flimsy in texture and too vapid in colour to pass now for more than they are.

Several other names might be added, not of artists by profession, but of picture dealers and restorers, who had acquired great skill in the imitation of Berchem's pictures both in colouring and handling; but as some of their practices were not strictly in accordance with honesty, it is better to leave them unrecorded. One instance, however, may be adduced to warn amateurs, who trust to their own knowledge and judgment, of the danger they incur, in a pecuniary point of view, in placing valuable pictures in the hands of cleaners and restorers, unless they are of established reputation for probity as well as skill. A gentleman who loved pictures by the old masters, and had good taste in the selection, purchased at a public sale for a considerable sum a capital landscape with cattle by Berchem. Like many others that are long in one family in a retired situation, it was somewhat obscured by varnish and the effects of time; it was therefore deemed necessary that it should be placed under the hands of the cleaner and restorer. After a time, perhaps longer than was necessary for these operations, the gentleman received at his country residence a picture which for beauty of colouring and brilliant effect reconciled him to the delay, and excited his admiration at the wonderful change in the appearance. It became the principal object of attention when visited by his country friends, and was considered the chief ornament of his collection. fortunately the reputation he had acquired of possessing fine pictures induced a tourist, well acquainted with works of art, to request permission to inspect his treasures; this was readily and courteously granted. The traveller passed high encomiums on several, but was silent respecting the Berchem. The host began to doubt the knowledge of his visitor, and asked, with some degree of chagrin, what he thought of his Berchem? The connoisseur replied that he saw a picture there that purported to be by that master, but that it was a copy. A copy! said the astonished proprietor, you must be mistaken, sir, I purchased it at the sale of a wellknown collection for the sum of six hundred guineas; it was then in a dirty state, but I have had it cleaned and varnish

Un

ed, and perhaps the fresh appearance deceives you. I am not deceived, replied the visitor, that picture you conceive to be the work of Berchem has been painted for not more than two years. He then gave the gentleman satisfactory proof of the truth of his assertion. This astounding intelligence induced the proprietor at once to post to London, and abruptly to demand of the picture-cleaner what he had done with his Berchem? The suddenness of the demand, after a lapse of two years, almost paralyzed the caitiff, who endeavoured to affect great surprise at the question, but was ultimately compelled to acknowledge that he had permitted a copy to be made of the picture, but hoped that it had not been by mistake substituted for the original! A threat of exposure, and law proceedings brought the picture from its hiding-place, and restored it to the rightful owner.

JAN AND ANDREW BOTH.

VERY few incidents in the lives of these brother painters are recorded. Their father was a painter on glass at Utrecht, where they were born; John in 1610, and Andrew about two years after. It is said that they were placed in the school of Abraham Bloemart; whether they profited in any way by his instruction does not appear, for, certainly, there is nothing of his peculiar manner either in their landscapes, figures, or cattle. The brothers had an early desire to visit Italy; they accordingly left their native country and travelled together to Rome, for the purpose, not only of seeing the country, but also the works of art there, and particularly the landscapes of Claude, of which the fame had reached Utrecht. Though Jan Both must have felt the beauty of Claude's pictures, he did not adopt his manner, but chose rather to follow nature in her more negligent, though not less beautiful, and interesting attire. He showed, however, great taste in his selections, and united them so happily that they appear to be the representation of an individual scene. His landscapes have nothing of his own country; they are entirely Italian. His manner is free and masterly, and his pictures induce a belief that they were painted on the spot where the scenes lie, the details being given with that spirit and fidelity which can result only by

having the objects present at the moment of execution. He used a small pencil, and entered into minute details in his foliage, and other parts; hence his pictures sometimes want breadth and force. His atmospheres have a charming warmth, his perspective gradations are scientifically true, and every object is in perfect harmony by attention to the chiaroscuro. What Jan was in landscape, his brother Andrew was in figures and cattle, so far as regards their combination together. Were it not an authenticated fact, it would scarcely be thought the landscapes and figures were by dif ferent hands, so essential are they to each other, so much in accordance in character and execution. In some of Jan's landscapes the figures are by Poelemburg, but they do not assimilate; they are not rustics, they disturb the quietude and illusion of nature's solitude or retirement. After remaining some years in Italy the brothers visited Venice, where, returning one night from an entertainment, one of them fell into a canal and was drowned. This was in the year 1650. Some writers say it was Jan, others that it was Andrew, and the other did not survive more than five years. The opinion that Jan was drowned is strengthened by the number of pictures, evidently painted in Holland, by Andrew alone. The pictures painted solely by Andrew are in the manner of Peter van Laer, called Bamboccio, and represent fairs, merrymakings, and charlatans surrounded by clownish and humorous characters; and frequently an itinerant musician entertaining a rustic audience with his performance at the door of a village cabaret. For a description of about one hundred and forty pictures by Jan Both, see "Smith's Catalogue Raisonné of the works of the Dutch and Flemish Painters," Part VI. and Supplement.

