting away 
 from the grey monotony of the Van Goyens and 
 Ruisdaels. The figures are said to have been 
 painted by A. van de Velde. 
 
 1082. Hals, Dirck. Open Air Banquet. This picture 
 is crude in the sky and anything like atmospheric 
 
24 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 envelope is absent. There is no modulation or 
 subtlety to the light in foreground or background. 
 That is sufficient to account for the paucity of 
 good colour. The figures are not bad. A cold 
 picture. 
 
 1089 1 Hals, Frans. Portraits of Nicolaes Hasselaer 
 
 1090 / and Wife, With a good deal of Frans Hals care- 
 
 lessness in handling and very little of his effective 
 drawing and modelling. In the man's portrait 
 something at the right has been painted over, but 
 not quite out. The brown tone of Hals is here, 
 but the whites are staring white, the blacks are 
 commonplace, and none of them has any quality. 
 Neither portrait is remarkable. They are probably 
 school pieces of some sort. 
 
 1088. Portrait of Maritge Voogt Claesdr. A sober 
 
 portrait with no great flourish of trumpets or 
 painter's bravura. The figure is seated in a chair, 
 in a room the walls of which are indicated. The 
 light comes from one direction, and a shadow is 
 cast on the wall. The face is not well drawn, 
 though full of seriousness and dignity. The figure 
 and hands are so-so, the cap and ruff very good. 
 There is little colour, but a fine grey tone and a good 
 envelope. The coat-of-arms at the left does not 
 keep its place on the wall but comes forward into 
 the first plane of the picture, which may be due 
 to later restoration. The handling in the fur is 
 not very effective. 
 
 1093. The Merry Andrew. A picture that is im- 
 pressive at first but does not bear close analysis. 
 The handling is flashy but not effective. The 
 tendency of the brush is to circle the oval of the 
 face and drag the high lights over; to model the 
 
HALS, FRANS 25 
 
 nose and eyelids by following their outlines with 
 a loaded brush. In the dress the handling is free 
 but faulty in drawing, notably in the red slashings. 
 This kind of handling, with the singularly bad 
 drawing of the hands and the lute, and the peculiar 
 tone of colour belong not to Frans Hals, but to 
 his pupil and imitator, Judith Leyster, to whom 
 this picture may be attributed without injustice 
 to any one. Compare its mannerisms with Ley- 
 ster's pictures in this gallery, Nos. 1455 and 1455a. 
 The same hand did the three pictures. The pupil 
 is here following a picture of Hals now in the 
 Rothschild Collection, Paris. 
 
 1084. Portrait of Man and Wife. An early picture 
 
 and not Hals at his best, if at all. It is sharp 
 in drawing and uneasy in the blacks of the costumes. 
 The landscape adds nothing and is hardly believ- 
 able. The sky is greenish as a possible result of 
 using a fugitive blue. The portraits were once 
 thought to be of Hals and his wife. The buildings 
 and small figures at the back suggest Dirck Hals 
 as the painter, and the ruffs and cuffs are not far 
 removed from him. 
 
 1086 1 Portraits of Lucas le Clercq and Wife. These 
 
 1087 J portraits are not distinguished by any particular 
 
 excellence. The man has a great bulk of body and a 
 well-drawn face. The portrait of the woman is 
 better in its plain painting and drawing. Hals, of 
 course, was not always distinguished, not always 
 scoring successes; but one sometimes wonders over 
 the great number of poor and mediocre works put 
 down to him. 
 
 1091. The Jolly Toper. A colour scheme in buff 
 
 * and yellow, quite in Hals's better vein. The won- 
 
26 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 derful hat is done easily and truly, as also the hair, 
 beard, face, ruff, and yellow coat. The left hand 
 (and arm) with a glass is a little curious in fore- 
 shortening, as also the right arm. The belt and 
 the figure it encircles are quite right. This is a 
 well-known Hals, painted with gusto and verve, 
 in perfect keeping with the subject. Such a tour 
 de force does not rise to the height of the master's 
 work at Haarlem, however. There he is to be 
 seen at his best. 
 
 1085. Hals, Frans and Pieter Codde. The Company 
 of Captain Reael and Lieutenant Michielsz. The 
 
 two seated figures are probably by Hals. The 
 head of the young man standing in the centre is 
 probably indicative of Codde. The picture is not 
 so good in composition as the Van der Heist (No. 
 1135) near by. It is cut in two by the architec- 
 ture of the background. In light and shade it is 
 not bad, nor is it wanting in a certain atmospheric 
 quality in which the Van der Heists are lacking; 
 but it is not wonderful. 
 
 1127. Heemskerck, Maerten van (Veen). The Sibyl 
 * of Erythraea. A little knotty in the hands and 
 florid in the drapery, but a strong figure of the 
 Scorel type and probably influenced by the work 
 of Michelangelo. The robe and background 
 were never finished. The head is superb. The 
 reverse of the panel shows the portrait of the donor, 
 Matelief Dammasz, with St. Paul — the former 
 excellent in head, hands, and robes, the latter 
 majestic in stature. Notice also the colour of the 
 altar and the beautifully painted coat-of-arms. 
 All told, it is a masterpiece of Dutch sixteenth- 
 century art based on Italian style and method. 
 
HELST, B. VAN DER 27 
 
 Look at it closely and never mind the art history 
 that tells you these Italianised Dutchmen are neg- 
 ligible. Heemskerck was not only an individuality 
 but a power. 
 1143. Heist, Bartholomeus van der. Portrait of a 
 Warrior. The face seems rather mild and is pos- 
 sibly over-cleaned. It is fairly well drawn. The 
 coat is effective in colour. Van der Heist is a man 
 of some surprises. He is usually tame and con- 
 ventional but occasionally he is spirited and indi- 
 vidual. See No. 1145 for an example. 
 
 1145. Portrait of Kortenaer. With a blind left eye. 
 
 * A strong picture, powerful in the truth of head, 
 body, and hand. And with quite a blare of colour. 
 Compare this head, hair, chin, mouth, and hand 
 with the so-called Velasquez Admiral Borro at 
 Berlin (No. 413a). Van der Heist probably did not 
 paint the Borro, but it offers superficial suggestions 
 of him. 
 
 1139. Portrait of Andries Bicker. An excellent ex- 
 ample of Van der Heist, with a rather strongly 
 modelled face and a fine personality all through. 
 How well the hands are done! 
 
 1140. Portrait of Gerard Bicker. Brilliant in colour 
 
 and rather free in the painting. What a superb 
 piece of characterisation! It is no doubt an exact 
 portrait. The student should study this picture 
 closely in connection with the so-called Velasquez 
 Admiral Borro (No. 413a), in the Berlin Gallery. 
 Compare the drawing of the forehead, hair, eyes, 
 cheek, chin here with the Borro, and a first super- 
 ficial resemblance will appear. Then go closer 
 into the matter of the drawing of the hands, the 
 painting of the hair and linen. Bring into the com- 
 
28 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 parison all the rest of the Van der Heist portraits 
 and study the style of composition, the lighting, 
 colouring, etc. The Borro is a Netherland pic- 
 ture and was possibly done by Jordaens, but it 
 shows also resemblances to Van der Heist, though 
 too bluff for him in spirit. 
 
 1135. Banquet of the Civic Guard, A fine militia- 
 
 * company picture, done a little later than Rem- 
 brandt's Night Watch and about as near to the 
 historical canvas on a large scale as the Amsterdam 
 Dutch ever came. It is really a series of individual 
 portraits put together with such unity as the sub- 
 ject would allow. In this picture the standard- 
 bearer is central and is meant to balance Captain 
 Witsen (with a drinking-horn on the right) and the 
 old man with the yellow stockings (standing at 
 the left); but with the unlooked-for result that 
 the standard-bearer in blue comes forward and the 
 sides rather recede. The variety of pose in head, 
 hand, and figure is remarkable — in the hands par- 
 ticularly. It has been said that if all the hands 
 in this picture should be cut off and thrown into 
 a basket they could be identified and put back on 
 their respective bodies, so individually are they 
 drawn, and so absolutely does each pair of hands 
 belong to its own particular body. In fact, the 
 picture is more remarkable for its individual por- 
 traiture than for its composition or unity. The 
 group as a whole lacks subordination, air, and 
 oneness of colour. But it is certainly a remarkable 
 group of portraits. The student should study the 
 hands resting on the hips in this picture, the heads 
 in their modelHng of the brows, eyes, and mouths, 
 with the painting of the hair, the costumes, the 
 flag, in connection with the so-called Velasquez, 
 
HOBBEMA, MEINDERT 29 
 
 Admiral Borro, at Berlin (No. 413a). Notice par- 
 ticularly the man in yellow at the right and the 
 head of the standard-bearer. See also Nos. 1137 
 and 1136. 
 
 1134. The Company of Captain Bicker. Another 
 
 large militia-company picture, but by no means 
 so well done as No. 1135. The action is a little 
 disturbing, the posing rather obvious, the colour 
 lighter and more spotty. Nor are the faces and 
 hands so well done. It is a less successful perform- 
 ance. Notice the attitudes of the men of large 
 bulk at the left and right of the centre and the 
 men at the far ends with hands on their hips. The 
 resemblance to the Borro referred to in the note 
 upon No. 1135 is again apparent. The handling 
 in both these pictures is free and not unlike the 
 Borro. And yet the Borro was probably done by 
 Jordaens. 
 
 1171. Heyden, Jan van der. Martelaarsgracht, Am- 
 sterdam. Very exact, architectural, topographical, 
 as regards the buildings, but not without pic- 
 turesque results. Notice the colour effect of the 
 roofs against the blue sky, at the left. And what 
 light, airy, floating clouds! One does not always 
 see such clouds in Dutch art. 
 
 1188. Hobbema, Meindert. Water Mill. In Hobbe- 
 ma's usual vein, with no great subtlety or distinc- 
 tion or sentiment about it, but, on the contrary, a 
 rather grey prosaic view of nature and a mannered 
 way of representing it in art. The sky is good and 
 the light not bad save where it falls in flickers and 
 spots on the foliage. 
 
 1187. Water Mill. A repetition of a well-worn 
 
 theme with the usual effects of light, air, and sky — 
 
** 
 
 30 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 all of them a little too obvious. It is not at all 
 certain that Hobbema did every mouldy, slate- 
 grey landscape put down to him. Had he no pupils 
 or followers? Yet how often do you see a land- 
 scape given to the School of Hobbema? 
 
 1224. Hondecoeter, Melchior d'. The Floating 
 Feather, Supposed to be the painter's master- 
 piece, possibly because the famous feather on the 
 water floats instead of sinking. An excellent bird 
 picture, with good colour effect, in which the 
 floating feather cuts no figure whatever. Art is 
 not made up of such trivialities, though guides 
 and guide-books may so decree. 
 
 1248. Hooch, Pieter de. The Pantry. A beautiful 
 picture in light, air, and colour, showing an old- 
 time Holland interior with all its quaintness and 
 picturesqueness. It is freely painted in the figures, 
 which have great humanity and charm about them, 
 especially the little girl with the pretty hair and 
 embroidered cap. Notice the folds of the little 
 grey skirt, the shoulder-straps, and the ribboned 
 belt at the waist — how beautifully they are done! 
 There are two points of sight in the picture, but 
 the one at the left is so obviously a repetition of 
 the note at the right that it is not disturbing. The 
 light is well-nigh perfect. The room is excellent, 
 the floor and wall just right. It is an exceptional 
 De Hooch. It is worth while to contrast this pic- 
 ture with the pseudo-Vermeer interior (No. 2528) 
 hanging in a room near by. The De Hooch is 
 much finer in every way. The top of the picture 
 (the ceiling) is hurt; and on the wall, above 
 the woman, a window or picture has been painted 
 out. 
 
HOOGSTRATEN 31 
 
 1249. Interior. The woman, the child, and the 
 
 chair in this picture should be (mentally) carried 
 into the next room and there closely compared 
 with the woman, child, and chair in No. 1248, by 
 De Hooch. Look closely at both pictures. The 
 difference to the advantage of No. 1248 must be 
 apparent to the least observant of picture gazers. 
 The light and the street in this No. 1249 are not 
 so bad. It is an inferior De Hooch, if by him 
 at all. 
 
 1250. Morning Toilet. This picture should be com- 
 pared in quality with the drawing of the dresses, 
 the handling of the hair, and the light-and-shade 
 of No. 1248. It is not so good as the latter. The 
 catalogue questions the signature but not the 
 picture. It is probable that neither is by De 
 Hooch. The work looks more like that of Janssens 
 than any other painter. 
 
 1251. The Country House. It has about the same 
 
 quality for out-of-doors as the picture near it 
 (No. 1249) has for indoors. The servant washing 
 the kettle is the best part of it. Look at the hands 
 of the three figures at the table, or their heads. 
 It is a school piece or a bad original, one hardly 
 knows which. 
 
 1252. Mother's Joy. Rather good in the drawing 
 
 of the room, but not in any way a remarkable 
 picture. It has the look of a school piece or a 
 picture done by some follower. 
 
 There is only one first-rate De Hooch in this 
 
 gallery, but that (No. 1248) is a masterpiece in 
 
 little. 
 
 1255. HoogStraten, SamueL Portrait of Mattheus 
 
 van den Broucke. A pretentious and exaggerated 
 
32 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 portrait, better in the gold of the chains, sword, 
 and stick than any other part of it. The face is 
 large and weak, the colour without charm, the 
 handling thin and rather commonplace. 
 
 1256. The Sick Lady. For all her red eyes and 
 
 pallid look, the lady sits up and poses a bit for her 
 picture. She is more elegant than Steen's Sick 
 Lady (No. 2246) but not nearly so real. Although 
 handsome in colour and easily handled, the dress 
 is too high in light and the picture is hard and 
 airless, reminding one in measure of the pseudo- 
 Vermeer (No. 2528) in another room. 
 
 1315. Jordaens, Jakob. A Satyr, This is no doubt 
 intended to represent Pan playing on his pipe. 
 The hands are poorly done, but the rest of the 
 figure is fairly well indicated as regards its bulk, 
 though none too accurate in any part of it. It 
 may be an old copy. 
 
 1350. Keyset, Thomas de. Pieter Schout, A cavalier 
 on horseback riding across a fine dune landscape. 
 Smoothly painted, but just as accurate, dignified, 
 and straightforward in workmanship as in the char- 
 acter of the man and horse depicted. What an 
 unusual and original way of painting an equestrian 
 portrait! It is Dutch all through. 
 
 1349. The Family of Meebeeck Cruywaghen. An 
 
 excellent family group held together in landscape 
 with considerable success. The prevailing yellow 
 tone is probably due to an excessive use of oil or 
 varnish as a vehicle. See also the shooting-com- 
 pany picture. No. 1340 — an excellent De Keyser. 
 
 1375. Koninck, Salomon. The Old Savant. A pic- 
 ture by a Rembrandt follower, which is worth bear- 
 
 * 
 
MAES, NICOLAS 33 
 
 ing in mind, that you may not think when you see 
 in other galleries this rather pretty painting of stuffs 
 and garments and this forced lighting that they 
 necessarily mean a picture by Rembrandt's own 
 hand. It is like the Minerva (No. 828c) in the 
 Berlin Gallery, attributed to Rembrandt. Possibly 
 both pictures were painted by Koninck. He may 
 also have done the Philosophers in the Louvre. 
 
 1426. Lastman, Pieter. Christ Healing a Leper. An 
 
 interesting example of Lastman — one of the mas- 
 ters of Rembrandt — with some features of dark- 
 golden landscape that are now considered peculiarly 
 Rembrandtesque. 
 1452. Leyden, Lucas van. The Sermon. It seems 
 less like Lucas van Leyden and more like Bosch. 
 See the note on the Leyden at Brussels (No. 780). 
 This is in a similar vein and style, and is also mono- 
 grammed and has the owl sign like the Bosch here 
 (No. 587). The pictures of Bosch are confused 
 with those of Lucas in more than one gallery. 
 
 1455. Leyster, Judith. The Jolly Toper. In the style 
 and spirit of Hals, but by his pupil and imitator, 
 Judith Leyster. It has not the master's drawing, 
 sure handling, or colouring. To be compared care- 
 fully with No. 1093, put down to Hals, to establish 
 this latter as an authentic work of Judith Leyster. 
 The comparison might utilise also No. 1455a, by 
 Leyster. The Fisher Boy and Playing Boys pic- 
 tures in European galleries, attributed to Hals, also 
 hark back to Judith Leyster. 
 
 1504. Maes, Nicolas. Old Woman Spinning. Quite in 
 the best vein of the painter as regards light and 
 colour. The light is centralised and yet effectively 
 distributed, as shown, for instance, in the jugs 
 
 * 
 
34 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 hanging on the wall. The shadows are darkened 
 to balance the light. The colour is rich in the table- 
 cloth and costume. An early Rembrandtesque 
 Maes. See also the same theme in No. 1503. 
 
 1501. Asking a Blessing. Sometimes called the 
 
 * Prayer without End. A little laboured in the 
 
 handling. All the surfaces are too smooth, per- 
 haps. The light is forced, but with some effect, 
 and the colour is not bad though sacrificed to the 
 light. The bread and table utensils are realisti- 
 cally given. An early Maes, and usually regarded 
 as his masterpiece, but he painted some excellent 
 early portraits, now for the most part assigned to 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 1502. Dreaming, It is too brick-red in colour and 
 
 the lighting is not true. There is no recognition 
 of values in the colours. From one end of the 
 picture to the other, there is practically the same 
 value in every red tone. The peaches and the 
 door seem as important as the flesh colour, and they 
 are of the same texture. 
 
 Master of the Death of the Virgin. See Cleve, 
 Juste van. 
 
 1540. Mesdach, Solotnon. Portrait of Pergens. One 
 
 of half a dozen hard and literal portraits by 
 Mesdach that are exceedingly honest, if laboured, 
 endeavours. The details of the costumes, as in 
 Nos. 1542 and 1546, are interesting. 
 
 1554. Metsu, Gabriel. The Old Toper, A good rep- 
 resentative Metsu in his more painter-like, as 
 distinguished from his popular, manner. Charm- 
 ing in colour and very accurate in drawing. No- 
 tice the hands, the mug, the barrel. 
 
MOEYAERT 35 
 
 1529. Metsys, Quentin. Madonna and Child. The 
 
 throne is a mass of goldsmith work, very carefully 
 wrought, but strangely out of drawing — out of 
 perspective. The Madonna and Child are done 
 in the same way as the throne — that is, with skill, 
 care, and smoothness. But none of them are very 
 effective or carry well at a distance. They are 
 not coarse enough in grain or fibre and lack 
 strength. It is pretty work and somewhat over- 
 wrought. The landscape is rather good. Notice 
 the affectation of the hand holding the cherries. 
 The catalogue calls it a school work, but it is 
 probably an old copy. 
 
 1581. Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz. Prince Maurice of 
 Orange. A good full-length portrait among a 
 collection of historical portraits, many of them 
 hopeless as art and of doubtful authenticity as 
 regards their painters. This one has agreeable 
 colour with much detail of armour and curtains. 
 
 1582. Prince Frederick Henry of Orange. In the 
 
 same vein as No. 1581, with the face retouched. 
 There is too much display of armour. 
 
 1584. Jacob Cats. Interesting for the sitter, a cele- 
 brated Dutch poet. It is done not in a poetic or 
 romantic mood but in a realistic way. Probably 
 an excellent likeness, but one cannot rave over 
 it as art. There is much work of similar quality 
 in this gallery. 
 
