Page images
PDF
EPUB

amounted to 1500 florins. Jan Steen and he were boon companions, and frequently spent the night together, or in the company of other artists who, like them, were fond of convivial recreation; returning at a late hour from one of these meetings, an accident befell Mieris that terminated his life in his 46th year. Smith's Catalogue Raisonné gives descriptions of one hundred and fifty of his pictures, independent of portraits, of which he painted many that are very exquisite. His compositions are rare, and, when they appear in sales, obtain high prices.

SCHOLARS OF FRANCIS MIERIS, AND ANALOGOUS PAINTERS.

Francis Mieris instructed a few scholars, but can hardly be said to have had any imitators; perhaps because he was considered inimitable. The following may be adduced:

WILLIAM MIERIS, his son, born at Leyden in 1622, was instructed by him, and copied some of his pictures. See the article William Mieris.

FRANCIS MIERIS, the grandson, made some attempts, but failed.

KAREL DE MOOR studied under Gerard Dou, Vanden Tempel, and Francis Mieris; he was an excellent artist, but left nothing that shows imitation of his first and last masters. See Interiors and Conversations, in the Alphabetical Classifications.

ARY DE VOYS, though not a scholar of Mieris, approaches nearer to his manner than any that had the benefit of his instructions, especially in single figures. In his drawing he is very correct, and is an excellent colourist. He imitated the works of several masters with success, though capable of painting originals equal to most of them. He was born at Leyden in 1641, and died there in 1698.

GASPAR NETSCHER. See the article, page 77.

MICHAEL VAN MUSSCHER, a painter of conversations, who had been a pupil of Metsu and of A. Ostade, imitated in some of his compositions the colouring of Mieris, but is no further entitled to be classed as one of his imitators. See Interiors and Conversations, in the Alphabetical Classifications.

WILLIAM MIERIS.

THOUGH it cannot be said with truth that William Mieris equals his father in the delicate finishing of his pictures, there is so much richness and brilliancy in them, so much of exquisite detail, that the admirers of these qualities frequently award him the preference. In many instances he made choice of subjects which admitted great variety of objects, such as shops of tradesmen, dealers in fish, poultry and game, fruit and vegetables; interiors of rooms, where the opulence of the proprietor was displayed in rich hangings, splendid Turkey carpets, and other magnificent accessories so well adapted to his brilliant colouring. But it is in the gorgeous apparel in which he arrayed his females that he is pre-eminent. The sober and formal costume of the ladies of his country did not always afford sufficient display of the splendour in which he delighted, so he sought for subjects from history, poetry, or romance, for heroines and goddesses, whom he might decorate according to his fancy. But the costume he adopts is not always appropriate to the character, or the supposed chronology of the circumstance represented: the connoisseur will therefore prefer his representations of realities to his ideal adaptations. His smaller pictures are frequently enriched with bas-reliefs, in which there is much good taste; his pet dogs, and other small animals, are faultless; and his Turkey and Persian carpets excel the originals. It was his misfortune to lose his father at the commencement of his career, just as he had mastered the mechanical part of the profes sion, and though he assiduously copied many of his works, he found that he could not arrive at the fluency and perfection of his penciling; he therefore, it may be supposed wisely, adopted a manner of his own. The landscapes he painted are not natural; they are pseudo-Arcadian, suitable to the subjects introduced; the foliage of his trees is as minutely detailed as the threads of his carpets, the hair of his dogs, or the feathers of his birds. If a wild flower is introduced, it is almost necessary to have recourse to the microscope to discover the immense pains taken to emulate the subtlest workings of nature. The artist, however, is not to be condemned for this; these minutia made his pic

tures objects of admiration, they pleased his patrons, and were coveted by many as delightful curiosities. Some of them were so highly esteemed that he was compelled to repeat them three times, with slight variations, to gratify the desire of wealthy amateurs. William was the younger son of Francis Mieris, and was born at Leyden in 1662; he died, 1747, in affluent circumstances, and highly respected for his talents and private virtues.-It is not known that he had any scholars, nor any successful imitators; Eglon Vander Neer's landscapes are analogous to his in the extreme attention to detail, but Vander Neer was his senior by about twenty years.

In Smith's Catalogue Raisonné will be found descriptions of one hundred and sixty of his pictures, the names of cabinets and galleries in which many are located, and also the prices they obtained in former years; but the last is no criterion of their present value.

SCHOLARS AND IMITATORS OF WILLIAM MIERIS.