SCHOLARS, IMITATORS, AND ANALOGISTS OF JAN BOTH. WILLIAM DE HEUSCH, born at Utrecht in 1638, died in 1702, was a scholar of Jan Both. His pictures approach so closely to those of Both, that an amateur may, without imputation to his taste and judgment, be pleasingly deceived. His selections from nature are similar, his colouring bright and vivid, like Both's, but he is less sharp and angular in his handling, exhibiting great delicacy of touch, with a some

what iridescent hue in the skies. Poelemburg, Schellings, and other eminent figure-painters, lent their assistance to increase the interest of his pictures.

JACOB DE HEUSCH (born at Utrecht in 1657, died in 1701) was the nephew of William, by whom he was instructed in the art, and whose style he for some time followed. This has induced a belief that he imitated Both, but in that respect he is far behind his uncle: he can only be classed as an analogous painter. He afterwards visited Italy, and adopted the style of Salvator Rosa with great

success.

FREDERIC MOUCHERON, born at Embden in 1633, died in 1686, may be classed as an analogous painter with Both, though he was a pupil of Jan Asselyn. His landscapes, like Both's, are well selected for picturesque effect; his trees elegant in form, and light in their foliage; and the views are generally enriched with buildings, and sometimes enlivened with waterfalls. The pictures painted by him after his return from France and Italy are embellished with figures and cattle by Adrian Van de Velde and Jan Lingelbach; those that have the former are greatly enhanced in value. There is in Worcester College, Oxford, one of the finest specimens of Frederic Moucheron's landscapes.

ISAAC MOUCHERON, son and pupil of Frederic, at first imitated his father's style of painting, and so far may be classed with the analogists of Both; but having spent some time in Italy and France, after the death of his father, and having made numerous drawings of the beautiful scenes near Tivoli and Rome, he adopted a style more nearly approaching Gaspar Poussin; and being well versed in perspective and architecture, he embellished his pictures with noble buildings, that give them increased interest. figures in his landscapes are generally by Nicolas Verkolie. He was born in 1670, and died in 1744.

The

JAN WILS, or WILTS, the father-in-law of Berchem, was an imitator of Jan Both, and sometimes proved successful as such; but his pictures may be discriminated by a peculiar green tint, and less freedom in the penciling than those of Both or Berchem. The figures and cattle in his landscapes are by Berchem, Wouwerman, or Poelemburg.

HENRY VERSCHURING, born at Gorcum in 1627, died in

C

1690, was a pupil of Jan Both, under whom he studied for six years; his earlier pictures, therefore, are in the manner of that master. He afterwards went to Italy, when he changed his style, and became an eminent painter of battle pieces.

CHRISTIAN WILLIAM ERNEST DIETRICY, of whom an account will be found among the imitators of Adrian Ostade, imitated and copied the landscapes of Jan Both to deception, and the delusion is made the stronger by the introduction of figures so exactly like Poelemburg's, that it is difficult to believe they are not by him.

ADAM PYNAKER.

THIS landscape painter was born in 1621, at a village, from which it seems that he took his name of Pynaker, situate between Schiedam and Delft. Nothing is said of his parents, or of the master from whom he received his early instructions; but it is said that he studied at Rome for about three years. It was there he imbibed the elevated taste that distinguishes his landscapes. His pictures appear to be rather selections of parts, than the whole, of a view; nor does he combine parts into one composition, at least in his cabinet productions. He delighted in hilly, rocky, and well-wooded scenery, and particularly in depicting the beech, and the silver-coated birch; a cascade is also a favourite adjunct. Though his views are generally of the wild and romantic class, there are evidences that they were not always solitary, in the ruins of a castle, a church, or domestic habitation. The animals and figures, which are from his own pencil, accord well with the scenery; an infuriated red ox is with him a favourite object. Goats and sheep, mules and asses, with Italian peasantry, are introduced with the greatest propriety: when he depicts more expansive scenes, the landscape is enlivened with sportsmen and dogs. He is excellent also in river views, with barges and other vessels, and on the banks figures and cattle, among which his favourite ox is not forgotten; a fallen beech trunk, and wild creeping plants, are recipients and conductors of his sparkling lights. The early rays of the morning sun glittering on the dewy herbage, and the steaming