 1634. Moeyaert, Nicolas Cornelisz. The Unworthy 
 Guest. A good piece of colour though a little small 
 in handling and a little smooth in surfaces. It is 
 more pretty and petty than forceful. It suggests 
 a possible painter for the Rape of Europa in the 
 Berlin Gallery (No. 823), the Boy's Head in the 
 
36 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 Wallace Collection (No. 201), and a similar head at 
 the Hermitage (No. 843), all of them assigned to 
 Rembrandt. Study the head-dress, the border of 
 the robes, the white underdress, the pretty col- 
 our. The picture was formerly attributed to Hoog- 
 straten. 
 
 1640. Momper, Francois de. Valkenhof at Nime^ 
 guen. A little landscape quite fine in colour and 
 light. In a Rembrandtesque style and "wrongly 
 signed J. van Goyen" — to quote the catalogue. 
 The Van Goyen look of it is on the surface only. 
 The signature was probably put upon the picture 
 to deceive. 
 
 1660. Moreelse, Paulus. The Little Princess, Some- 
 what pretty and far too sweet. It is fairly well 
 painted in the costume, but the figure is very flat 
 and the head is over-modelled. 
 
 1661. The Pretty Shepherdess. With an Angelica 
 
 Kauffman prettiness about its smooth face as 
 well as about its colour. This is Moreelse at his 
 worst, if it be his work at all. See him in a better 
 style at The Hague in the portrait No. 655. 
 
 1674. Mostaert, Jan. Adoration of Kings. Notice 
 how well the figures in the foreground are drawn 
 and painted. Also the still-life, the brocades, the 
 robes. The composition is divided by the pilaster 
 in the middle, and the sky is not in value. The 
 painter is thought by some to be identical with 
 the Master of Oultremont. 
 
 1688. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. Annunciation. 
 
 A rather weak Murillo and considerably repainted 
 in the bargain. It is another version of the picture 
 in the Hospital of La Caridad at Seville. 
 
OSTADE, ADRIAEN VAN 37 
 
 1705. Mytens, Martinus. Portrait of the Painter. 
 
 The head is dark and forbidding in personality 
 but very decently painted. 
 
 1718. Neer, Aart van der. Landscape. A lovely bit 
 of colour with a picturesque old house at left, a 
 remarkably good tree in the centre, and a warm 
 sky overhead. It is a signed picture and there is 
 every reason to believe the signature genuine. 
 
 1721a. Moonlight. A rather inky moonlight, but 
 
 the night effect is there if not its exact representa- 
 tion. Van der Neer was one of the early luminists 
 with fire and moonlight, as Vermeer of Delft with 
 sunlight and cloud light. 
 
 1725. Netscher, Caspar. Lady Philippina Stanton. 
 
 One of Netscher's bids for immortality on the 
 strength of the painting of a satin gown. The 
 result of much effort is that the dress has a rolled 
 silver or tin-foil effect, not altogether attractive. 
 And, of course, the lady is only a dummy upon 
 which to hang the dress. What a dreadful blue 
 scarf! And how little the lady belongs to the land- 
 scape! She is a thing apart as regards the light. 
 
 1793a. Orley, Bernard van. Madonna and Child. A 
 
 rather attractive picture attributed to Van Orley 
 and possibly, but not probably, by him. The 
 Madonna has a charm that borders on sweetness. 
 The picture is slight and slippery. 
 1816. Ostade, Adriaen van. The Merry Peasant. Done 
 with almost the freedom and breadth of a Brouwer. 
 Excellent in its brown tone and its general painter's 
 quality. 
 
 1821b. Dancing Couple. W\\h centralised Hght and 
 
 good grouping as well as easy painting. It is use- 
 
38 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 less to ask of Van Ostade anything more than good 
 craftsmanship. He is not a great thinker, and has 
 only a painter's message about form and colour to 
 deliver. 
 
 1898. Poorter, Willem de. Solomon Sacrificing to 
 Idols. In the painter's pretty mood and rather 
 weak and sweet in colour as in handling. Poorter 
 was not always so insipid as this. Occasionally he 
 did forceful things that have been assigned to 
 Rembrandt — are still so assigned. 
 
 1909. Potter, Paulus. The Shepherd's Hut. The spots 
 of whitewash on the cattle and tree trunks are 
 characteristic of Potter. The trees in their 
 branches, the sky, and the colour are less certainly 
 by his hand. The picture is suggestive of Isaac 
 van Ostade. 
 
 1911. Horses in a Field. The dark bay horse is very 
 
 well painted for Potter, but there is nothing re- 
 markable about the picture except its common- 
 placeness and the too apparent signature on the 
 fence. The sky and foliage are not like Potter's 
 work. 
 
 1913. Cows in a Field. Not even so crude and boy- 
 ish a performance as this can break the Potter 
 delusion. People will have it that he is a great 
 cattle painter, whereas he was merely a sometime 
 student of cow anatomy and never came to per- 
 fection with the brush. Where is the good draw- 
 ing, colour, or painting of this? 
 
 1915. Landscape with Cattle. This is Potter at his 
 
 best, with a good effect of sunlight and a landscape 
 of more than usual excellence. The trees are man- 
 nered in the trunks and in the foliage, and the 
 
PYNAS, JAN 39 
 
 cattle are abnormally hard, but all this is to be over- 
 looked in favour of the fine light and its truth of 
 value in shadow, as, for instance, in the bull lying 
 down at the right and the cows in full sunlight at 
 the left. A very good Potter, but not a great 
 picture, 'per se. See also No. 1914. 
 
 1910. Bear Hunt. The composition, with the hard 
 
 and stuffed effect of the dogs' heads and mouths 
 together with the new study in natural history of 
 the dog climbing a tree, may be put down to Potter; 
 but the surface has largely been repainted, as the 
 catalogue indicates. 
 
 1912. Orpheus with His Harp. In which the painter 
 
 has transferred the animals from a menagerie one 
 by one to a hard landscape made up out of his head. 
 What false colour values the different trees show 
 in their foliage! It is an impossible Arcadia, and 
 the Dutch Orpheus posed in the centre does not 
 help one's unbelief. 
 
 1920a. Pourbus, Pieter. Portrait of a Young Man. 
 
 A strong type given with much severity of draw- 
 ing but considerable truth. Once ascribed to Hol- 
 bein with as little accuracy as now to Pourbus. 
 It is too crude for either painter. 
 
 1923a. Provoost (Prevost), Jan. Madonna Enthroned. 
 
 It is awkward and angular in drawing, but there 
 is unusual composition and good colour. Besides, 
 the spirit of it is true and its feeling is sincere. 
 The type of the Madonna is neither Flemish nor 
 French, but half-way between. The attribution is 
 questionable. 
 
 1932. Pynas, Jan. Moses Turning the Waters into 
 Blood. A strange pattern, a peculiar arrangement, 
 
40 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 with an odd Rembrandtesque landscape. There is 
 some good painting in the figures. The colour is 
 agreeable. 
 
 1933. Ouast, Pieter Jansz. The Surgeon. The man 
 with the red-brown cap is quite attractive in the 
 strong patches of shadow thrown across his brown 
 coat. By a follower of Brouwer. 
 
 1974. Ravesteyn, Hubert van. Still Life. A still- 
 life picture, with a piece of paper on which is print- 
 ing that can be read — a sure sign of excellence in 
 art with some. But this is no nearer art than the 
 bugs and flies and water drops of the Dutch flower 
 painters. Sir Joshua had something caustic to say 
 about cats and fiddles painted to be picked up that 
 will apply here. 
 
 1975a. Ravesteyn, Jan Anthonisz van. Frangois 
 van der Burch. A full-length in black. The fig- 
 ure stands well and has a good envelope of air. 
 The painting is smooth but effective. 
 
 2019. Rembrandt van Ryn. The Jewish Bride. This 
 * picture was probably never satisfactory to the 
 painter and never finished. The background was 
 evidently not carried as far as the painter intended, 
 the hands are sketchily done and retouched in 
 spots, the surface is lumpy with paint put on with 
 the thumb and palette-knife and not always effec- 
 tively placed. It, perhaps, represents Rembrandt 
 in his late style, when his hand was not so sure as 
 it had been, and when his handling was sometimes 
 flaky but more often heavy and lumpy. The 
 colour is in large masses, broadly seen and treated, 
 yet somewhat hot. It is by no means an inhar- 
 monious colour scheme — on the contrary, colour is 
 the strong feature of the picture. The red is quite 
 
** 
 
 REMBRANDT 41 
 
 splendid. And even at this late stage the shadows 
 are still luminous. Said to be Rembrandt's son 
 Titus and his bride, but without warrant of any 
 kind for the statement. 
 2023. Portrait of Elizabeth Bas. A celebrated por- 
 trait put down to Rembrandt's early grey period. 
 It is a fine type of Dutch womanhood, dressed in 
 black with fur-lined robe, white ruff, and white 
 cap. The face is keenly seen. The eyes, forehead, 
 nose, cheeks, chin are quite right in their drawing 
 or at least right enough. It is a good piece of 
 modelling all through, but is now hurt by too much 
 cleaning of the surface and by repainting, especially 
 in the hands. That, however, will not account for 
 a blackish feeling in the shadows of the ruff, face, 
 and hands — the face itself showing a little sooti- 
 ness about it. The blackness may have come from 
 some dark underbasing. The present condition of 
 the hands would indicate this. Some cleaning 
 and retouching might account for a less free sur- 
 face than Rembrandt usually painted. The han- 
 dling looks thin in spots. An excellent work, how- 
 ever, in a sober, serious vein, with a large view of 
 the subject and much simplicity and directness 
 in its setting forth. This is the kind of portraiture 
 that Maes and Backer and Bol imitated very 
 closely at one time. Perhaps that has led a modern 
 critic to declare this portrait not a genuine Rem- 
 brandt but a Bol (see Burlington Magazine, for 
 March, 1912). But one finds difficulty in agree- 
 ing with such an opinion. Nothing else of Bol's 
 known at the present time lives up to this portrait. 
 It is too large in feeling, too sure in drawing, too 
 well set, too firm for Bol. But it certainly is not 
 well handled for Rembrandt, nor is it altogether 
 

 42 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 like him in the quahty of the Hght. However, the 
 fact should not be lost sight of that here before 
 you is a masterpiece of Dutch portraiture, call it 
 by what painter's name you will. 
 2016. The Night Watch. This is not a night pic- 
 ture, but is supposed to represent full sunlight. 
 The yellow tone of the varnish, much repainting, 
 and Rembrandt's limited scheme of illumination 
 have all combined to give it a torchlight effect and 
 early led the French to speak of it as the " Ronde 
 de Nuit.'' Reynolds accepted the mistake and 
 translated the name into the Night Watch. It is 
 a sortie of the Frans Banning Cocq Shooting Com- 
 pany from their quarters in broad daylight. It 
 was painted in 1642, was afterward cut down at 
 the sides and top, has been much repainted, and re- 
 cently was slashed with a knife by a wandering 
 fool in the gallery. But, in spite of all its damage, 
 it still has wonderful force, interest, mystery. 
 The illumination is its weakness and its strength. 
 The light does not come from the sky and is not 
 all-pervading, but, on the contrary, comes directly 
 from the individual heads and figures, as though 
 a series of individual portraits had been separately 
 painted and brought together on one canvas. 
 Each head has an illumination of its own, as though 
 each had in turn been lighted by the flash of a gig- 
 lamp and painted under that condition. The high 
 lights on the faces are followed by swift degradation 
 into deep shadows on the neck or hat or coat. 
 The result is strong individual heads, but no oneness 
 of illumination, and not too much unity of effect in 
 the picture. The only things that hold the picture 
 together are colour, grouping, and atmosphere. 
 But the colour is as unmercifully sacrificed as is the 
 
REMBRANDT 43 
 
 light. In shadow it is nearly obliterated; in full 
 light it blazes. Nevertheless, it is wonderfully fine. 
 The splendid buff of Lieutenant Ruytenberg is 
 repeated in the little girl with the cock hanging 
 at her girdle, and again, but more faintly, in the 
 drum at the right, and in the helmet of the last 
 man at the left. The red sash of Captain Cocq 
 is repeated in the figures at the right and left. 
 What a wonderful medley of colour and arbitrarily 
 contrasted lights it is, with the lieutenant's gorget 
 of steel, white feather, buff coat and boots, the 
 captain's costume of black and red, the greenish 
 cape of the little girl, the subordinated colour of the 
 standard-bearer, and the many repeated notes on 
 either side! And what wonderful portrait heads 
 these are I Some of them are ragged, mealy, and 
 thumbed, as are also the hands; but this has 
 come about through cleaning and repainting. 
 There is hardly an inch of the canvas intact, the 
 heads are all damaged, but they are still strong. 
 And those in the background as they come forward, 
 peering out of the gloom and shadow, how mys- 
 terious they are! The depth of the background 
 still shows through the dim lighting and out of 
 it emerge here and there heads, figures, swaying 
 lances, gleaming halberds, half-seen arches, parts 
 of columns. What life there is in the second tier 
 of portraits! And what movement and action 
 about all the figures ! Notice the poetry of motion 
 in the captain and the lieutenant. How well they 
 move; how firmly their feet strike the ground! 
 Your attention will be called to the shadow of 
 the captain's hand on the lieutenant's coat, but 
 never mind it. Look at the movement, and con- 
 sider the disarray, the turmoil, the realistic unex- 
 
44 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 pectedness of the whole group. Look at the run- 
 ning boy at the far left, or the drummer coming in 
 from the right, or the man with the gun back of 
 the lieutenant. Finally, consider it as a mere 
 pattern of colour interwoven with light and shade, 
 upon which appear these wonderful portraits of a 
 shooting company in unpremeditated movement. 
 Is it not a wonder of both realism and decoration 
 in one? For all its sad condition, its hardened 
 outlines, darkened shadows, hot flesh, and raw 
 surface; for all its positive sins against the truth 
 of light, it is an extraordinary masterpiece and de- 
 serves its world-wide fame. 
 
 2024. The Toilet. This was once supposed to be 
 
 a Narcissus, but is now put down as a Young 
 Woman at Her Toilet. The picture is good in col- 
 our and has a certain amount of force in its light- 
 ing, but there is no particular reason for thinking 
 it by Rembrandt. The ill-drawn figure alone would 
 be against such a belief. Rembrandt's drawing was 
 naturalistic, not academic, but this figure shows 
 neither method to advantage. 
 
 2022. Portrait of a Young Lady of Rank. The por- 
 trait is much cleaned, and the finer touches of the 
 brush (the final surface modellings) are lost; but 
 Rembrandt still shows in the hand, the dress, and 
 the face. Notice the colour in the fiesh of the 
 hand. The robe is sharply but accurately drawn, 
 and the detail of earrings, lace, and pearls is care- 
 fully given. Done late in the painter's grey period. 
 Retouched, perhaps, in the hair and the hand.^ 
 
 2020. The Stone Bridge. A very good little land- 
 scape that Hercules Seghers or an even more 
 modern painter might have done as readily as 
 
REMBRANDT 45 
 
 Rembrandt. The Seghers thunder-cloud is there 
 in the sky, but a modern might have put it there. 
 As for the sunburst on the central foliage, it is a 
 focussing of light followed by many others beside 
 Rembrandt and Seghers. All the school inherited 
 the tradition of centralised light surrounded and 
 emphasised by darks. 
 
 2018. Anatomical Lecture of Professor Deyman, A 
 
 fragment of a picture hurt by fire, and since much 
 repainted and restored. It hardly represents Rem- 
 brandt in any way, and is only an interesting ruin. 
 
 2017. Syndics of the Cloth Hall. Painted in 1661-2, 
 
 ** and showing Rembrandt in his late manner, when 
 his handling had become a little heavy. He now 
 wanders and feels for larger masses at the ex- 
 pense of detail. He is still very powerful, and his 
 greater breadth of view at this time is, perhaps, 
 to be preferred to that in his earlier and more 
 elaborated portraits. How strong these faces! 
 Even the flattened one at the back has character 
 about it. What really wonderful characters they 
 are! And how animated and co-ordinated the 
 whole group! They are figuring up their year's 
 accounts, perhaps, when some one enters the room 
 and they all look up. How simply it is done! 
 Look at the doing of the hats or coats or white 
 linen, the mass of the splendid table-cloth, the wall, 
 the shadowy room with the well-diffused light. 
 What colour in that cloth! It still fairly reeks 
 with it, though blistered and scaled and repainted 
 in spots. This is Rembrandt at his height to some. 
 His broad vision, his penetration, his large model- 
 ling, his sense of colour and light were never better 
 shown than here. As for his handling, there is no 
 
46 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 blundering about it. It bears no resemblance to 
 the ineffective brush-work of pupils, such as Aert 
 de Gelder, many of whose works are put down as 
 old-age Rembrandts. Yet this picture was painted 
 within half a dozen years of his death. Did he ever 
 blunder with the brush or have we been fed on 
 fancies about him all these years? 
 
 2058. Rootius, Albertz. A Little Girl with a Goat. 
 
 This picture is suggestive of the good workman- 
 ship that prevailed in the Dutch School, even among 
 second-rate painters. It is done with knowledge 
 and a sense of colour, and the handling is very 
 good. 
 
 2067. Rubens, Peter Paul. Helene Fourment. It 
 
 has been cleaned too much in the throat and chest, 
 flattened disagreeably in the forehead, and has some 
 old repainting in the hair and sides of the head. 
 But it is fairly effective and attractive. The eyes 
 wander a little and the smile is a bit weary. No- 
 tice how the sleeve, dress, brooch, and chain are 
 done. Probably a repetition or a copy made up 
 from the large seated figure of Helene Fourment, 
 at Munich. 
 
 2068. Portrait of Anne of Austria. A repetition of 
 
 the portrait in the Louvre (No. 2112), probably 
 not by Rubens but by some pupil in his workshop. 
 It has not the handling of Rubens. 
 
 2066. Cimon and Pera, It is not likely that this 
 
 picture was ever more than a school piece. It is 
 not well drawn. Notice the woman's hands, the 
 man's neck, and the heads at the window. As for 
 the painting, it has probably been retouched in 
 the hair, but the draperies are feebly done in a 
 
RUISDAEL 47 
 
 weak attempt at the Rubens facility of brush. 
 The colour has not the Rubens quality. 
 2066a. Noli Me Tangere. The head and hair of the 
 
 * Magdalen are really superb, and those of the Christ 
 are very well done. The figures have been injured, 
 as notice in the Magdalen's arms and hands, and 
 also the neck and torso of the Christ. The colour 
 is better in the Magdalen's robes than in those of 
 the Christ. The landscape was probably done by 
 some pupil or collaborator. The trees at the left 
 are not by Rubens, nor the blue of the distance. 
 The vines back of the figure at the right are more 
 believable, but not at all wonderful. 
 
 2070. Ruelles, Pieter des. Convent of St. Agnes, 
 Utrecht. It is coarsely and sketchily done, but is 
 excellent in its handling and quite fine in its 
 colour. The painter is unknown to fame. This 
 is his one identified picture. 
 
 2075. Ruisdael, Jacob van. Landscape. A large Ruis- 
 dael in his conventional manner, with his studio 
 waterfall, white birch, cloudy sky, and distant 
 church tower. It is fairly good in general effect, 
 but wanting in any positive sense of reality or 
 strong feeling for decorative colour. One grows a 
 little weary of the reiteration of this one note. 
 