JEROME VANDER MY was a scholar of William Mieris. He painted familiar subjects; but it is in his small portraits that he approaches nearest to the manner of his master. Many of these are in ovals, and are elaborately finished; they seem to have truth of resemblance, but are formal in the costume, and want sprightliness in the effect.

ABRAHAM VANDER EYK, a contemporary painter, imitated William Mieris in the finishing of his pictures.

B. MATON, from the similarity of style in some of his pictures, is supposed to have been a scholar of William Mieris. He also imitated Gerard Dou and Godfrey Schalcken in painting candle-light pieces. See Imitators of Gerard Dou.

GABRIEL METSU.

THERE is no account of this very excellent artist on which reliance may be placed. It is said that he was born at Leyden in 1615, and died in 1658; the latter cannot be true, for there are genuine pictures by him with the dates 1661 and 1667. It is not known by whom he was instructed, but it is apparent that he looked with attention at the works

of Terburg, Gerard Dou, and Francis Mieris; but there is more freedom of penciling in his productions than in those of either of them. By imbuing his mind with the beauties of each, and avoiding the servility of copying, he formed a style peculiarly his own. Elegance of form and deportment, correctness of design, delicacy of penciling, and suavity of colouring, are his distinguishing characteristics. The age in which he lived was the era of Dutch excellence in painting, and fortunately there were no academies in Holland to misdirect genius, or create mannerism. According to the custom of the time, artists of talent seem to have had free intercourse with each other, either in their studios, or at convivial meetings. Whether Metsu was intimate with those abovenamed is not stated, but it is said that he associated much with Jan Steen, who was more than twenty years his junior. In his artistic pursuits this may have been beneficial, whatever effect it might have a tendency to produce in prudential matters; in some of his compositions there is an approach to the vivacity of the hilarious Jan in the subject, and the introduction of satirical innuendo, but never grossness to any extent. His subjects generally are of the genteel and decorous order; ladies and gentlemen at a musical entertainment, in conversation, or enjoying an elegant refection; a young lady at her toilet, at her music lesson, inditing a letter, or employed at her needle; fashionable gallants paying their morning devoirs, or presenting game to their inamoratas; in all of which he shows his acquaintance with the good breeding of the higher grades of society. But he is no less successful in his representations of matters more purely domestic; the kitchen and its appurtenances become important, and the ruler of that department an interesting personage under his management; a visit to the nursery, or to a sick lady's chamber, awakens affection or sympathy. He carries you to the poultry or fish market, and the Epicurean may indulge in the anticipation of a feast suited to the delicacy of his refined notions. A visit with him to the cabaret will increase admiration without offending nicety of taste; a pot, a pipe, and a herring, and the placid or vivacious enjoyment of the guest, have all the truth and beauty that art can bestow on matters so humble, and the pictorial effect dissipates the idea of vulgarity.

Smith's Catalogue Raisonné will afford the amateur a treat in perusing descriptions of about one hundred and sixty pictures by this painter; he will there find recorded anecdotes respecting several, and the estimation in which his principal works have ever been held. Though he was liberally patronized during his life, his pictures have continued to increase in pecuniary value, as will be seen by the prices given for them in public sales, and the estimates put upon them in royal and noble collections.

SCHOLARS AND IMITATORS OF GABRIEL METSU.

JOST VAN GEEL, who flourished about the middle of the 17th century, was a scholar of Metsu, whose manner at one time he gave great promise of following, for he imitated him with much exactness, and produced some pictures that have tried the knowledge of connoisseurs; but he gradually abandoned the elegant style of his master, and adopted that of Peter de Hooge, or of others who indulged in violent contrasts.

JAN OCHTERVELDT is supposed to have been a scholar of Metsu, but there is no corroboration of the fact, except in the occasional resemblance of some of his pictures to that master's style of painting; it is more probable that he was only an imitator, in which, however, he showed good taste and discernment. Some have fancied that he painted like Terburg, and have lauded him accordingly; but, without wishing to detract from his merits, he cannot be truly said to have come up to the excellence of either: he was a good artist both as a designer and colourist, (though he has been reproved for the predominance of grey in his tones,) and deserves to hold rank in the next class to his supposed masters. He flourished about the year 1670.

MICHAEL VAN MUSSCHER was for some time a pupil of Metsu, and occasionally imitated his style in conversation pieces, which he painted in a very pleasing manner; but he so united it with those of other eminent painters that it may be called the composite style. On the whole, he is an agreeable artist, and his pictures are not common; they are much esteemed abroad. See Interiors and Conversations, in the Alphabetical Classifications.

JAN VERMEER, generally called DELFT VANDERMEER, or

« PreviousContinue »