 2074. The Mill Near Wyk-by-Duurstede. This is 
 
 * the same conventional Ruisdael scheme of greys 
 (not true of Holland or of any other country under 
 the sun) but with a subject different from Ruisdael's 
 usual performance, in which some local truth of 
 mill and buildings is given. A diagonal composi- 
 tion with a good sky and a flat river view. 
 
 2078. Landscape. The Ruisdael formula varied a 
 
 little by the introduction of the cottage at the left 
 
48 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 and some rocks at the right. The same slate- 
 grey colour scheme, with carelessly done sky and 
 clouds. One wonders if Ruisdael was such an ar- 
 rant painter of pot-boilers, or if all the by-products 
 of his school have been put under his name. It is 
 the same wonder that one has about many another 
 celebrity in art. 
 
 2076. Waterfall. A good routine Ruisdael with a 
 
 rather romantic subject and acceptable composi- 
 tion. The sky and distant hills happen to be 
 better this time than usual. 
 
 2084a. Ruysdael, Salomon van. Landscape. It is 
 
 large in size rather than in quality. The sky and 
 the trees are thin, and one is hardly more impressed 
 by the thickness of the earth. 
 
 2082a. Landscape. This is a rather delicate and 
 
 attractive picture, with some sentiment about it 
 which scarcely speaks for Salomon van Ruysdael. 
 
 2084. Landscape. This is a fairly good landscape 
 
 for Salomon van Ruysdael, who was by no means 
 so good a painter as Jacob. Here he is much better 
 than usual, without rising to any beetling height. 
 It is a diagonal composition with good light and 
 warm colouring. 
 
 2099. Saenredam, Pieter Jansz. The Maria Church 
 in Utrecht. A fine architectural drawing with a 
 large feeling of the spaciousness of the church and 
 also with good light and colour. 
 
 2189. Scorel, Jan van. Mary Magdalen. The figure 
 
 * is rubbed smooth in the face and hands but still 
 
 holds its drawing fairly well. The cloth across the 
 
 lap is uneasy and overloaded with pattern, but fine 
 
 in colour. A Hebrew inscription is woven into the 
 
SCOREL, JAN VAN 49 
 
 yoke of the dress. The distant landscape seems 
 out of tone with the foreground, and the mountain 
 forms, especially at the extreme left, are quite im- 
 possible, yet they seem not obtrusive or disturb- 
 ing. The tree at the right is excellent. The pic- 
 ture has not only much charm but decided strength. 
 It is impressive, positive, individual, in a class by 
 itself. Scorel, and his pupil Heemskerck, were both 
 painters of power. 
 
 2190. Solomon and the Queen of Sheha. This pic- 
 
 * ture is better held together than, say. No. 2191, 
 and is very fine in line and colour, as, for instance, 
 in the woman at the left with the patterned robe 
 or the central figures. Notice the kneeling figure 
 of the queen or the back of the warrior at the right. 
 A most interesting picture, and full of masterful 
 drawing, but now, unfortunately, much hurt by 
 cleaning and repainting. This picture, with No. 
 2191, is thought by some to be by Lucas de Heere. 
 
 2191. Bathsheba. This is a picture of strange at- 
 
 * traction though radically deficient in some features 
 — perhaps purposely so. The foreground, for ex- 
 ample, is too dark for the background. They do 
 not go together or make a unit. Again, the moun- 
 tain forms in the distance are as fantastic as those 
 of Bosch or Patinir. Bathsheba herself is beauti- 
 ful in relief against the dark wood, and the repeated 
 lines of her figure in the statues right and left are 
 very effective. The robes of white are also re- 
 peated far over to the right in the light-robed 
 figures. The picture might be cut in two, perpen- 
 dicularly, for there are really two pictures on the 
 panel. But after all the fault-finding one comes 
 back to it with renewed pleasure. It is no weak 
 
50 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 affair at least. The attribution has been ques- 
 tioned, but a more probable ascription has not been 
 furnished. 
 
 2242. Steen, Jan. The Scullery Maid. Quite an in- 
 teresting little picture, though a bit smooth and 
 approximating the work of such lesser Dutchmen 
 as Van Mieris in its surface and in its rendering 
 of small detail. No. 2243 is probably some sort 
 of school piece. 
 
 2237. The Feast of St, Nicholas. A well-known 
 
 Steen, but not his best effort in light, colour, or 
 painting. The picture has some animation and 
 bustle about it. The composition is centralised 
 about the child with the toys. There is good 
 painting in the dresses and the room is well enough 
 done. The hands are a little hurt by repainting. 
 
 2245. The Parrot's Cage. Wherein the cage is just 
 
 as well done as the figures — as it should be in pic- 
 tures of this sort. Interiors were all of a piece 
 with Steen and figures often counted for no more 
 than furniture. Notice that the pewter plate at the 
 left is better done than the cook's face above it or 
 the three faces at the right. A better Steen than 
 the larger No. 2237. 
 
 2246. The Sick Lady. Here is Steen in a tender 
 
 mood, doing a sick-room scene without jest or 
 grossness. There is a nice feeling about the patient 
 with her head on a pillow and the helpless look in 
 her eyes. The lady is the picture. The man is 
 more commonplace but holds his place very well. 
 The foreground is very elaborately finished, but 
 the background has undergone a change in the 
 surface of the bed, wall, and lute, for instance. It 
 looks as though the change had been brought about 
 
 * 
 
STEEN, JAN 51 
 
 by rash cleaning with alcohol. Apparently a harsh 
 start had been made and then stopped because of 
 the injury produced. Compare the lute on the 
 wall with the untouched clock at the right. The 
 blue table-cloth has suffered also. 
 
 2238. The Happy Family. A large and well-held- 
 
 together picture, fine in its tone and good in its 
 colour, though it might be thought a trifle warm. 
 Notice the little girl and the child in the fore- 
 ground; also the still-life, the jug and pans on the 
 floor. The background is carelessly put in, as are 
 also the boy and the window at the left. The 
 group is doing something — every member of it — 
 as though the curtain were about to rise on the 
 first act. Notice the drawing of the head, neck, 
 and bust of the mother. 
 
 2234. After a Drinking Bout. An excellent Steen, 
 
 * in his smoother manner, but with perfect drawing 
 
 and handling from start to finish. And given with 
 evident zest, as though the subject appealed to the 
 painter. This picture and the Bad Company (No. 
 2580) in the Louvre are done with more painter's 
 pride and pleasure than almost any other works 
 of Steen. Notice the drawing of the drunken 
 woman, the drag of the dress across the knees, 
 the stocking foot, the loose arm, the helpless head. 
 And what drawing and colouring in the wretched 
 old man! What life in the subordinated ruffians 
 at the back! A capital picture, over-smooth in the 
 surface and varnished too heavily, but capital, 
 nevertheless. 
 
 2235. The Prince's Birthday. A smooth picture in 
 
 its surface, with many figures in a crowded composi- 
 tion. Somewhat dull in the light and brown in 
 
52 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 colour, but well painted. The room is given with 
 atmospheric envelope, and the people well placed. 
 
 2244. The Dancing Lesson. A very good Steen, 
 
 * painted with freedom and gusto as well as cer- 
 tainty. The playing girl is charming in colour. 
 And how very easily her dress and hair are hit off! 
 The boy at left is beautifully done also. Every 
 object is in place and in proper relationship, one 
 to another, as regards light and colour. Even the 
 cat is dragged into the colour scheme as into the 
 dancing lesson. 
 
 2250. Pilgrims at Emntaus. A strange Steen, with 
 
 the characters not sad or suffering, but merely dull 
 and sleepy. The picture is hot in colour and not 
 very free in handling. The head of Christ at the 
 side hardly produces an illusion, and the back- 
 ground is not substantial enough. Did Steen do it? 
 
 2282a. Sweerts, Michiel. Playing at Draughts. This 
 picture has some skilful drawing and rather broad, 
 flat painting, but it is not to be compared with the 
 fine work attributed to Sweerts in the Munich 
 Gallery (No. 390). It seems hardly possible that 
 they can be by the same hand, so superior is the 
 latter to this No. 2282a. 
 
 2298b. Teniers the Younger, David. Friendly Chat. 
 
 An excellent piece of brush-work — excellent be- 
 cause it is not only easily done but surely, effec- 
 tively done. Every stroke counts. Look closely 
 at it. 
 
 570. Terborch, Gerard. Paternal Advice. This pic- 
 ture is somewhat injured in the background and 
 repainted in the hands and elsewhere. The satin 
 gown is not badly done, nor the table at the left. 
 
TERBORCH 63 
 
 nor the chairs. The bed is only suggested and 
 has now darkened, as has also the wall. The face 
 of the second figure, drinking from the glass, has 
 been flattened by cleaning or retouching and the 
 glass itself almost obliterated. Another version 
 of this picture is at Berlin (No. 791), without the 
 dog, which here does not help out the empty space 
 at the right and might advantageously have been 
 omitted. 
 
 5681 The Painter and His Wife{?). Two small 
 
 569 J pictures of indifferent value. The faces, hands, 
 and arms are rather poor in drawing and tortured 
 in handling — something unusual for Terborch. 
 The pictures are on copper, and are probably not 
 retouched or repainted but ineffectively handled 
 in the first instance. They have an uncomfortable 
 glitter about them which makes one wonder if 
 they are all they pretend to be — if, indeed, they 
 are by Terborch. 
 
 569a. A Family Scene. There is some atmosphere 
 
 about it but little unity of composition. It is a 
 scattered piece, well painted in parts, as, for in- 
 stance, in the costumes, but giving no striking 
 indication of having been painted by Terborch. 
 It may be his work, though the drawing and han- 
 dling are coarse for him. Look at the hands and 
 at the man's eyes and brows. 
 
 573a 1 Portraits of Frangois de Vicq and Wife, 
 
 573b J Very patrician in type, with much nobility of 
 * presence, and the lady possessed of great charm. 
 Beautiful portraits if, perhaps, not the best that 
 Terborch did. They leave little to be desired. 
 The black and white is varied by the steel-blue of 
 the table-cloth and by the blue shadows on the 
 
54 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 linen. Notice the beauty of the surface in the flat 
 monotone of the background. The lady's hands 
 a little injured by cleaning. 
 
 573. Helena van der Schalcke, A very naive child 
 
 in white — sharply pronounced as a note of white 
 on black touched by colour. But, like its com- 
 panion portraits (Nos. 571, 572), it has no pro- 
 nounced Terborch touch or quality about it. Yet 
 it has decided charm of presence. It is by some 
 Terborch follower. 
 
 574 1 Portrait of a Man and Wife. The figures 
 
 575 J stand well and wear their costumes easily, but they 
 
 are not so fine as the De Vicq portraits (Nos. 573a, 
 573b). The lady's dress in its light colour detracts 
 from the head a bit. There is good drawing in 
 both portraits, but they have been hurt by clean- 
 ing and some retouching. Moreover, the back- 
 grounds now come forward and compress the fig- 
 ures with an opaque grey that is not pleasant. 
 
 571 1 Portraits of Van Schalcke and Wife, Com- 
 
 572 J pare these portraits with Nos. 573a and 573b, and 
 
 you will immediately notice a difference due to 
 something more than cleaning or restoration. They 
 are inferior work and probably by some Terborch 
 follower. Notice the lady's ruff, mouth, chin, hands 
 for their poor drawing and painting. 
 
 2446. Velde, Adriaen van de. The Artist and Family. 
 
 A large landscape, with figures not well done, but 
 occupying their place in the landscape without 
 friction. The nurse and baby at the left are a 
 little spotty but amusing. What little light on 
 earth from a blue sky overhead! All the Dutch 
 landscapists seem deficient in their intensity of 
 
VERMEER OF DELFT 55 
 
 sunlight, save those Hke De Hooch, who portrayed 
 it in interiors by contrast with shadow. 
 
 2448. The Hut. With a fine sky and clouds and a 
 
 good hillside and tree effect. The light is excel- 
 lent and in accord with its reverse — shadow. An 
 exceptionally fine landscape for Adriaen van de 
 Velde to have painted. 
 
 2479. Velde the Younger, Willem van de. A Gale. 
 
 A somewhat overdone attempt at a heavy sea, with 
 much spindrift and scud flying from the wave- 
 crests. The light is centralised and the colour 
 is grey-brown bordering on the blackish in the 
 shadows. The clouds at the left somewhat fan- 
 tastic. 
 
 2474. Near the Coast. A calm sea, more interest- 
 ing in the handling than the stormy sea (No. 2479). 
 It has an attractive silver-grey envelope. But the 
 Dutch sea painters got as little colour out of the 
 sea as the landscapists out of trees, streams, and 
 meadows. Nature was a grey affair to all of them. 
 
 2478. — — The Cannon Shot. This is Van de Velde at 
 
 * his best, with a smooth sea, drooping sails, and a 
 cloud of smoke very realistically done. The ripples 
 of the water are somewhat regular. The ship is 
 well given in bulk and weight. The sky is stained, 
 but this is not very obtrusive. 
 
 2527. Vermeer (or Van der Meer) of Delft, Jan. 
 
 * Young Woman Reading a Letter. There has been 
 some drastic cleaning of the wall as well as of the 
 lady's face, hands, arm, and blue coat; but the 
 picture still remains a thing of beauty in its light, 
 its blue colour scheme, and its fine drawing. It is 
 
56 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 also a charming picture in the quiet poise of the 
 figure, its bulk in the given space, its sense of truth, 
 as well as its picturesque value. The bow over 
 the ear is darkened, as well as the shadow of the 
 table-cloth. Notice the drawing of the chair at 
 the right, the map on the wall, the dress. Notice 
 also the blue shadows as well as the blue light. 
 The whole picture is a different tale of the brush 
 from No. 2528. This is the real Vermeer; the 
 other is the pseudo- Vermeer. 
 
 2528. The Letter. A hard, glassy picture of a 
 
 quality that would do no credit to a Netscher or 
 even a Van der Werff . The room is cramped and 
 ill drawn, the door-jambs and picture-frames are 
 rigid with streaked high lights, the curtain and 
 sofa back are extravagantly pronounced in pat- 
 terns and hard and flat in rendering. The figures 
 again are hard in drawing and sharp in light. The 
 lady is seated upon nothing, has an impossible flat 
 lap upon which the lute is supposed to rest, and 
 has high lights in her eyes, her earrings, her pearls, 
 all of the same intensity and quality. The high 
 lights in the nails of the chair or bench are dabs 
 of the same white. The whites everywhere are 
 crude, spotty, lacking in quality. And what an 
 absence of air! What airless pictures on the wall 
 and what a map at the left! The whole picture 
 may be questioned. It is possibly Vermeer in de- 
 cline, when his method may have become hard and 
 mechanical, but it is just as likely jo be the work 
 of an imitator of the master, some Hoogstraten of 
 the brush. It is not possible that the painter of 
 No. 2527 in this gallery or No. 912b at Berlin 
 or No. 1336 at Dresden also did this No. 2528 or 
 the No. 625 at The Hague or the Nos. 1383 and 
 
VERMEER OF DELFT 57 
 
 2568 in the National Gallery, London. We meet 
 with the pseudo-Vermeer elsewhere. 
 
 2528a. The Cook. Originally an excellent Vermeer, 
 
 * with a fine robust figure in yellow, blue, and red 
 that stands well, is well rounded, and belongs in 
 the room. The light comes in from the window 
 and is distributed through the room effectively and 
 not too arbitrarily. The picture is well drawn and 
 is excellent in colour. What wonderful work in the 
 bread and jug on the table, the basket on the wall, 
 the figure itself! How absolute it is! Unfortu- 
 nately, the picture has somehow suffered in its sur- 
 face. It is not probable that Vermeer left the wall 
 so light in tone at the right or so indefinite in 
 meaning at the bottom, where the base-board of 
 tiles might be construed to be a distant view of 
 water. There has also been an exaggerated dot- 
 ting of the surface in many places, as, for instance, 
 in the yellow dots on the bread, on the handle of 
 the basket, or the blue dots on the blue cloth and 
 dress or the white dots on the white head-dress 
 and face. Modern painters of the impressionist 
 faith delight to claim this as the first case of pointil- 
 lisme among the old masters, but people of less 
 enthusiasm regard it merely as a mannerism of the 
 painter which is unduly exaggerated in this picture. 
 He used it in other pictures, and it is apparent in the 
 celebrated Delft landscape at The Hague, but one 
 fails to see its effectiveness. Terborch, Netscher, 
 and others employed it somewhat. The right-hand 
 finger here is injured by retouching, also the left 
 arm and hand. The picture is not the best exam- 
 ple of Vermeer, but it has great merit both as rep- 
 resentation and as decoration. Compare it with 
 No. 2528 for a violent contrast. 
 
58 THE RIJKS MUSEUM 
 
 2557a. Vinckeboons, David. The Hurdy-Gurdy Man. 
 
 With capital grouping of a crowd and consider- 
 able beauty in the colour. Loosely and carelessly 
 drawn and easily painted. Deficient drawing usu- 
 ally calls for glib brush-work to hide it. 
 
 2562. Vlieger, Simon de. River Scene, Rather mo- 
 notonous in its tone of grey, but decorative. It is 
 not wanting in a generalised truth of water, air, 
 and sky. In De Vlieger*s best style as regards the 
 ships and the light and shadow of the foreground. 
 
 2561. Return of the Falconer. A fine bit of old 
 
 ruin, with a good effect of light and shade and 
 much excellence of colour. Without the animals 
 and figures the picture might have passed muster 
 as a Rembrandt. 
 
 2573. Vois, Arie de. The Merry Musician. This pic- 
 ture is like No. 2572 by the same painter, and both 
 of them are smooth, carefully done genre pieces of 
 good workmanship, though by no means up to the 
 work of Brouwer or Adriaen van Ostade. 
 
 2595. Vos, Maerten de. Family Group. It is very 
 well drawn and has excellent colour. Look at the 
 heads and hands. There is some repainting and 
 too much varnishing about it. 
 
 2602. Vries, Michiel van. Old Rustic Dwelling. It is 
 
 better than a Ruisdael or a Hobbema because more 
 original and less mannered. Look at the house 
 with its fine colour, light, and shade. 
 
 2616. Weenix, Jan. Dead Game. A decorative pic- 
 ture probably painted for some baronial hall where, 
 perhaps, it helped out the colour of the room in 
 which it was placed. The perspective effect at the 
 back "cuts through" the wall and creates an illu- 
 
WYNANTS 59 
 
 sion which was, no doubt, thought wonderful in 
 Weenix's time. 
 
 2620. Weenix, Jan Baptist. Dead Game. An excel- 
 lent piece of painting in the deer and dog. Not 
 crowded by many objects, and the better for it. 
 
 2671. Wet the Elder, Jacob de. Christ Blessing Little 
 Children, A Rembrandtesque composition by a 
 Rembrandt pupil of some ability. It is good in 
 grouping as in light, but, like most of the pictures 
 put down to the Rembrandt followers, it is too 
 weak, too pretty. 
 
 2702. Woutersz, Jan. The Intendant*s Office. Look 
 at the brutal strength of drawing in the heads and 
 hands, the excellent painting of the costumes, table, 
 and background. There was no dearth of good 
 painters in Holland during the blooming time of 
 Dutch art. 
 
 2733. Wynants, Jan. Landscape. The picture is very 
 good in the figures of the foreground and in its 
 realistic scrap of sand-bank back of them. A small 
 landscape, but much to be preferred to Wynants's 
 larger canvases. See also No. 2732. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 Dutch School. 
 
 Dutch School. 
 
 6 > Aertsen. 
 
 7J 
 
 ]l^ \ German School. 
 17g J 
 
 21. Cleve. 
 
 43 
 
 43a 
 
 47 
 
 48 
 
 49. Engelbrechtsen. 
 
 53^ 
 
 54 
 151 
 175. 
 
 340. Flemish School. 
 367. Antolines. 
 382. Asselyn. 
 417. Bakhuysen. 
 468. Berchem. 
 493. Beresteyn. 
 514. Bisschop. 
 522. Bles. 
 
 567. Bor. 
 
 568 
 
 569 
 
 569a 
 
 570 
 
 571 
 
 572 \ Terborch. 
 
 573 
 
 573a 
 
 573b 
 
 574 
 
 575 
 
 587. Bosch. 
 
 590c 1 
 
 591 >Both. 
 
 597 J 
 
 627. Brekelenkam. 
 
 644] 
 
 645 \ Brueghel, Jan the Elder. 
 
 647 J 
 
 657. Beuckelaer. 
 
 681. Cappelle. 
 
 7Jl}codde. 
 
 722 1 Cornelisz van Oostsa- 
 
 723 j nen. 
 735. Craey. 
 7441 
 
 III Cuyp, Aelbert. 
 
 750 J 
 
 768a. Decker. 
 
 773. Delff. 
 
 791 
 794 
 795 \ Dou. 
 
 797 
 798. 
 
 g5-}Dyck,Van. 
 
 877. Eeckhout. 
 
 887. Ekels the Younger. 
 
 894-1 
 
 898 
 
 907 
 
 909 
 
 Elias. 
 
 -) 
 
 > Everdingen. 
 
 61 
 
62 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Flinck. 
 
 919. Fabritius, B. 
 
 g22^ [ Fabritius, C. 
 
 925 
 
 926a 
 
 927 
 
 931 
 
 935. Francken the Younger. 
 
 947. Garofalo. 
 
 950 
 
 950a 
 
 950b 
 
 951 
 
 95lA 
 
 965d 
 
 965e 
 
 Geertgen tot Sint Jans. 
 
 Gelder, A. de. 
 
 984a. Goes, Van der. 
 989a] 
 
 990 [Goyen, Van. 
 
 991 J 
 
 1021. Hackaert. 
 1082. Hals, Dirck. 
 1084- ] 
 
 1091 \ Hals, Frans. 
 1093 J 
 
 1127. Heemskerck. 
 
 1134 
 
 1135 
 
 1139 
 
 1140 
 
 1143 
 
 1145 
 
 1171. Heyden, Van der. 
 
 1188 I Hobbema. 
 1224. Hondecoeter. 
 
 Heist, Van der. 
 
 1248 1 
 
 1249- \ Hooch, P. de. 
 
 1252 J 
 
 1256 I H^^ogs^^'aten. 
 1315. Jordaens. 
 
 1350 }^^>^'^^- 
 
 1375. Koninck, S. 
 
 1426. Lastman. 
 
 1452. Leyden, Lucas van. 
 
 1455. Leyster. 
 
 1501] 
 
 1502 } Maes. 
 
 1504] 
 
 1529. Metsys, Q. 
 
 1540. Mesdach. 
 
 1554. Metsu, Gabriel. 
 
 1581] 
 
 1582 [ Mierevelt. 
 
 1584] 
 
 1634. Moeyaert. 
 
 1640. Momper. 
 
 1661 I ^^^^^^s^- 
 1674. Mostaert. 
 1688. Murillo. 
 1705. Mytens, M. 
 
 1721a I ^^^^» ^' van der. 
 1725. Netscher. 
 1793a. Orley, B. van. 
 
 1821b I ^^^^^^' ^- van. 
 1898. Poorter. 
 
INDEX 
 
 63 
 
 1909-1 
 
 1913 > Potter. 
 
 1915 J 
 
 1920a. Pourbus. 
 
 1923a. Provoost. 
 
 1932. Pynas. 
 
 1933. Quast. 
 
 1974. Ravesteyn, H. van. 
 
 1975a. Ravesteyn, J. A. van. 
 
 2016- ^ 
 
 2020 
 
 2022 \ Rembrandt. 
 
 2023 
 
 2024 
 
 2058. Rootius. 
 
 2066 1 
 
 2067 \ Rubens. 
 
 2068] 
 
 2070. Ruelles, P. 
 
 2074^ 
 
 2075 
 
 2076 
 
 2078^ 
 
 2082a 1 
 
 2084 > Ruysdael, S. 
 
 2084a J 
 
 2099. Saenredam. 
 
 2J85-}scoreL 
 
 Steen. 
 
 . des. 
 
 > Ruisdael, J. 
 
 2234 
 
 2235 
 
 2237 
 
 2238 
 
 2242 
 
 2244 
 
 2245 
 
 2246 
 
 2250, 
 
 2282a. Sweerts 
 
 2298b. Teniers 
 
 2446 
 
 Velde, A. van de. 
 
 Velde W. van de. 
 
 JVermeer of Delft. 
 
 2557a. Vinckeboons. 
 
 f,^j}viieger. 
 
 2573. Vois. 
 
 2595. Vos, M. de. 
 
 2602. Vries. 
 
 2616. Weenix, Jan. 
 
 2620. Weenix, J. B. 
 
 2671. Wet the Elder. 
 
 2702. Woutersz. 
 
 2733. Wynants. 
 N.N. Dou. 
 
THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
NOTE ON THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 The pictures here at The Hague were, for the most 
 part, painted in Holland by Dutch painters. It is a 
 national collection, like the Rijks Museum at Amster- 
 dam, in that very few foreign schools are represented. 
 It started from one of the collections brought together 
 by William V. At first the pictures were placed in 
 the Mauritshuis, with many odds and ends of curiosi- 
 ties and antiquities, and it was not until 1875 that the 
 whole building was given over to pictures. By gift 
 and purchase the collection has grown until to-day it 
 is a famous gallery. Every one goes to it to see Paul 
 Potter's Young Bull, if nothing else. Unfortunately, 
 the Young Bull is more popular than its artistic merit 
 would warrant, but there are other equally famous 
 and much finer works to make up for it. There is, 
 for instance, the excellent Lesson in Anatomy, by 
 Rembrandt; the View of Delft, by Vermeer, one of 
 the most precious landscapes in all the world; the 
 Young Girl, by Vermeer, and the Diana, attributed to 
 him — both of them superb works, if somewhat different 
 one from the other; a beautiful Salome, by Cornelisz 
 van Oostsanen; the majestic Annunciation, by Heems- 
 kerck; two very fine Van Dycks, with works by Rubens, 
 Hals, Keyser, Mierevelt, Fabritius, Maes, and others. 
 
 67 
 
68 NOTE ON THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 There are a few Italian pictures and one or two Span- 
 ish works, but these are of shght importance. 
 
 The Mauritshuis was never designed for gallery pur- 
 poses, but it is, nevertheless, fairly well fitted for the 
 limited, if choice, collection of pictures it holds. The 
 lighting is from side windows, and is often exaggerated 
 or exasperating, but no worse, perhaps, than that of 
 other European galleries. The pictures are hung as 
 w^U as circumstances will admit, and the gallery is 
 well aired and, generally speaking, well kept. 
 
 The catalogue in use (1913) is little more than a 
 finding list, but sufficient. The unabridged catalogue 
 of 1895, now unhappily out of print, contained notes 
 of distinct critical value. A new edition of it is prom- 
 ised and will be welcomed. Photographs of the pic- 
 tures in the collection are sold in the gallery, and 
 Hanfstaengl has published a volume of half-tone re- 
 productions of the chief works. 
 
 There are some pictures in the Municipal Museum 
 that should be seen if the student has sufficient time. 
 Your Baedeker will point the way. 
 
THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 543. Backer, Jacob Adriaenz. Portrait of a Man. 
 
 A portrait that was at one time put down to Fer- 
 dinand Bol and then to Jacob Lois. It perhaps 
 belongs to Backer's later style, when he had prac- 
 tically abandoned the Rembrandt formula and had 
 become much smoother in his surfaces; but it 
 still has a look of Bol about it. 
 
 391. Begeyn, Abraham Janz. The Quarry. With 
 small figures that are effective as patches of colour 
 in a rather hot landscape. The quarry was evi- 
 dently a study from an actual scene. 
 
 562. Brekelenkam, Quieringh Gerritz. Blood Let- 
 ting, A picture rather careless in its map and 
 background, and with drawing not well under- 
 stood, but satisfactory in a light scheme of colour. 
 
 739. Bruyn, Barthel. Portraits of Man and Wife. 
 
 They are very ornate portraits in their coats-of- 
 arms, flowers, rings, chains. Not so sturdy and 
 positive as Holbein's work, but effective neverthe- 
 less. Notice the hands. 
 
 311. Galiari, Carlo. Adoration of Kings. A flash of 
 Venetian colour in this northern gallery that is not 
 to be despised. It is rich and full in its notes, even 
 though Carlo and not Paolo did it. 
 
 23. Cornelisz van Haarlem, Cornells. Peleus and 
 Thetis. There is much sprawling about of aca- 
 demic figures; but the work is rather weak in 
 
70 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 spirit. Compare it with the Heemskerck (Nos. 
 51-52) in the next room for the difference between 
 this weakness and that strength. Academic draw- 
 ing of the nude does not necessarily make art any 
 more than the microscopic painting of peanuts and 
 postage-stamps. Right thinking and feehng play 
 no small part in the total sum of good painting. 
 
 1. Cornelisz van Oostsanen (or Van Amsterdam), 
 * Jacob. Salome. To be admired without reser- 
 vations or quibblings about the painter or worries 
 about repainting. It is a beautiful panel in almost 
 every way — simple in composition and with a 
 fine architectural framing that binds the figure too 
 much, perhaps, though this is not marked. The 
 background is just right, the figure superb in poise, 
 the robes fine in colour. The head-dress is the 
 key-note in the colour scheme. There is some affin- 
 ity, slight though it may be, between the painter of 
 this picture and Herri met de Bles. The picture 
 has passed under names as far apart as Timoteo 
 della Vite and Diirer. Apparently something has 
 been painted out at the sides of the head. 
 
 627. Cuyp, Albert. Fowls. What good colour and 
 good painting! Compare the fowls with those by 
 Hondecoeter (No. 405). Cuyp seems broader and 
 more powerful with his brush. 
 32. Dou, Gerard. The Young Mother. In Dou's 
 smooth, porcelain-like style and with great detail — 
 five days to the lady's hand, a day to each finger. 
 The window light is effective. 
 
 239. Dyck, Anthony van. Portrait of Pieter Stevens 
 
 * (Sheffield?), A good portrait with an unusual 
 
 turn of the head and eyes which gives a romantic 
 
 cast to the sitter. The eyes, brows, mouth, and 
 
* 
 
 FLINCK, GOVERT 71 
 
 nose are done with telling effect. The glove is 
 hurt a little as also the face and background. The 
 coat-of-arms is very effective. 
 
 240. Portrait of Anna Wake, Wife of Pieter Stevens. 
 
 Companion piece to No. 239, done at the same time, 
 and perhaps the more effective portrait. The head is 
 well set on the neck and shoulders, the ruff travelling 
 around and back of the neck with truth and beauty. 
 The eyes, nose, and forehead are well drawn — the 
 last a little hurt by cleaning. The hair is superb 
 as is also the coat-of-arms. How well the figure 
 is placed on the canvas! How noble the type and 
 how easy the poise of the figure I The hands show 
 their black underbasing. 
 
 242. Portrait of Quentin Simons. A picture of some 
 
 distinction in the personality of the sitter as well 
 as in that of the painter. The head and eyes are 
 precisely drawn, the hands are somewhat academic, 
 the landscape holds its place fairly well. Injured a 
 little in the hands. Not a great but a very respect- 
 able effort. 
 
 605. Fabritius, Carel. The Linnet. A piece of 
 painter's work pure and simple, by the supposed 
 master of Jan Vermeer of Delft, and himself a 
 follower of Rembrandt. It is easily and surely 
 painted, but otherwise there is nothing remarkable 
 about it. The picture is sometimes referred to as 
 though it were a wonder, whereas it is only a sketchy 
 scrap that almost any good painter could have 
 done. 
 
 676. Flinck, Govert. Girl Near a Chair. A striking 
 picture in the placing of white upon dark, but in 
 other respects not remarkable, though fairly well 
 drawn and painted. The scheme is like the small 
 
72 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 child's portrait put down to Terborch in the Rijks 
 Museum, Amsterdam (No. 573), which see. 
 
 347. Fogolino, Marcello. Virgin Enthroned with 
 Child and Saints. An altar-piece somewhat heavy 
 in conception and execution, but a handsome piece 
 of colour. The painter's works are not frequently 
 seen. This one is stained and too much cleaned. 
 It looks a little odd among so many Dutch pictures. 
 
 737. Gelder, Aert de. The Temple. What a rich 
 piece of colour and a good interior! The figures 
 are not drawn very accurately, but they have bulk, 
 presence, and movement. (Not in the catalogue 
 of 1910.) 
 
 42 1 Goltzius, Hendrick. Mercury, Hercules, Mi^ 
 
 43 ) nerva. Large upright canvases with academic fig- 
 
 44 j ures, respectable in their drawing though not in- 
 
 spired in either their thinking or their feeling. 
 
 348. Gossart, Jan (Mabuse). Infant Christ and St. 
 John. As the catalogue sets forth, this is probably 
 a copy after a lost Leonardo da Vinci, but the copy 
 part of it need not blind one's eyes to its inherent 
 beauty. It is good in form and colour, with a fine 
 landscape at the back, not by Leonardo but by the 
 copyist. The ornaments at the sides (also Flem- 
 ish) are perhaps too much in evidence. A charm- 
 ing picture, now yellowed by the use of varnish. 
 
 45. Govaerts, Abraham. A Forest Scene. A good 
 study of the interior of a wood, after the style of 
 Jan Brueghel I, whose pupil Govaerts may have 
 been. On a much larger scale than Brueghel's 
 usual work, however. 
 
 551. Goyen, Jan van. View of Dordrecht. There is 
 a regularity in the forms and movements of the 
 
HALS, FRANS 73 
 
 waves, of the trees, of the clouds that one usually 
 sees in Van Goyen. The composition is also Van 
 Goyen's usual diagonal arrangement. The sky is 
 blustery. 
 
 623. Hals, Claes. Woman Reading. The picture is 
 as good in colour and light as it is bad in draw- 
 ing. Notice, for instance, the construction of the 
 woman's anatomy from hip to knee. It reminds 
 one of another Hals pupil in this gallery — Judith 
 Leyster (No. 564). 
 
 459 \ Hals, Frans. Portrait of Jacob Pietersz Olycan 
 
 460 J and Wife. Two portraits of a quality that is me- 
 
 diocre for Hals. The man's portrait is the freer of 
 the two. It is a little heavy in the shadows of the 
 ruff and a little precise in drawing. The woman's 
 portrait is hard in the drawing of the nose, brows, 
 and eyes, but has a touch of colour about it and a 
 good deal of decorative pattern in the dress. Her 
 left hand is well drawn. The coat-of-arms appears 
 as a spot because not quite true in value. They 
 are not unlike the Van Beresteyn portraits ascribed 
 to Hals in the Louvre. 
 
 618. Portrait of a Man. To be accepted with res- 
 ervations. It is hard and angular in hat, sleeve, 
 and shoulder. The face is painted easily enough, 
 but crudely, with no large knowledge of under- 
 lying drawing. There are many of these small 
 heads in the various galleries put down to Hals 
 (as also others to Rembrandt) that have no great 
 value and might easily be sketches, notes, or even 
 reduced copies. They are interesting, but not great 
 performances. This one has a very modern look, 
 as though done yesterday, and is a copy or imita- 
 tion of Hals — probably the latter. 
 
74 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 52. Heemskerck, Maerten van (Veen). Wings of 
 * the Altar-piece of the Guild of Drapers at Haarlem. 
 
 The inside of the wings has an Adoration of Shep- 
 herds at the right and an Adoration of Kings at 
 the left. Both panels are crowded with figures in 
 all attitudes and movements. The general effect 
 is restless as regards the composition and hot as 
 regards the colouring. There is much good draw- 
 ing of a hard quality, but with very vital strength 
 in it. Individual figures, robes, and colours are 
 to be admired, perhaps, more than the ensemble, as, 
 for instances, at the right the shepherds and woman 
 in yellow, and also the flying angels at the top; at 
 the left, the resplendent yellow-robed black king, 
 the Madonna, and the second king, also the tall, 
 patriarchal figure of the third king, above the 
 negro at the left. The heads are strong in char- 
 acterisation. Notice also the well-drawn hands. 
 And what effective brush-work still shows! 
 
 51. The Annunciation. This is the outside of the 
 
 altar wings, No. 52. The angel is at the right, the 
 Madonna at the left. Much simpler, and for that 
 reason much better than No. 52. The Madonna is 
 excellent, both in sentiment and in artistic feeling. 
 The grey-white drapery is uneasy but graceful, 
 as also the altar and the architecture. The angel 
 is superb in drawing, movement, and colouring. 
 The figure is colossal and not wanting in majesty 
 of presence. The feet and legs are a little awk- 
 ward, the drapery and hands good, the outline 
 very attractive. This, as with Heemskerck's work 
 in general, is mannered and eccentric, but vital 
 art for all its mixture of Dutch individuality and 
 Italian ideals. There is a tinge of Michelangelo 
 in him. Both panels were painted after his re- 
 
 ** 
 
* 
 
 HOLBEIN, HANS 75 
 
 turn from Italy. Somewhat over-cleaned and re- 
 painted. 
 
 568 ] Heist, Bartolomeus van der. Portraits of Man 
 
 569 / and Wife. A little dull in the light on the faces, 
 
 but otherwise they are well-painted portraits of 
 very respectable and dignified folk — the lady quite 
 fine in a raspberry-coloured gown. 
 54. Portrait of Paul Potter. A portrait very in- 
 teresting because of the sitter, and also because it 
 is a positive and sterling portrait done with ease 
 and spirit. The method of posing his subject with 
 the figure turned in profile and the head facing out, 
 making three spots of light, decreasing in size, of 
 the head, the right hand, and then the left hand, 
 was quite characteristic of Van der Heist. Com- 
 pare these features in the so-called Velasquez 
 Admiral Borro at Berlin, and see how well they 
 agree with this portrait in that respect. In other 
 respects they vary, and yet are not opposed. 
 
 53. Heyden, Jan van der. Church of the Jesuits 
 at Diisseldorf. This picture looks a little sombre 
 after the beautiful view of Delft by Jan Vermeer, 
 but in reality it is a good little work of a painter 
 possessed of much charm. Notice the colour in 
 the buildings at the left and their lift against the 
 sky. The figures are by Adriaen van de Velde. 
 
 275. Holbein the Younger, Hans. Portrait of a 
 Young Woman. A very charming picture both 
 in type and technique. The outline of the figure 
 is a little sharp, but truthful; the face a little 
 smooth but, again, truthful. The head-dress and 
 brown coat against the green ground are quite effec- 
 tive, the hands are perhaps frailer than Holbein 
 usually painted, and the flesh is more luminous. 
 
 * 
 
76 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 An unusually good portrait, attributed at different 
 times to Diirer and even Leonardo, but possibly 
 by some one near to Lucas Cranach — some one 
 following after him. 
 
 276. Robert Cheseman with Falcon. A strong 
 
 portrait as regards the personality of the sitter, 
 but unfortunately it has the restorer's hectic flush 
 on the face and has also been retouched in the 
 neck, the hand, and elsewhere. This hurts its 
 colour quality and muffles its drawing. The back- 
 ground does not keep its place in relation to the 
 lettering or the figure. The hawk, too, and the fur 
 collar have been gone over by the restorer's brush. 
 The final result is not too happy. 
 
 277. Portrait of Man with Falcon. The flesh is a 
 
 little hot, but the man is fine in character as the 
 falcon in painting. It is carefully drawn in both 
 head and hand and has a good background. 
 
 405. Hondecoeter, Gijsbert d'. Cock and Hens. 
 
 What a fine bit of colour against a sky strong in 
 its tone of blue! The bird in the centre is well 
 painted. 
 
 77. Keyset, Thomas de. Portrait of a Learned Man. 
 
 A dignified and determined looking Dutchman, 
 well placed in an interior, seated and restful, but 
 perhaps a little too conscious. The background 
 has been hurt and does not now keep its place. 
 
 689. Portrait of a Gentleman. This portrait is very 
 
 well done, though odd in its patching of paint about 
 the eyes. The hat and robe and ruff are rather 
 precise. The man is a strong type, with a power- 
 ful head and good hands. There is a sturdy quality 
 about the picture almost worthy of Rembrandt. 
 
MAES, NICOLAS 77 
 
 80. Koninck, Philips. Landscape, It is in the usual 
 style and with the customary theme of Koninck, 
 but is, perhaps, better than usual, because warmer 
 in light and colour. The sky is very good. The 
 whole work rather broadly done. 
 
 36. Koninck, Salomon. Adoration of Kings. This 
 picture is not so far removed from the Simeon in 
 the Temple (No. 145), in this gallery, as Koninck 
 was from Rembrandt. It is not one whit better or 
 worse than the Simeon picture. Both pictures 
 show the small mind, eye, and manner of treatment 
 common to Koninck, Dou, Poorter, and others of 
 their ilk, but not common to Rembrandt. They 
 are dinner-plate pictures. 
 564. Leyster, Judith. Man and Woman. It is good 
 in light though it has the very minimum of good 
 drawing. Notice the proportions of the woman's 
 nether extremities from knee to hip. It makes an 
 effective spot, nevertheless. Judith Leyster was 
 an imitator of Hals and perhaps was influenced 
 by her husband, the painter Molenaer. 
 
 85. Lievens, Jan. Bust of an Old Man. The head 
 is not badly done. It is in the style of a number 
 of similar heads attributed to Rembrandt in the 
 European galleries. It should be kept in mind, 
 both for the type (the model) and the manner of 
 its doing. Its like will appear again in unexpected 
 places under unexpected names. Notice the pe- 
 culiarity of ploughing and scratching the wet paint 
 with the wooden end of the brush. This was a 
 marked mannerism of Lievens as distinguished 
 from Rembrandt. 
 
 717 \ Maes, Nicolas. Portrait of Cornelis ten Hove 
 
 718 J and Wife. Flashy portraits which seem on a par 
 
78 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 with the pretty elegance of Sir Peter Lely. They 
 do not show Maes to advantage. They are his 
 later and more perfunctory work, when popularity 
 and success had about ruined him artistically. 
 
 90, Portrait of a Man. This is Maes in a differ- 
 ent style from his later works (Nos. 717 and 718). 
 It is earlier, more exact in drawing, but somewhat 
 velvety, smooth in contours, soft in textures. The 
 portrait is not remarkable, but should be carried 
 in the mind to Cassel, where the Portrait of an 
 Architect (No. 246), similar in style — type, colour, 
 handling, and all — will be found ascribed to Rem- 
 brandt. Even the veining of the hands is shown 
 here as there. After a study of the two portraits, 
 any one can draw an inference. One hand painted 
 them both, and that hand was not Rembrandt's. 
 But, of course, this Hague portrait is much weaker 
 than the one at Cassel. 
 724. Meer of Haarlem, Jan van der. Landscape. 
 The tree is much the best part of it, though some- 
 what niggled and over-elaborated in the foliage. 
 This is a better picture than the average Ruisdael. 
 
 595. Memling, Hans. Portrait of a Man. Evidently 
 the portrait of a donor taken from some altar-piece 
 or possibly a part of a diptych. A good head, with 
 Memling as its possible painter, though it looks 
 timid in the drawing of the face, hands, and hair 
 and is coarse in the clouds. It was once assigned 
 to Antonello da Messina, where it obviously never 
 belonged. 
 94. MetSU, Gabriel. A Company Making Music. 
 But for its excessively slippery handling this would 
 be a picture of considerable merit. It is pretty 
 and light in spirit with much insistence upon de- 
 
MOREELSE 79 
 
 tails and textures. Even the dog has an oiled and 
 rubbed look. But there is some very accurate 
 drawing in it. 
 96- 1 Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz. Portraits of the 
 100 J House of Orange. Five small works on copper of 
 considerable interest historically. They are prac- 
 tically as their painter left them, but whether that 
 painter was Mierevelt or one of his pupils can now 
 be conjectured only. In any event, they are not 
 wonderful as art. They have the look of copies. 
 
 729 \ Mijn, Gerard t van der. Portraits of Man and 
 
 730 / Wife. These portraits have breadth and simplicity 
 
 of composition and colour, and are done in a broad 
 if rather smooth method of handling. The satin 
 of the coat and dress is a little too pretty. It is 
 the work of a man practically unknown in art 
 history. His other pictures are probably serving 
 time in gallery catalogues as Terborchs and Metsus. 
 
 572- 1 Molenaer, Jan Miense. The Five Senses. Five 
 576 J panels of rather ordinary quality in colour, by 
 the painter who married Judith Leyster (see No. 
 564). Both man and wife were probably pupils of 
 Frans Hals, whose style they followed, the wife 
 being a close imitator at one time and doing some 
 pictures still attributed to Hals himself. See the 
 note on Hals, No. 1093, at Amsterdam. 
 655. Moreelse, Paulus. Portrait of a Lady. With 
 the brilliant colouring of Mierevelt and a little 
 broader handling. There is some excellent draw- 
 ing in the eyes and brows. Decidedly a dashing 
 affair in costume and colour. Van Dyck may 
 have thought the style of it sufficiently distin- 
 guished for him to appropriate certain of its effects, 
 such as that of the left hand, or the fan, or the turn 
 
80 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 of the eyes. It is generally supposed that Moreelse 
 painted not a few of the so-called early Van Dyeks 
 that are in various galleries at the present time. 
 
 705. Laughing Man with Globe. The attribution 
 
 is doubted, and the catalogue suggests Paulus Bor 
 (the painter who did the very good Finding of 
 Moses, No. 567, in the Amsterdam Museum) as 
 its possible author, on the strength of the face and 
 arm, perhaps. The hat and its gold band suggest 
 a follower of Rembrandt. Neither Bor nor More- 
 else was influenced by Rembrandt. A good piece 
 of work. 
 
 117. Moro, Antonio. Portrait of a Goldsmith. A 
 * strong, positive portrait. There is a large drawing 
 of the hands, beard, hair, and jewels that speaks 
 for strength, though the surface — the dress particu- 
 larly — is perhaps over-smooth. It is probably by 
 Moro in an unusual mood. He is not often so 
 large nor so convincing as here. 
 
 559. Portrait of a Gentleman. A sad-faced man in 
 
 rich costume, with both head and costume a little 
 flattened against the background. The sitter is 
 supposed to have been William of Orange, and the 
 picture is placed next to No. 225 for identification. 
 Moro is thought to have painted William of Orange 
 twice. There is another portrait of him assigned 
 to Moro at Cassel (No. 37). 
 
 296. Murillo, Bartolome Esteban. Virgin and Child. 
 The picture is decently drawn, freely handled, and 
 with tolerably good colour. It is less saccharine 
 than most of the Murillo Madonnas, though it has 
 a tendency to prettiness. 
 
 682. Neer, Aart van der. Dutch Landscape with 
 Moonlight. An interesting study of moonlight 
 
POTTER, PAULUS 81 
 
 which some of our moderns could give more scien- 
 tifically but perhaps not more picturesquely. The 
 sky and the clouds are the best part of it, though 
 the foreground is very good. 
 
 Netherland School. Solomon and the Queen of 
 Sheba, A triptych somewhat in the manner of 
 Herri met de Bles. The central panel shows a 
 lofty figure of the queen in white, with blue 
 shadows on the white. There are also blue shadows 
 on her red scarf. What splendid robes ! And what 
 ornate architecture! The side panels are in the 
 same vein with much colour. This is probably by 
 the painter of No. 146 in the Munich Gallery — 
 that is, the pseudo-Bles. The coarse drawing of 
 the feet and hands seems to indicate this in a gen- 
 eral way. See the note on the Munich picture. 
 
 ^ Piero di Cosimo. Two Portraits, Described by 
 Vasari in his life of Piero as portraits of Giuliano 
 da San Gallo and Francesco Giamberti. They 
 have a German look about them, as though some 
 German in Italy had made copies of Piero. 
 
 Potter, Paulus. The Young Bull. This is the 
 court of last resort as regards Potter as a painter, 
 for this is his masterpiece and a world-famous pic- 
 ture — famous far beyond its deserts. It does not 
 justify the high praises given it. Certainly the 
 bull is a good piece of anatomical drawing, except 
 for some queer foreshortening. And the bull's 
 hide is not badly painted — ^hair, flies, and all. 
 Also the distant landscape is excellent, but it is so 
 far removed from the foreground that it belongs 
 to another world. The connection between fore- 
 ground and background is lost. These are about 
 the only virtues the picture possesses. If we wish 
 
82 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 to know its shortcomings we may inquire: Is the 
 bull alive, and is this a representation of bull life, 
 or is the bull a museum specimen, dead and stuffed, 
 with glass eyes, and varnish on his nose? Is this 
 the painting of a bull or a bull-hide? Has the cow 
 lying down in front of the bull the body of a cow, 
 or is it some kind of hard limestone? Do the 
 whitewashed sheep belong in this landscape or 
 on a tombstone? The tree and the impossible 
 man, are they not also dead? Does not the whole 
 group belong in a waxworks museum? Perhaps it 
 is not right to speak jestingly of so serious a work 
 of so serious a painter, but neither is it right to 
 proclaim by bell and book the great art of this 
 picture, and thus give people by the thousands 
 an erroneous idea of what constitutes painting. 
 Call it a good piece of hard drawing and dismiss 
 it with that. It is far from complete art — in fact, 
 it is only an elementary recitation by a young man 
 who might have done better things had he not 
 died before he was thirty. Fine art must mean, 
 primarily, fine thinking and feeling in form or 
 colour. Which one does this picture possess? 
 Is it fine in line, colour, light, surface, handling? 
 But the bull stands out! Yes, that is his worst 
 feature. Nothing stands in or has air or envelope. 
 The whole picture has an exaggerated name. 
 There is not a single great thing about it. See 
 Potter's portrait by Van der Heist on the wall at 
 the right. 
 
 137. The Cow in the Water. This picture is not 
 
 much noticed because of the presence of the Young 
 Bull picture in another room; but it is not a bad 
 Potter — that is, not much worse than usual. The 
 trees are niggled, the cattle hard, the light impos- 
 
REMBRANDT 83 
 
 sible. But so long as that cow's reflection appears 
 in the water people will regard the picture as 
 wonderful. 
 
 658. Ouast, Pieter Jansz. The Card Players. In 
 
 the style of Brouwer and with fair results as re- 
 gards types and colour, though it lacks everywhere 
 in drawing. As a Brouwer type, the burly ruffian 
 in the centre is very good. 
 
 119. Ravesteyn, Jan Anthonisz. Portrait of Amalia 
 Elizabeth. With much flare of ruff and costume 
 and a prettified face and hair, but perhaps not so 
 good as the men's portraits in the next room by 
 the same hand. It is attractive in colour. For- 
 merly attributed to Paulus Moreelse. See also No. 
 120. 
 
 707. Rembrandt van Ryn. Andromeda. An over- 
 cleaned little panel showing a well-modelled figure 
 as regards weight and bulk, but heavy in the hand 
 and protruding in the head. It might have been 
 done by Rembrandt, but there is no positive indi- 
 cation of his brush. At Berlin similar work is put 
 down to Flinck (No. 813b). 
 
 556 1 Study Heads. The question of whether these 
 
 598 J little heads were actually done by Rembrandt will 
 probably remain unanswered. It is of small matter, 
 for they do not help or improve our conception of 
 Rembrandt in any way. No. 556 is a vigorous 
 sketch, but quite apart from the bulk of the 
 master's work. No. 598 has every indication of 
 being a modern picture, done in imitation of Rem- 
 brandt. 
 
 145. Simeon in the Temple. With the Lesson in 
 
 Anatomy hanging near it, done in 1632, when 
 
84 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 Rembrandt was twenty-six, how is it possible to 
 think he did this small, spotty, and pretty Simeon 
 in the Temple at any earlier date or at any time 
 whatever? In the Lesson in Anatomy, examine 
 the breadth of the masses, the largeness of the light 
 concentrations, the bulk of the colour, the absence 
 of any small glitters or spots of light, the flatness 
 of the brush stroke, and then look at this pettily 
 conceived, dotted-and-dabbed picture of Simeon, 
 with its smooth textures, rather sweet colour, and its 
 shoe-button high lights ! Could the same man have 
 done the two pictures? It is not admissible to 
 argue that this Simeon picture is an earlier Rem- 
 brandt, because, if the signature is genuine, it is 
 only one year earlier, and besides the style of it 
 is not early or immature. It is the finished mature 
 style of a man who has perfected a small method. 
 It is by some painter standing close to, say, Willem 
 de Poorter or Koninck. Look at the same char- 
 acter and quality of work in the Koninck here (No. 
 36), or in the Amsterdam Gallery (No. 1375). 
 The painter of the Simeon possibly painted the 
 Europa or the Proserpina in the Berlin Gallery, 
 put down there as early Rembrandts. The differ- 
 ence in mental calibre and point of view between 
 this small painter and Rembrandt should alone 
 be sufficient to decide the question, aside from 
 technique. The Simeon picture is not great art, 
 though it is effective in the grouping and placing 
 of the figures in the light, air, and space of the 
 vast temple. A so-called copy by Poorter is in 
 the Dresden Gallery; but perhaps both pictures 
 are originals by Poorter or Koninck. 
 
 579. Travellers Resting. A sketch, very true in 
 
 its handling of light and striking in its composi- 
 
REMBRANDT 85 
 
 tion by masses of light and shade. Rembrandt 
 might have done it, but it is not such a work of 
 genius that any one of several pupils could not 
 have painted it. 
 
 149. Portrait of the Painter. Not too carefully 
 
 * done in the drawing of the face, but given with a 
 good deal of spirit and life. It has a grey tone, 
 good shadows, and considerable relief. The han- 
 dling of it is free and effective. Thought to be a 
 later likeness of the same model as No. 148, but 
 apparently neither the model nor the painter is 
 the same in the two pictures. This No. 149 is ap- 
 parently in the Rembrandt vein, whereas No. 148 
 is probably nearer to Lievens. 
 
 560. Study of an Old Man's Head. Referred to 
 
 * Rembrandt's late manner, about 1650. It is foxy 
 in colour, very much loaded, dragged, thumbed, 
 and kneaded in the pigments, especially about the 
 head and face — the whole being now rather messy 
 and dirty. There is a strong grip on the mass of 
 the head, neck, and shoulders, and as a study in 
 anatomy it is more impressive than as a study in 
 psychology. The colour is hot and the surface 
 rather disagreeable. It belongs in the class with 
 the Man in the Golden Helmet at Berlin (No. 811a). 
 The subject is said to be Rembrandt's brother, but 
 the same person figures as a model in pictures by 
 Bol, at Brussels (No. 48), and in the Louvre (No. 
 2328), also in pictures by Fabritius, Darmstadt 
 Gallery (No. 349), and elsewhere. Did Rem- 
 brandt's relatives obligingly lend themselves to 
 the pupils of the school, or were they no relatives 
 at all, but merely studio models used by master 
 and pupils alike? 
 
86 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 621. Saul and David. This rather striking picture 
 
 * is said to have been painted in 1658, eight years 
 later than the foxy Old Man's Head (No. 560); 
 yet its surface is much less worked over, much 
 smoother. Not but what it, too, is thumbed and 
 dragged in its pigments, but in degree the thumb- 
 ing is much slighter. And besides, the manner of 
 its mannerisms is not Rembrandt's. That gor- 
 geous turban is too prettily done and too clear in its 
 tones of colour for Rembrandt in 1658. Not alone 
 the colours, but the eye, ear, face, beard are 
 much too clear, clean, and shadowless for the 
 great master at that time. Again, the curtain is 
 rather soft and pretty, the cloak, even beneath its 
 slashings of paint (which are ineffective in the high 
 lights) is lacking in drawing, the bulk of the body 
 under the cloak is not felt, and the hand is too 
 long in the fingers for Rembrandt. And what 
 about the rather pretty David at the right, with 
 the badly drawn hands? Did Rembrandt do that, 
 too? The picture has not Rembrandt's handling, 
 drawing, light, shade, colour, or general quality. 
 The work might better be called a Flinck. That, 
 at any rate, would be nearer than Rembrandt. 
 Compare it with No. 368, in the Budapest Gallery. 
 The same hand probably did both pictures, but 
 it was not Rembrandt's hand. The three pictures 
 placed here together on one wall (Nos. 621, 685, 
 584) are contradictory of one another in their sur- 
 faces, though according to their dates done at 
 about the same time. The Negroes is smooth, 
 the Homer is tortured, the Saul and David is 
 slashed and swiped. This is only one of many 
 differences, and yet it is sufficient to point out that 
 the pictures were done by three different men. 
 
REMBRANDT 87 
 
 And they are all of them good pictures — pictures 
 not to be passed by lightly because connoisseur- 
 ship has their painters confused. 
 
 685. The Two Negroes. How does it happen that 
 
 a Rembrandt picture signed and dated 1661 is so 
 flat in the handling and smooth in the surfaces, 
 with no kneading or thumbing, when near it is the 
 tortured Homer (No. 584), done two years later, 
 and in the next room the dragged and thumbed 
 Study of an Old Man's Head (No. 560), done eleven 
 years earlier? Did Rembrandt "throw back'* to 
 an earlier manner between times, or did some other 
 artist paint this negro picture for him? Inconsis- 
 tency is supposed to be an artistic virtue, but it 
 should be susceptible of explanation, just the same. 
 The explanation here of a cleaned or repainted 
 surface will not answer, for there is no marked in- 
 dication of it. The picture is flat, lacks depth and 
 air, and is not well modelled or drawn. It is prob- 
 ably not by the painter of the Negro Head in the 
 Berlin Gallery (No. 825) — Hendrick Herrschop. It 
 is somewhat different from the Berlin picture. It 
 is certainly not by Rembrandt. 
 
 584. Homer. This picture was done, possibly 
 
 * about 1663, with a fumbling, heavy touch, but with 
 certainty as regards bulk and body, and a preser- 
 vation of the atmospheric setting — qualities which 
 are lacking in the Saul and David (No. 621). No- 
 tice also here the high light massed on the shoulder, 
 while in No. 621 the lights are small, scattered, and 
 ineffective. Notice still further the difference in 
 the colour and in the shadows under the arms. 
 The Homer is Rembrandt nearly at the end of his 
 career, but still powerful, massive, grand in en- 
 
88 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 semble. Look at it from across the room. It is 
 somewhat in the style of the Jewish Bride, at Am- 
 sterdam, and perhaps was never finished — to the 
 painter's satisfaction at least. It has the look of 
 something started, put aside for some reason, and 
 found among the painter's sketches after his death. 
 
 577. Portrait of a Young Girl. It may be passed 
 
 without comment, no matter who painted it or 
 signed it. At one time it was laid to Cuyp's ac- 
 count, as now to Rembrandt's. Neither painter had 
 anything to do with it. 
 
 147. Susanna Bathing, This picture was possibly 
 
 done by the painter of the same subject in the 
 Berhn Gallery (No. 828e). See the note upon that 
 picture. It is a coarse-grained work, with poor 
 enough painting in the robes, the foliage, the hair, 
 the figure to have been done by some such follower 
 as Eeckhout. The colour has no quality to it. 
 
 565. Rembrandt's Father, It is not unlike other 
 
 portraits, less than life-size, attributed to Rem- 
 brandt's early period, say 1630. The modelling is 
 not too strong and the light-and-shade is pallid. 
 The handling in the fur is ineffective and the bulk 
 of the figure is not given. It has the look of a 
 school piece, and may possibly be of Lievens ori- 
 gin, though there is no certainty about this. 
 
 626. Minerva. A picture of some slight colour 
 
 charm, but as far removed from Rembrandt as the 
 Simeon in the Temple (No. 145). Said to have 
 been done about 1630, two years before the Lesson 
 in Anatomy, with which it should be compared for 
 light, shade, composition, hands. Think of Rem- 
 brandt doing all this agglomerated junk on the 
 
REMBRANDT 89 
 
 wall, chair, and floor, like a Netscher or a Dou! 
 The picture is of modern origin and is a modern 
 imitation of Rembrandt. 
 
 146. Anatomical Lecture of Professor Tulp. We 
 
 *** here have Rembrandt in his early manner, in a 
 picture about which there is not a shadow of doubt. 
 It was done by his own hand and should be accepted 
 as a standard by which his early work should be 
 judged. Notice, at the start, that while each head 
 has an illumination of its own, there are no small 
 spots and flickers anywhere. The high lights, as 
 also the shadows, are all large in area. Notice 
 the flatness of the handling, the absence of lumpi- 
 ness or modelled spots, the breadth of the colouring, 
 the absolute truth and simplicity of the drawing. 
 For comparison elsewhere, mark the manner in 
 which the hair, beards, ruffs, and black dresses are 
 painted. And, again, the drawing of the eyes, ears, 
 mouths, and especially the size and kind of hand 
 Rembrandt painted — the hands of Dr. Tulp as well 
 as those of the corpse. What wonderful flesh paint- 
 ing and shadows in the Dr. Tulp. Notice his head 
 and the shadows under the hat. Notice also the 
 shadows on the white ruffs, and the drawing of the 
 somewhat bloated figure on the table ! At the back 
 there is a feeling of space, of air, of architec- 
 tural columns and arches dimly seen. How very 
 different it all is from the Simeon in the Temple 
 (No. 145)! It is so much larger in spirit, vision, 
 feeling. Read Fromentin (Old Masters of Belgium 
 and Holland) on this picture. It is an early mas- 
 terpiece and a famous picture. Somewhat cleaned 
 and hurt by retouching and relining, but still a 
 wonderful picture. 
 For the purpose of getting a general idea of Rem- 
 
90 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 brandt and his art, the various pictures attributed 
 to him should be assigned tentatively as follows: 
 
 1. The pictures which are certainly by his hand, 
 about which there is no question, and which, from 
 their quality, proclaim themselves surely his work. 
 The Early Period. The Lesson in Anatomy, The 
 Hague, 1632; Saskia, Cassel, 1633; Portrait of 
 Burggraef, Dresden, 1633; Portrait of Old Lady 
 (No. 775), National Gallery, London, 1634; Por- 
 trait of Man (No. 850), National Gallery, London, 
 1635; the Coppenol Portrait, Cassel, 1632; the so- 
 called Sobieski, Hermitage, St. Petersburg, 1637. 
 The Middle Period, Saskia with the Red Flower, 
 Dresden, 1641; Manoah's Prayer, Dresden, 1641; 
 The Night Watch, Amsterdam, 1642. The Late 
 Period. The Flayed Ox, Louvre, 1655; Jewish 
 Bride, Amsterdam, 1662; Five Syndics, Amster- 
 dam, 1661; Homer, The Hague, 1663. These are 
 but a few examples from many, but they will sug- 
 gest the kind of work that can be attributed to 
 Rembrandt with assurance and reasonable cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 2. In a second class may be grouped a series of 
 portraits assigned to Rembrandt but not by him. 
 They are marked by a tight or pinched look, ex- 
 aggerated bone drawing in the face and hands, 
 blackish shadows with reddish flesh. Such por- 
 traits as these are the women portraits at Brussels 
 (No. 368) and the National Gallery, London (No. ' 
 675). They are certainly by Nicolas Maes. Later 
 on Maes changed his style to a softer handling and 
 drawing, possibly doing then the Architect, at 
 Cassel (No. 246). The same kind of work, but 
 weaker, appears in the Maes portrait at The Hague 
 (No. 90). 
 
REMBRANDT 91 
 
 3. A third class of portraits and pictures assigned 
 to Rembrandt is marked by a soft yellow flesh, loose 
 drawing, rather facile, but somewhat ineffectual 
 handling. They are such pictures as the Rem- 
 brandt and Saskia, at Dresden (No. 1559), the 
 Holy Family, at Munich (No. 324), the Artemisa 
 at Madrid (No. 2132). They come nearer to the 
 work of Bol than any one else, and may be put 
 there tentatively and for the present only. 
 
 4. A fourth class of so-called Rembrandts shows 
 tall figures, bright colours, dark, blackish shadows, 
 pretentious subjects, not always good drawing, 
 and often broad but ineffective handling. To this 
 class belong the Saul before David, at The Hague; 
 the Christ before Pilate, at Budapest (No. 368) ; the 
 Parable, at Frankfort (No. 181); the half-length, 
 at Munich (No. 345). The man, who seems the 
 most probable painter of these pictures is Flinck, 
 to whom they may be tentatively assigned. 
 
 5. A fifth class of so-called Rembrandts is made 
 up of dark-shadowed pictures, with dark, deep 
 colours, long fingers and hands, roundish faces. 
 This kind of picture is seen in the alleged Hen- 
 drickje Stoffels, at Berlin (No. 828b), and at the 
 Louvre (No. 2543) ; in the Man with the Staff, at 
 Cassel (No. 245); the Man's Portrait, at Dresden 
 (No. 1568) ; the Woman's Portrait, National Gal- 
 lery, London (No. 237), and the Centurion Cor- 
 nelius, in the Wallace Collection (No. 86). They 
 should be assigned tentatively and not at all cer- 
 tainly to Bernaert Fabritius. 
 
 6. A sixth class of so-called Rembrandts should 
 be assigned to Eeckhout. The small figure of the 
 Man with a Red Cap, at Berlin (No. 828j); the 
 Woman Bathing, London (No. 54), will point out 
 
92 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 the general style of the picture. It is marked by 
 crude whites in rather sharp contrast with blackish 
 shadows, and by a broad, downward stroke of the 
 loaded brush in the draperies. 
 
 7. A seventh class of so-called Rembrandts is 
 formed of small, sketchy heads, or sketchy nude 
 figures, generally done with some verve, although 
 loosely drawn and painted. They are school studies 
 by Flinck, Maes, and others. The Hague has both 
 kinds of these pictures in Nos. 556 and 707. 
 
 8. Still another group of supposed Rembrandts 
 consists of hermit heads, showing the cranium, and 
 also philosophers seated in dimly lighted rooms. 
 These are small pictures and are seen chiefly in 
 the Louvre (Nos. 2540, 2541, 2541a), and were 
 possibly painted by Dou and Koninck. 
 
 9. Frequently in the European galleries one 
 meets with Rembrandtesque study heads and por- 
 traits that are soft in modelling with vague out- 
 lines and soft shadows. The flesh is greyish and 
 the general tone grey. They are usually marked 
 by the mannerism of the hair or beard, being 
 ploughed or scratched with the wooden end of the 
 brush. Rembrandt did not do this except in one 
 instance, and then it seems more accidental or im- 
 petuous than designed. The man who scratched 
 and ploughed for effects of light-and-shade in the 
 hair was Jan Lievens, and he was the painter who 
 painted these softly modelled heads. His signed 
 pictures at the Hermitage and in the Czernin Col- 
 lection, Vienna, indicate as much. The Rem- 
 brandt's Sister, at the Brera, Milan, and the por- 
 traits Nos. 229, 230, 231, 233 at Cassel with a 
 number of others in German galleries are probably 
 by him. 
 
REMBRANDT 93 
 
 10. The largest class of supposed Rembrandts is 
 made up of small, minutely done, Simeon-in-the- 
 Temple pictures. The Simeon picture at The 
 Hague (No. 145); The Woman Taken in Adultery, 
 at London (No. 45); the Proserpine, Europa, and 
 Minerva, at Berlin; and many other little pictures, 
 much laboured and worked over, belong in this class. 
 Several men might have done them, and probably 
 did do them — such men as Vliet, Poorter, Koninck. 
 
 11. The negro heads assigned to Rembrandt (in 
 the Wallace Collection, for example) were probably 
 done by Hendrick Herrschop. 
 
 12. Many of the landscapes given to Rembrandt 
 were done by Hercules Seghers, or Molyn, or pupils 
 of the master. 
 
 The student should try to keep these classes in 
 mind as classes without pinning too much faith 
 to the individual illustrations offered. As stated 
 above, the assignments are only tentative. Rem- 
 brandt and his school will slowly have to be dug 
 out of all the mass of misapprehension that now 
 buries them. The pupils are as badly confused as 
 the master. 
 
 It may be added that the Rembrandt etch- 
 ings are as contradictory as the pictures, with 
 even less certainty about them. Anything that 
 looks at all Rembrandtesque is put down posi- 
 tively as by Rembrandt. Then follows the inter- 
 esting confirmation of the picture by the etching 
 and the etching by the picture. If you believe 
 the one you must believe the other, on the prin- 
 ciple that two wrongs always make a right. The 
 Rembrandt tangle, thanks to the countless twists 
 and turns of dealers and collectors, has become a 
 Gordian knot. 
 
94 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 250. Rubens, Peter Paul. Isabella Brandt, With a 
 rich background against which the hair is placed 
 in beautiful relief. The drawing of the head is 
 excellent, and the dress is freely handled. For the 
 rest of the picture, it is over-cleaned in the throat, 
 the breast, the hands, and has some repainting 
 about it. It may be school work. Another ver- 
 sion in the Wallace Collection. 
 
 251. Helens Fourment. A half-length, somewhat 
 
 like the one at Munich, and much cleaned in the 
 hair, face, neck, hands — so much so that the model- 
 ling suffers and the figure and face are flattened. 
 It is hastily done and more than likely it was orig- 
 inally done by a pupil. The pupils in the early 
 days learned their craft, in measure, by copying 
 their master's works. Notice the clumsy left hand 
 and the ineffectively painted ruffs at the wrist, the 
 heavy black coat, the fur, the hair, the curtain. 
 
 252. Portrait of Michiel Ophovius. There is now 
 
 small indication of Rubens in the uncertain hair 
 and beard, in the red shadow back of the ear, in 
 the misfit eyes, in the black robe or the dark shadow 
 of it cast upon the white undergarment. Nor will 
 the right hand pass muster for Rubens's drawing. 
 It is an indifferent portrait for which some pupil 
 was largely responsible. 
 
 234. Naiades Filling the Horn of Plenty. This 
 
 panel should be closely compared with the one 
 hanging opposite (No. 253), put down to the same 
 painters — Rubens and Brueghel. A comparison 
 of the trees in the background of each, the tree 
 trunks and leaves in the foreground of each, the 
 fruit at the bottom of each will show that the same 
 fruit and landscape painter did both panels, so far 
 
RUISDAEL 95 
 
 as the fruit and the landscape go. That painter 
 was probably Brueghel, as the catalogue states. 
 On the contrary, a comparison of the figures in 
 each picture — hands with hands, feet with feet, 
 eyes with eyes, hair with hair, flesh with flesh will 
 show decided differences. The Adam and Eve 
 (No. 253) is now a much subtler work in both draw- 
 ing and handling. The figures of Adam and Eve 
 appear at present vastly superior to any in No. 234. 
 The comparison brings one to the conclusion that 
 the figures in No. 253 were probably done by 
 Rubens, but are now much cleaned, so that some 
 modelling is lost, say in the face of Eve, which is a 
 little vague, and in her hair and back, which now 
 show their underpainting. This is equally true of 
 the Adam. But the figures are still fine figures, if 
 small and minutely done. No. 234 is by no means 
 of the same value. The figures may have been 
 done by another hand than that of Rubens — the 
 hand of a pupil or follower — but it is also possible 
 they are Rubenses that have been restored and re- 
 painted, and their modelling and surface thus de- 
 stroyed. The picture was formerly ascribed to Van 
 Balen. 
 
 253. Adam and Eve. See the note on No. 234 for 
 
 a comparison of the two pictures. 
 
 534. Ruisdael, Jacob van. The Vijverberg at The 
 Hague, Unusual in subject for Ruisdael and some- 
 what dark in the lighting. The interesting small 
 figures are supposed to be by Wouwerman. They 
 are better than the landscape, but neither of them 
 is in any way remarkable. 
 
 728. Evening — Twilight. It is somewhat worried 
 
 in the foliage and thereby suggests that it is, per- 
 
96 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 haps, an early example of Ruisdael. The sky is 
 rather good in its high key of light, but in lumi- 
 nosity all these Dutch landscapists must give way 
 before Vermeer of Delft. See his No. 92 in this 
 gallery. 
 
 154. Shore Piece, Better in the beach and shore 
 
 and in the sky than is usual with Ruisdael. The 
 sea, too, is effectively drawn, though unusually 
 dry in handling. With small figures that hold 
 their places well. The catalogue calls the picture 
 an old copy. 
 
 566. Ruysdael, Salomon van. Landscape. An ex- 
 ceptional Ruysdael, with an attractive sky and 
 some excellent painting of trees, bridge, and water. 
 The light is dull in the foreground, after the manner 
 of this painter. Not unlike the Decker landscape 
 at Brussels (No. 146). See also No. 699. 
 
 269- 1 Seisenegger, Jacob. Portraits of Children of 
 
 271 J the House of Austria. These three panels are 
 * fine in colour and even finer as child portraiture. 
 They have much character and not a little excel- 
 lence in hard drawing. The faces are particularly 
 well done, and the stiff brocades of the costumes 
 and their odd caps are interesting. The gold 
 lettering rather helps out the decorative effect. 
 Other versions at Brussels (Nos. 27, 28). 
 
 297. Spanish School. Head of a Boy. A rather good 
 head, though loosely drawn and freely, though in- 
 accurately, painted. It has some feeling about it. 
 Formerly attributed to Murillo. It might have 
 been given to some Antwerp painter, for it is more 
 Flemish than Spanish. 
 
 167. Steen, Jan. The Sick Girl. A so-so Steen, with 
 the central figure the best part of it. The colour 
 
TERBORCH, GERARD 97 
 
 is not remarkable except at the back and at the 
 left. The room is well drawn, as are also the figures. 
 Steen repeated the motive several times, notably 
 at Amsterdam (No. 2246). 
 
 168. The Doctor's Visit. This is of about the same 
 
 quality as No. 167. It is somewhat too elegant in 
 the furnishings to show the painter's best work. 
 The colour is not remarkable, and yet is agreeable. 
 The bed at the back and the chair are the best parts 
 of the picture. 
 
 169. The Painter's Family. Painters, in common 
 
 with more mundane folk, sometimes neglect their 
 families, and this time Steen did not paint his 
 family with either great care or great love. It is 
 poor work for so good a craftsman as Steen. The 
 group is huddled, the pipes make stick-like lines, 
 the light is dull, the colour not very good. 
 
 657. SweertS, Michiel. Italian Pastoral Life. With a 
 strong figure in relief against the central light and 
 some rather broad brush-work. It makes a spot 
 of light on the wall and is commanding in its 
 breadth. The most forceful example of this painter 
 is in the Munich Gallery (No. 390). 
 
 176. Terborch, Gerard. The Despatch. The pic- 
 ture has a background that lacks in definition and 
 a foreground of questionable drawing. The figure 
 of the woman on the floor and the man next her 
 are fairly well posed, but they are not well drawn. 
 Not a good Terborch. It has probably been in- 
 jured in the background by cleaning and in the 
 figures by some retouching — notably in the hands. 
 
 177. Portrait of the Painter. It was possibly 
 
 done by some one in the school — done in Terborch's 
 
98 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 style, but with less taste and skill than he possessed. 
 The figure is bulky in its cloak, the left leg is odd 
 in its placing, the white neck-piece has no quality, 
 the hair and face are mediocre in painting, and 
 the background is colourless. 
 
 298. Velasquez, Diego de Silva y. Portrait of Don 
 Baltasar Carlos. It is excellent in colour and in 
 drawing. The curtain, chair, table, armour, boots, 
 and boy are all well done. And easily done — well 
 handled. But the handling is not that of Velas- 
 quez. It is a school work or copy by some pupil 
 of Velasquez. Another version in Buckingham 
 Palace. 
 
 471. Velde the Younger, Willem van de. Surrender 
 of the Royal Prince. It has considerable spirit 
 and life in the wind, sails, and water and is well 
 held together. Not a bad example of Willem van 
 de Velde — in fact, one of his best works. Another 
 version in the Amsterdam Museum. 
 
 611. Verbeecq, Pieter. Two Horsemen Near a Brook. 
 
 This picture is interesting largely because its 
 painter painted pictures attributed to Paul Potter, 
 notably the Old Grey Hunter (No. 1009) in the 
 National Gallery, London. [Since this note was 
 written, but before its publication. Dr. Bredius has 
 arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the Lon- 
 don picture, in the Burlington Magazine for June, 
 1913.] 
 
 92. Vermeer (or Van der Meet) of Delft, Jan. 
 
 *** View of Delft. This is the celebrated Delft land- 
 scape by Vermeer, with its wonderful sky and light, 
 its most realistic strip of water so well studied in the 
 reflections, and its city roofs shown in light-and- 
 shade under passing clouds. What light, floating 
 clouds, and what a blue sky beyond and above! 
 
VERMEER OF DELFT 99 
 
 The sky has no ghtter or sparkle about it and yet is 
 luminous with light. Light is its beginning and its 
 ending. The impressionists will no doubt refer to 
 the dotting with white spots — the so-called earliest 
 pointillisme — as the cause for the light, but the dot- 
 ting and spotting appear only on trees and boats 
 and walls, where it has little or no effect. It was 
 an experiment of the master's which he by no 
 means followed in all his pictures. Besides, it 
 was used with just as little effect by Terborch, 
 Poorter, and others. The colours of the figures 
 in the foreground, and the blues and reds of the 
 roofs are not dotted, but painted in flat patches. 
 Relief, distance, and air are obtained by the aerial 
 values of the colours as detached from one another. 
 Linear perspective shows, too, in the recession of 
 the church steeple, for instance, but that recession 
 is also obtained by the diminished colour of the 
 steeple in relation to the foreground roofs. There 
 thus comes in a feeling of air — a sense of atmos- 
 pheric envelope. The quite perfect understand- 
 ing and rendering of light, air, and values, produce 
 what must be considered a truly wonderful land- 
 scape for the age in which it was painted. It is 
 sufficient in itself to make the reputation of The 
 Hague Gallery. And instead of justifying poin- 
 tillisme, it seems to demonstrate that light may 
 be obtained without it. Genius, as a rule, never 
 worries much about its means of expression. It 
 is the little men who are always exploiting some 
 new method or medium, not the Rubenses or the 
 Titians. Again, what light and colour! What lu- 
 minosity! And what splendid pictorial truth! It 
 is a great picture. A small suggestion of it is in 
 the Six Collection, Amsterdam. When you are in 
 
* 
 
 100 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 The Hague Gallery, notice how few people look at 
 this Vermeer. And per contra, notice the crowd 
 assembled before Potter's Young Bull. Vermeer, 
 the greatest of all the Little Dutchmen, is still seek- 
 ing an audience. 
 
 406. Diana and Nymphs. It has been and still 
 
 is a picture wonderful in its colour and its beauti- 
 ful figures; but, alas! it has been badly injured 
 and much restored. The figures, faces, hands, 
 feet have all been gone over to their injury. How 
 fine the landscape, the shadows on the dresses, the 
 splendid patches of colour laid one upon another 
 still appear! The Italian Giorgione did things 
 more lyric, more idyllic, but never things more 
 brilliant or more colourful. It is a colour harmony 
 of far reach and depth. One cannot quite under- 
 stand how it can be assigned to the same hand 
 (and done at the same time) as the large picture 
 at Dresden, called the Proposal (No. 1335). Nor 
 can one comprehend its being done by the painter 
 of the Delft Landscape (No. 92). Compare the 
 landscapes in the matter of light alone, and how 
 different they are! It is just as far removed from 
 the Girl's Head (No. 670). The colour, the light, 
 the drawing, the placing of the colour patches 
 are all different. Here is no pointillisme, no dot- 
 ting. And, finally, it must be argued that this is 
 not the same mind at work, not the same concep- 
 tion of form in space, not the same or similar types. 
 This is not Vermeer at all, but possibly a Dutch- 
 man influenced by Italy. Notice the Italian-look- 
 ing trees at the left. The picture was formerly 
 attributed to Maes and then to Van der Meer 
 of Haarlem. It is excellent, whoever its painter. 
 See the note on the Vermeer, No. 625. 
 
VERMEER 0F:x>EL5T'; : ; 101 
 
 670. Head of a Young Girl, What a charm it 
 
 ** has in its strange blue-and-white head-dress, its 
 coloured cloak, its plain, flat ground, its blue tone! 
 It has not a pronounced blue envelope, but you 
 feel that blue is in the air, in the shadows of the 
 face, in the eyes, around the neck, and, above all, 
 in the shadows of the yellow cloak. There is some 
 slight dotting on the blue and yellow, but it is in- 
 effective. Yet, here once more, is luminosity. 
 How light the flesh! How striking the illumina- 
 tion! The brush-work is flat, the outline sharp 
 but true and most attractive, the shadows quite 
 perfect, the colour just right. Add to all this 
 technical and decorative charm the loveliness of 
 the type, the purity of the mental conception, and 
 you have an astonishing picture. It belongs in the 
 same class as the portraits at Budapest (No. 456) 
 and Brussels (No. 665), and it agrees quite perfectly 
 with the Delft landscape in another room (No. 92). 
 It has, perhaps, been injured by some repainting. 
 
 625. Allegorical Subject. After the Head of a 
 
 Young Girl (No. 670) and the View of Delft (No. 
 92), this picture seems absolutely shocking in its 
 hardness, its shine and glitter, its want of air, its 
 lack of good colour. How could the same painter 
 do all three pictures when this third picture is 
 so different in handling, so different in point of 
 view, and so absolutely different in mental con- 
 ception? This picture is by the painter of the 
 alleged Vermeer (No. 2528) at Amsterdam, and 
 it is almost as airless and glassy as that. Notice 
 the wooden quality of the figure, the dress and the 
 knees under it, the hard head, the shining ball 
 above, the glittering cup on the table, the glassy 
 floor of tiles. The curtain at the left is not badly 
 
102 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 drawn but is extravagant in pattern and too 
 prominent; the blue is not without quality but is 
 not true in value. The same pointillisme is here 
 shown as in the other Vermeers, but hardly in the 
 same way. The dots are so sharp and hard in light 
 that they attract attention. They appear in the 
 lady's eyes and teeth as well as in her pearls and 
 brooch and yellow sleeve bands. And where is 
 the light from the sky or window that we associate 
 with Vermeer? This is studio light. Look at the 
 picture on the wall, and its drawing, and also the 
 drawing of the chair. This is by a pseudo-Vermeer 
 or else Vermeer himself in degeneracy. It may be 
 the latter. In the Czernin Collection is a some- 
 what similar picture, probably by the same hand 
 as this, but infinitely finer and better in every way. 
 A tentative assignment of the various pictures 
 ascribed to Vermeer in the European galleries 
 would place in different classes, say: 
 
 1. The portraits at Budapest (No. 456), at 
 Brussels (No. 665), at The Hague (No. 670), pos- 
 sibly the figure picture at Dresden (No. 1335), 
 though this is doubtful, and the fine landscape 
 here at The Hague (No. 92). They are all of 
 similar view, workmanship, and quality. 
 
 2. In another but closely related class the in- 
 teriors with small figures, such as the Lady with the 
 Pearls, Berlin (No. 912b), the Girl at the Window, 
 Dresden (No. 1336), the Young Woman, and the 
 Cook, at Amsterdam (Nos. 2527 and 2538a). 
 These are of high quality as art, but a little different 
 from those of the first class, though probably it is 
 a variation of the same mind, eye, and hand. 
 
 3. In a third class comes a series of hard, airless 
 pictures with spotty high lights, glassy textures, 
 
VOS, MARTIN DE 103 
 
 and some bad drawing. In this third class belong 
 the Allegorical Subject here at The Hague (No. 
 625); the Letter, at Amsterdam (No. 2528); the 
 Spinnet Players, at the National Gallery, London 
 (Nos. 1383 and 2568). They were done by what 
 may be called a pseudo-Vermeer, or Vermeer him- 
 self in degeneracy. They seem more like the work 
 of an imitator, and have the hardness of a decadent 
 Netscher or a Hoogstraten. See the Hoogstra- 
 ten at Amsterdam (No. 1256) for the resemblance. 
 4. In a fourth class can be placed certain attrib- 
 uted Vermeers, such as the Diana here at The 
 Hague (No. 406), which, beautiful picture as it is, 
 shows no trace whatever of Vermeer. Possibly 
 the Dresden picture (No. 1335) belongs in this class. 
 It seems more like a Fabritius than a Vermeer. 
 
 558. Vlieger, Simon de. Coast of Scheveningen. In 
 
 general effect this is a good shore piece, with high 
 heap clouds and grey water. The dunes are well 
 suggested and the colour is good. One of De 
 Vlieger's best efforts, but not of itself great paint- 
 ing. It is rather thinly done, and its drawing is 
 of limited range and quality. 
 
 695. Vos, Cornelis de. Portrait of a Lady. A pro- 
 file showing a rather fine if sad face done with 
 some fairly good drawing. The costume and pearls 
 are elaborate and the background is ornate with 
 flower patterns. Not a bad piece of work, but one 
 sees Cornelis de Vos better elsewhere. There is 
 some doubt about the attribution. 
 
 249. Vos, Martin de. Moses Showing the Tables of 
 the Law. A large picture with good drawing and 
 colouring, but too crowded with figures, and not 
 large enough in its form and colour masses to hold 
 
104 THE HAGUE MUSEUM 
 
 together as a unit. Some of the types are excel- 
 lent. The attribution is questionable. It gives 
 little hint of the style of Martin de Vos. 
 
 264. Weyden, Roger van der. Descent from the 
 Cross. Its authorship is queried by the catalogue, 
 but in any event the picture shows good feeling 
 and good workmanship. The robes are well done, 
 as in the kneeling figure at the right or the one hold- 
 ing the dead Christ. The colour and landscape 
 are attractive. For a long time attributed to 
 Memling. It has Roger behind it as inspiration, 
 whoever may have done the actual work, though 
 it has suggestions, too, of Bouts and Van der Goes. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 1. Comelisz van Oostsa- 
 nen. 
 23. Comelisz van Haarlem. 
 32. Dou. 
 36. Koninck, S. 
 42] 
 
 43 > Goltzius. 
 
 44 J 
 Govaerts. 
 
 45 
 
 511 
 52] 
 
 Heemskerck. 
 
 Heyden, Van der. 
 
 Heist, Van der. 
 
 Keyser. 
 
 Koninck, P. de. 
 
 Lievens. 
 
 Maes. 
 
 Vermeer of Delft. 
 
 Metsu. 
 
 Mierevelt. 
 
 Moro. 
 Ravestejrn. 
 
 Potter. 
 
 Rembrandt. 
 
 53. 
 
 54. 
 
 77. 
 
 80. 
 
 85. 
 
 90. 
 
 92. 
 
 94. 
 96-' 
 100 
 117. 
 119. 
 136 
 137 
 145 
 146 
 147 
 149 
 154. 
 1671 
 
 168 > Steen. 
 
 169 J 
 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 
 1761 
 
 177/ 
 
 234. 
 
 239 
 
 240 
 
 242 
 
 249. 
 
 250- 
 
 253 
 
 264. 
 
 269 
 
 270 
 
 271 
 
 275 
 
 276 
 
 277 
 
 287 
 
 288 
 
 296. 
 
 297. 
 
 298. 
 
 311. 
 
 347. 
 
 348. 
 
 391. 
 
 405. 
 
 406. 
 
 433. 
 
 4591 
 
 460] 
 
 471. 
 
 534. 
 
 543. 
 
 Terborch. 
 Rubens. 
 
 Dyck, Anthony van. 
 
 Vos, M. de. 
 
 > Rubens. 
 
 Weyden, R. van der. 
 
 Seisenegger. 
 Holbein. 
 
 Piero di Cosimo. 
 
 Murillo. 
 Spanish School. 
 Velasquez. 
 Caliari, C. 
 Fogolino. 
 Gossart. 
 Begeyn. 
 Hondecoeter. 
 Vermeer of Delft. 
 Netherland School. 
 
 Hals, Frans. 
 
 Velde, W. van de. 
 Ruisdael, J. van. 
 Backer. 
 
 105 
 
106 
 
 INDEX 
 
 551. Goyen, J. van. 
 
 556. Rembrandt. 
 
 558. Vlieger. 
 
 559. Moro. 
 
 560. Rembrandt. 
 562. Brekelenkam. 
 
 564. Leyster. 
 
 565. Rembrandt. 
 
 566. Ruysdael, S. van. 
 
 -gg > Heist, Van der. 
 
 572- 1 . 
 
 576 J- 
 
 577] 
 
 579 > Rembrandt. 
 
 584] 
 
 595. Memling. 
 
 598. Rembrandt. 
 
 605. Fabritius, C. 
 
 611. Verbeecq. 
 
 618. Hals. 
 
 621. Rembrandt. 
 
 623. Hals, Claes. 
 
 Molenaer. 
 
 625. Vermeer of Delft. 
 
 626. Rembrandt. 
 
 627. Cuyp, A. 
 655. Moreelse. 
 
 657. Sweerts. 
 
 658. Quast. 
 
 670. Vermeer of Delft. 
 
 676. Flinck. 
 
 682. Neer, A. van der. 
 
 685. Rembrandt. 
 
 689. Keyser. 
 
 695. Vos, C. de. 
 
 705. Moreelse. 
 
 707. Rembrandt. 
 7171 
 
 Maes. 
 
 718 r 
 
 724. Meer of Haarlem, J. 
 
 van der. 
 
 728. Ruisdael, J. van. 
 
 729 1 
 
 ^2Q > Mijn, G. van der. 
 
 737. Gelder. 
 739. Bruyn. 
 
FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
NOTE ON THE FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 One goes to Haarlem chiefly to see the pictures 
 by Frans Hals. He can be studied there as nowhere 
 else. There are other pictures in the gallery, four or 
 five hundred of them, and all of them of more or less 
 local interest because belonging largely to the Haarlem 
 School; but Frans Hals leads, and is the drawing 
 feature of the Museum. Here the painter's career, 
 almost from start to finish, can be studied in a series 
 of large shooting-company pictures than which nothing 
 could be more brilliant, more astonishing, more won- 
 derful. Hals is here really great as in no other gal- 
 lery of Europe. 
 
 The other pictures in the gallery should be closely 
 looked at, for there are works by Hals's sons and pupils 
 which may shed some light on the origin of a good 
 many small Frans Hals pictures, so-called, in other 
 galleries. The fact that there were six painters in the 
 Hals family (not including Dirck) and five sixths of the 
 pictures are given to Frans the Elder is in itself sus- 
 picious. Besides the Haarlem School there are a St. 
 Luke Painting the Virgin, a Nativity, and a Christ in 
 the Praetorium, by Heemskerck, all of them of great 
 excellence and beauty. The student should also look 
 
 109 
 
no NOTE ON THE FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 at the Adam and Eve by Scorel, the pictures by 
 Grebber, Pot, Verspronck, and others. 
 
 The new Museum building, opened in 1913, is quiet, 
 restful, successful in every way. It is constructed 
 with an open interior court, from which an excellent 
 side-light in the rooms is obtained. This side-light 
 seems to suit these Dutch pictures very well, as though 
 they had been painted under such a condition, and were 
 well adapted to it. The pictures might have been 
 done for the building, so admirably do they fit it. The 
 rooms are small, but quite large enough for the pic- 
 tures, and the walls are not crowded. There is an 
 attempt to gain a Dutch setting, or atmosphere, not 
 only by building, court, wall, and light, but by hang- 
 ings, furniture, and colour scheme. It is happily done 
 and very successful. 
 
 The catalogue is little more than a descriptive find- 
 ing list, but is perhaps sufficient for the needs of the 
 Museum. There are photographic reproductions of 
 the pictures in book form, published by Hanfstaengl. 
 The trip to Haarlem is only half an hour by train from 
 Amsterdam, and no student should fail to go there. 
 
FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 36 1 Bray, Jan de. Regents of the Children's Home. 
 
 37 J These two portrait groups, with a Hals hanging 
 
 between them, show thin and weak, and yet in 
 reaUty they are not badly done. They follow Hals 
 in his late style and are grey in tone and a little 
 chalky. See also Nos. 38 and 39. 
 
 47. Brouwer, Adriaen. Interior of an Inn. Good 
 in colour if a little messy in painting. One fails 
 to see any strong indication of Brouwer in it, 
 although he may have painted it. Brouwer was 
 a pupil of Hals, with an influence upon Hals's son 
 Harmon, and others of the school. 
 
 54. Cornelisz van Haarlem, Cornells. Officers of 
 an Archer Corps. This is better than the smaller 
 work by this painter, but is still a little weak and 
 not well composed. 
 
 55. Adam and Eve. It is soft in modelling but 
 
 graceful work, nevertheless. Nos. 58 and 53, by 
 the same hand, are less interesting. 
 
 377. Dutch School. The Vintage. The catalogue 
 suggests Csesar van Everdingen as the painter of 
 this picture, but is it not by Paulus Bor, the painter 
 who did the Moses Saved from the Nile (No. 567) 
 in the Amsterdam Museum? 
 
 85. Duyster, Willem Cornelisz. Soldiers in Quar^ 
 ters. Slippery, though rather clever in the handling, 
 111 
 
** 
 
 112 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 and fairly good in colour. The composition is little 
 more than a huddling together of people and studio 
 properties. 
 
 113. Grebber, Frans Pieterz. Officers of an Archer 
 Corps. It fares better by not being near the Hals 
 pictures. The heads are somewhat weak and the 
 composition not at all cunning. 
 
 122. Hals, Dirck. Woman Playing a Flute. The 
 
 drawing is indifferent, the colour rather good. It 
 was probably done by Judith Leyster, whose type 
 and manner are here apparent in the long-drawn- 
 out figure. 
 
 123. Hals, Frans. Banquet of Officers of St. George. 
 
 In the painting of these shooting-company pictures, 
 the Dutch made their greatest effort at the large 
 historical canvas. They never undertook church 
 and ceiling decoration in the Italian sense, never 
 understood composition as space filling on a large 
 scale. Dutch art was essentially a portrait of the 
 land and the people, the manners and customs, 
 the houses, cattle, and polders. The shooting- 
 company picture was their largest canvas, but this 
 again was only the portrait numerically increased 
 — a group of portraits. The very nature of it 
 made it difficult to hold together. The characters 
 inevitably posed, or stood aloof, or became con- 
 strained in attitude. Look at the scores of in- 
 stances of this in the many regent and syndic 
 pictures in the Amsterdam Museum or here at 
 Haarlem. Rembrandt, in the Night Watch, was 
 about the only one who made a real picture out of 
 his sixteen portraits. Hals approaches him, is 
 next to him, is at times almost equal to him, in 
 the notable series of pictures in this gallery. They 
 
HALS, FRANS 113 
 
 are his most celebrated works and should be studied 
 seriously and at length. 
 
 This picture (No. 123) was done in 1616 and is 
 the earliest of the famous series. The painter was 
 thirty-two years old when he painted it, and had 
 already much power in drawing and modelling, 
 with considerable facility in handling the brush. 
 The hands, occasionally, seem carelessly done. 
 This is equally true of some of the heads, the second 
 man at the right, for instance. But most of the 
 heads are very forceful, as, for examples, those 
 of the bald-headed man under the flag, the man to 
 the left of him, and also the flag-bearer. The 
 handling in the ruffs, sleeves, and sashes is, for the 
 most part, very effective. The still-life on the 
 table is excellent, though dark in its illumination. 
 The setting of the room as regards its atmosphere 
 is quite right, the light is arbitrary and emanates 
 directly from the figures, the colour is variegated, 
 brilliant, splendid. The whole group is well held 
 together, and in this the flag-bearer and the diagonal 
 flag play a part. They lift the composition in the 
 centre, which is supported, pyramid fashion, by 
 the sides. The flag also serves to centralise the 
 light and colour. What superb colour! What 
 quality in the reds, and, better still, what fine 
 quality in the warm whites! Here at the very start 
 Hals has made not only a series of excellent por- 
 traits but a picture of much beauty and power. 
 It is a noble early work and should not be passed 
 over in favour of the later work, however fine the 
 latter may be. Hals in this series is seen from his 
 thirty-second to his eightieth year, and he should 
 be studied from start to finish. The student would 
 do well to read Fromentin {Old Masters of Bel-- 
 
♦ 
 
 114 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 gium and Holland) on these pictures. In the 
 new museum this picture is placed in the room with 
 No. 125. 
 
 124. Banquet of Officers of St. George. This group 
 
 was painted in 1627, when Hals was forty-three. 
 It is less formal in lighting than No. 123, not so 
 marked in shadows, a little gayer in the scheme of 
 colour, and somewhat more fluent in handling, as 
 one may see by comparing in the two pictures such 
 features as the hair, the ruffs, the sashes. There 
 is, however, a distinct difference between the right 
 and left sides of this picture, so far as the handling 
 goes. The right side is carefully done in faces, 
 hands, sashes, sleeves compared with the left side. 
 The four figures at the left show looser, freer brush- 
 work, as though Hals had perhaps done it later or 
 it had been worked upon by some pupil. This 
 latter thought is thrust upon one by the loosely 
 handled but badly done curtain at the back, which 
 looks as though it had been painted in that careless 
 way originally by some pupil. The picture lacks 
 in unity — oneness of effect — though there was an 
 attempt to unite the group by the flag, as in No. 
 123. The painter, by the diagonal lines of the 
 three flags and the curtain, wished to create the 
 effect of movement from right to left, of the com- 
 pany coming in at the door at the right and gradu- 
 ally filling the room. The large flag again creates 
 a centre of light and colour. Some of the heads 
 at the right are excellent. What wonderful heads 
 they are! And, taking the figures individually, 
 what wonderful epitomes of Dutch burgher life in 
 the early seventeenth century! They are not very 
 intellectual, but what physical specimens, what 
 swashbucklers, what carousers! And what pic- 
 
* 
 
 HALS, FRANS 115 
 
 torial stuff, withal! Painters to-day array models 
 for this effect, but in Hals's time they came to him 
 ready costumed. The picture is in a room by it- 
 self in the new museum. 
 
 125. Banquet of the Officers of St. Andrew. In 
 
 the same style as the right half of No. 124, and 
 possibly it was done a little earlier than the ac- 
 cepted date of 1627. The heads seem smaller in 
 size than in No. 124 knd have considerable pre- 
 cision of drawing for Hals. They are apparently 
 a little pinched in the drawing, especially about the 
 eyes, but are full of life, character, spirit. The 
 hands are individual and belong to the bodies. 
 The light is less arbitrary and more uniform in its 
 diffusion than in No. 124, as though coming not so 
 much from the figures themselves as from the win- 
 dows. There is much variety in the colour, and 
 the hues have depth and resonance, though lighter 
 than those of either No. 123 or 124. The value of 
 the tones is well preserved, so there is harmony. 
 The set-in of the figures is not too marked, and 
 the atmosphere of the room not very noticeable. 
 Moreover, the grouping of the picture, and the at- 
 tempt to give an unconscious air to each individual 
 is just a little strained. The characters pose, they 
 stand or sit or bend over for uniqueness of position, 
 and, as a result, the interest of the group is not 
 centralised and the picture seems not well held 
 together. Hals rather sacrificed the centre and 
 built up the sides in figures, light, and colours. 
 There is a dip in the middle, and the two groups 
 of figures take impetus away from each other, some 
 turning their backs on their fellows. This harms 
 the unity of the picture and is unfortunate. It is 
 likely that Hals was helped in the picture by pupils. 
 
** 
 
 116 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 One seems to feel the presence of more than one 
 hand. Notice the pale coats-of-arms on the win- 
 dows at back, how well they keep their place and 
 yet are effective as part of the history of the group. 
 In the room with No. 123. 
 
 126. Reunion of the Officers of St, Andrew. Done 
 
 in 1633, when Hals was forty-nine. It is supposed 
 to be an open-air scene, and yet there is appar- 
 ently a reversion to the style of No. 123 as regards 
 the lighting. The effect is not that of sunlight 
 but the arbitrary illumination of individual heads 
 by studio light, as in single portraits. The shad- 
 owed background is quite as dark as in No. 123, 
 while the colour is a shade lighter in the flags and 
 costumes. The grouping is less formal and more 
 effective. Hals is still experimenting in the ar- 
 rangement of his figures, and now draws the eye 
 to the centre by the figure in blue and buff, and 
 surmounts that centre by a flag and three hal- 
 berds. He then allows the eye to wander to the 
 left, where there is a bright flag and a halberd head, 
 and under them a fine character in a black hat 
 and dress with a blue-and-red sash. Then the 
 eye goes to the right, caught by another shining 
 halberd head and a patch of light sky and be- 
 neath them seated figures. Perhaps the right 
 side is a little empty and breaks down, or rather 
 does not hold up to the centre or the left in mass, 
 in light, in colour. The drawing of the heads and 
 hands is quite absolute and done with care, knowl- 
 edge, skill. The handling is free but not lacking 
 in directness of effect or certainty of touch. Hals 
 is here at his height of power, and is almost above 
 criticism or reproach. Notice the head of the man 
 holding the pen in his hand and, for facility of 
 
* 
 
 HALS, FRANS 117 
 
 handling, the knot of the blue sash to the left of 
 him. The sword-hilts and halberd heads are bril- 
 liant touches of light, here and there enlivening 
 the surface. Notice further the splendid colour 
 here, there, and everywhere, and especially the 
 blaze of colour in the man at the extreme right. 
 Merely as unrelated bits, what quality these vari- 
 ous colours have! The whole picture is superb in 
 characterisation, in its expression of the individu- 
 ality of the painter, as form and colour, as a mere 
 decorative map on the wall. Taking it for all in 
 all, Hals never excelled it. It puts him in the class 
 with Velasquez. In a room by itself in the new 
 museum. 
 
 127. Officers and Under officers of St, George, 
 
 Hals was fifty-five when, in 1639, he did this pic- 
 ture. The composition is more formal and less 
 forceful than any of the others. It is a proces- 
 sional composition, with a second tier of figures 
 back of the first row, and a third tier placed on 
 the steps at the left. The scene is out of doors, 
 and is half-way between plein-air and studio light. 
 The distribution of light is not uniform, and the 
 different heads are apparently not all in the same 
 key. At the right the figure numbered "5" and 
 the one in the front row to the right of it are 
 higher in light than any others in the picture. 
 This is not due to restoration or cleaning, but prob- 
 ably to the heads having been put in at a different 
 time from the others, or to the carelessness of the 
 painter. For Hals in this picture shows he is 
 growing careless. He handles with great freedom, 
 but occasionally misses his drawing. His colour 
 is now more sombre and, while not lacking in 
 quality, is gaining in a grey tone. The heads are 
 
118 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 of uneven merit, those in the second row being 
 not only subordinated, but sacrificed, and those 
 in the third row, especially at the left, seem to 
 have been hurriedly passed over. The lower parts 
 of the figures in front are merely suggested. The 
 composition again is not good, the men and hal- 
 berds being distributed and crossed too much for 
 any effective unity, and the landscape at the right 
 not holding up with sufficient force to balance the 
 high figures at the left. Hals (it may be his assis- 
 tant) is here developing an impatient way of slash- 
 ing in angular lines with the brush. . It is notice- 
 able in the breeches of the man with the blue sash 
 in the centre; in the ruff of the man with the red 
 sash in the centre; in the shadows of the sleeves 
 and sashes at the sides. This is the least interest- 
 ing picture of the series. It was probably worked 
 upon by pupils. The figure numbered 19, at the 
 back, is supposed to be Hals himself. In a room 
 with No. 128. 
 
 128. Regents of the Hospital of St. Elizabeth. 
 
 ** Painted in 1641, when Hals was fifty-seven. It 
 is an interior scene and the most harmonious in 
 lighting of any of the series thus far examined. 
 It has setting and atmosphere, and if it is sombre 
 in blacks, greys, and browns it has a beautiful 
 quality of tone all through. It is a striking piece 
 in its unity under one light, every note being in 
 absolutely correct relation to every other note, 
 and the whole being exactly right in value, with 
 the possible exception of the left hand on the near 
 edge of the table, which may be a trifle too high in 
 key, though in perfect relation to its corresponding 
 head. The handling is free but not careless, 
 though the drawing of the hands is occasionally 
 
HALS, FRANS 119 
 
 wanting; but in the main the picture is right and 
 perfect of its kind. Notice now not only the air 
 of the room but the drawing of the room, the tone 
 of the wall, the placing of the map, the superb 
 quality of the whites, the even more superb quality 
 of the blacks. Notice also the wonderful — the 
 really wonderful — drawing, placing, and grouping 
 of the black hats. Let your eye travel over the 
 tops of the hats, over the whole group, and you 
 then get the easy undulation of the composition. 
 The figures were put in in that easy flowing man- 
 ner — first the three at the left and back, and then 
 the two at the right to balance them. They seem 
 to have been floated into place without any jar 
 or friction. Finally, will you notice that Hals 
 seems to have outlived his swashbuckler days, that 
 he is now sober and dignified, and that he is doing 
 dignified, intellectual, sympathetic men — people 
 who have true humanity and feeling about them. 
 It is a great picture. One may say of it, as of No. 
 126, that Hals never went beyond it — perhaps 
 never equalled it again except, possibly, in the last 
 picture of the series. No. 130. It provokes a con- 
 trast with Rembrandt's Five Syndics, and makes 
 even that great work seem less marvellous. In a 
 room with No. 127. 
 
 129. Men Regents of the Hospital for the Aged, 
 
 Done in 1664, when Hals was eighty and his hand 
 and eye had both become enfeebled. He could 
 no longer draw with accuracy and slurred heads, 
 hands, hats, gloves, and collars. He seems almost 
 to have given over colour and to have thrown 
 his remaining strength into a grey tone, pervading 
 a dark shadowed envelope, from which the figures 
 seem to emerge half mysteriously. The composi- 
 
 * 
 
120 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 tion lacks in grouping. The three figures at the 
 left are in the form of an arch, and the one with 
 his back to the table is relied upon as a sort of 
 keystone to unite the first arch with a higher arch 
 of figures at the right. The figures are related 
 only by being in the same room, the same atmos- 
 phere, the same tone. They have no interest or 
 common aim and seem to have been put in sepa- 
 rately, one at a time. The characters have seri- 
 ousness, but they are indifferently drawn, ineffec- 
 tually placed, and faulty in value. Moreover, 
 their hands seem too much in evidence. The man 
 at the back standing up is a poor apology for a 
 figure, while the man at the right is too high in 
 key, and the red at the knee is false in value. 
 What is really fine here is the quality of the blacks 
 and the grey ground. Evidently Hals is in decay, 
 but he is still possessed of a remarkable sense and 
 feeling for air and envelope, though he does not in 
 every case succeed in attaining them. Too highly 
 varnished. In a room with No. 130. 
 
 130. Lady Regents of the Hospital for the Aged. 
 
 This picture was done in the same year as No. 129. 
 It shows the painter's age in the heaviness of the 
 touch and the uncertainty of the drawing. These 
 shortcomings are noticeable not only in the heads 
 and ruffs but in the hands, which are true only in 
 their lighting, and as spots of colour. The colour 
 has become a grey, or perhaps nearer to a black 
 and white, with small patches of flesh colour in the 
 faces and hands. Hals has lost much of his dash, 
 and almost all of his hue, but he has certainly 
 gained in envelope and tone — gained even upon 
 No. 128. The lighting is arbitrary and not true 
 even to interior light, but the tone of grey and the 
 
 ** 
 
HALS, FRANS 121 
 
 atmospheric setting are quite perfect. The com- 
 position is a simple but pleasant arrangement — the 
 figures rising around the table gradually from the 
 left and being reinforced by an extra figure at the 
 right. It is restful, even though at first you hardly 
 feel the presence of the table. This is a picture 
 that painters rave over, following Fromentin, and 
 think the best of the series because of its envelope; 
 but it hardly goes beyond No. 128 in its general 
 truth, charm, and force. The wonder is that the 
 man of eighty preserved such an unerring instinct 
 for tone, such a true eye, when his hand had failed 
 him so signally. For this hand failure, notice the 
 black bows on the white ruffs and again the heads 
 and the hands. The landscape on the wall at the 
 back is superb, but it cuts through the wall like a 
 real landscape seen through a window — so absolute 
 is it in its tone. That word tone explains^ the pic- 
 ture — explains its fine decorative quality and its 
 restful feeling. In a room with No. 129. i 
 
 131 1 Portraits of Nicolas van der Meer and Wife. 
 
 132 J These portraits, painted in 1631, look rather 
 * formal after the splendid series of Officers and 
 
 Regents pictures by Hals in the same museum, yet 
 they do not show Hals either better or worse than 
 he is seen elsewhere in European galleries. The 
 man, though he has a pinched look in the eyes, has 
 a fine forehead, beard, and cheeks, has bulk of 
 body, strong hands, and stands well. The chair 
 advances a little too much and the coat-of-arms 
 will not recede sufficiently. The lady's face is pal- 
 lid and the ruff is a little high in light, as is also the 
 head-dress. Her hands seem massive and mas- 
 culine. Not the best work of Hals, but perhaps 
 if we saw these portraits in any other gallery 
 
122 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 than here in Haarlem we might think differently. 
 They certainly have dignity and repose. 
 
 138. Hals, Frans, the Younger. Interior. This is 
 poor enough work for a seventeenth-century Dutch- 
 man and a son and pupil of Frans Hals at that. 
 It is neither well drawn nor well painted. Nor 
 is No. 136, near at hand, put down to Johannes 
 Hals, of any better quality. 
 
 134. Hals, Harman. Pleasant Company, A picture 
 more in the style of Brouwer than in the style 
 of the painter's father, Frans Hals. Well enough 
 painted, but the under-structure is not understood, 
 as, for instance, in the heads. 
 
 139. Hals, Reynier. Child Eating. The picture has 
 been much repainted and is now not very intelligent, 
 but still suggests that Hals's sons and pupils may 
 have done many of the pictures in European gal- 
 leries that are now attributed to the elder painter. 
 
 150. Heemskerck, Maerten van (Veen). St. Luke 
 * Painting the Virgin. This painter was a little 
 eccentric in drawing and colouring, even before 
 he became a mannerist after the Italians; but 
 his mannerisms are not the less attractive, as in 
 a different way are those of II Greco. The Ma- 
 donna is lofty in type and superb in colour. What 
 splendid variegated colour, harmonious because 
 perfectly lighted I The angel at the right is drawn 
 out in figure but is beautiful in line and colour. 
 The St. Luke again is coarse, almost violent in 
 the drawing, but what strength ! This picture may 
 show the painter's native leaning, for it was painted 
 in 1532 and probably before he went to Italy. It 
 should be studied. Not all the sixteenth-century 
 
HEEMSKERCK 123 
 
 Italianised Netherlanders are to be passed in si- 
 lence because they forsook their native creed for 
 strange gods in Italy. 
 
 151. The Nativity, As odd a Nativity as was ever 
 
 * painted. It is a formal arrangement of heads in 
 an arch composition. Notice the drawn-out, yel- 
 low-robed angel and the strong, Egyptian-looking 
 type at the extreme right with head-dress and ex- 
 tended arms. How superb, these figures, for all 
 the oddity of the general conception! And what 
 fine colour! 
 
 155. Christ in the Prcetorium. A triptych. The 
 
 ** tragic nature and quality of it are apparent, even to 
 distortion. The drawing is positive and angular, 
 insistent upon bone, muscle, and tendon; the col- 
 our is very good, and the robes are effective in 
 light and shade — as notice in the boy at the right. 
 The donors on the wings are fine, especially in the 
 hands, faces, and robes of the women at the right 
 and their patron saint above them. The men 
 donors seem less interesting. On the outside of the 
 right shutter, Daniel is shown with great dignity 
 and a majestic sweep of robe. The feet and hands 
 are well drawn, even powerful, but they are awk- 
 ward. The lion at the left, with a semi-human 
 expression of countenance, adds a grotesque note 
 as a foil. The Ezekiel on the outside of the oppo- 
 site shutter is as majestic as a Donatello, with 
 robes superb in their light, shade, and colour. 
 How large and fine the figure, and how well it 
 stands ! It is patriarchal, prophetic. The Italians 
 never went beyond it. The head is truly noble, 
 and the scarf about it is a wonderful note of colour. 
 These two figures alone are enough to make Heems- 
 
124 FRANS HALS MUSEUM 
 
 kerck famous. Painted after the visit to Italy, 
 when under Michelangelo's influence. 
 
 211. Mierevelt, Michiel Jansz. Portrait of M. Gilles 
 de Glarges. A better portrait than we usually see 
 under Mierevelt's name, and of better report just 
 here, perhaps because of its poor surrounding por- 
 traits. 
 
 234. Pietersz, Pieter. The Three Hebrew Children. 
 
 One has no difficulty in recognising here some 
 strong drawing, some fine types, good movement, 
 and action. At first one sees in it the hand of 
 Aertsen — the painter of vegetables and peasants — 
 but it is Aertsen at second hand in the work of his 
 son. It is a capital piece of work and, like every- 
 thing coming from the Aertsen-Beuckelaer circle, 
 is entitled to serious consideration. They were all 
 excellent workmen. 
 
 239. Pot, Hendrik Gerritsz. Officers of the Corps 
 
 of Archers of St. Adriaen. This picture is possi- 
 bly much repainted, though chalky originally. It 
 still shows reminiscences of Hals, the painter's 
 master. Compare it with Hals (Nos. 123-125). 
 The Grebbers (Nos. 112 and 114) are worth looking 
 at to see how others besides Hals and Rembrandt 
 put these portrait groups together. 
 
 256 \ Ruisdael, Jacob van. Landscapes. Of small di- 
 
 257 i mensions and sketchily done, the No. 256 being 
 
 the better of the two. 
 
 264. Scorel, Jan van. Adam and Eve. Harsh but 
 heroic figures, sharp in outline drawing but with 
 much force and beauty. The modelling has been 
 hurt by cleaning and restoration. The landscape 
 is very simple in its suggestion of large planes. 
 
VERSPRONCK 125 
 
 265. Baptism of Christ. It is good in its drawing, 
 
 as notice the three figures at the right of the tree 
 and the two women balancing them at the left. 
 The light upon the figures is too high, and produces 
 a chalky effect, and the landscape (in the moun- 
 tains) is fantastic. Not a good example of Scorel. 
 The attribution of this picture (also of No. 264) 
 has been questioned. See also No. 263. 
 
 31. Terborch, Gerard. Portraits of Colenbergh 
 Family. A picture of indifferent painting and 
 drawing by some pupil or imitator of Terborch. 
 Notice the hard drawing of the chair and the 
 "jumpy" nature of the coats-of-arms on the wall. 
 It pretends to more than it fulfils. 
 
 286 1 Verspronck, Jan Cornells. The Colenbergh 
 
 287 J Portraits. They are neither very bad nor yet very 
 good. They suggest a man who may have done 
 a number of smooth pictures now listed under the 
 name of Frans Hals. The large portrait group 
 (No. 288) gives his measure fairly well. 
 
INDEX OF PICTURES BY NUMBERS 
 
 31. 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 47. 
 
 54 
 
 55 
 
 85. 
 
 113. 
 
 122. 
 
 123- 
 
 132 
 
 134. 
 
 138. 
 
 Terborch. 
 Bray. 
 
 Brouwer. 
 
 Comelisz van Haarlem. 
 
 Duyster. 
 Grebber. 
 Hals, Dirck. 
 
 > Hals, Frans. 
 
 Hals, Harman. 
 Hals the Younger, 
 Frans. 
 
 139. 
 150 
 151 
 155 
 211. 
 234. 
 239. 
 256 
 257 
 264 
 265 
 286 
 287 
 377. 
 
 Hals, R. 
 
 Heemskerck. 
 
 Mierevelt. 
 Pietersz, P. 
 Pot. 
 
 Ruisdael, J. 
 
 Scorel. 
 
 Verspronck. 
 Dutch School. 
 
 127 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DTJ^N THE I^ST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on dme are Bubjec^t 'o ^a^ fine, o* 
 50c per volume after the thud aay ^^^^^ ,„ 
 
 *rem*ln"d°rarbe -eqK»eation is made before 
 eyniration of loan period. " 
 
 QEC 
 
 171928 
 
 18Jafi'49/5 * 
 
 UBRARY USE 
 
 APR 9 1970 
 
 FEB 15 1975 Ip 
 
 OCT 3 Ov'7^ 
 
 3* 
 
 50rn-7,'27 
 
A'^v^f 
 
 393593 
 
 IX) c- 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARV i