an expert artist. His principal works are his portraits, which are beautifully painted, and were sure to please; for he avoided, or disguised, anything in the features of his sitters that was inconsistent with their ideas of beauty, and arrayed them in charms of his, or their own, creating. All is beauty, grace, and elegance, except in the costume, which, though barbarous, was fashionable, and was out of the province of the painter to alter. There is no fear, however well painted his portraits are, that they will be mistaken for his father's. He died in 1722.

DANIEL HARING, born at the Hague in 1636, painted portraits in the manner of Gaspar Netscher, and was much employed by families in Holland.

MATTHEW VERHEYDEN was a scholar of Netscher, but his portraits are seldom seen out of Holland.

THOMAS VANDER WILT, a painter and mezzotinto engraver, who flourished at the latter part of the seventeenth century, painted portraits in the style of Constantine Netscher, well drawn, all the parts carefully finished, the colouring brilliant, but too florid in the draperies. He was born at Piershill in 1659, was a scholar of Jan Verkolie, and practised at Delft.

J. BLYHOOFT, of whom little is recorded, flourished from the middle to the latter part of the seventeenth century. He is mentioned as having painted pictures in the manner of Gaspar Netscher.

SIMON VANDER DOES, who was a landscape and cattle painter, also painted small portraits and domestic subjects, which he finished in the style of Gaspar Netscher. See Landscape and Cattle Painters, in the Classifications.

Many other painters are quoted as being imitators of Gaspar Netscher, but there are such differences in their styles that it would little benefit the amateur to introduce them here; indeed, several above mentioned will scarcely justify comparison with the master.

EGLON HENDRICK VANDER NEER.

THIS artist was the son of the celebrated Arnold Vander Neer, the painter of moonlight scenes, and was born at Amsterdam in 1643. After receiving some instruction from his

father he was placed in the school of Jacob Vanloo, then established at Amsterdam, and when about twenty years of age went to Paris for further improvement under the same master. Judging by his works, it may be said that, whoever were his masters, the pictures of Terburg, William Mieris, Metsu, and Gaspar Netscher were his models. His subjects are similar to theirs; ladies engaged at the toilet, playing on the guitar, a conversational party, a page attending his mistress with a silver basin holding water; in these the gorgeous apparel and splendid accessories of Terburg, Mieris, and Netscher are repeated. When he enters the regions of history or poetry, as in the death of Cleopatra, Candaules exposing his Queen to Gyges, Venus and Adonis, Nymphs and Cupids, he trenches on William Mieris, especially if the scene be a landscape, and exhibits surprising detail in the foliage of the trees, herbs, and flowers, exciting wonder that an artist should exert so much labour in imitating the works of nature, and produce objects so unlike. This, however, is a quality that has its admirers, and his pictures are coveted for such microscopic beauties, and no price, in reason, is thought too great for the acquisition. Every production of his pencil is marked with attention to detail, and is deserving of praise for purity of colouring and lightness of handling; in these latter respects he closely resembles Gaspar Netscher.

His compositions are very few, and consequently very rarely to be found in sales; Smith, with all his research, could find only forty to insert in his Catalogue Raisonné. He died in 1703.

GODFREY SCHALCKEN.

SCHALCKEN was born at Dort in 1643. He commenced his studies as an artist under Samuel van Hoogstraeten, and afterwards entered the school of Gerard Dou; this was congenial to his taste, and in it he acquired so much of the science and mechanism of the art, that when he left it he had the reputation of being one of Dou's best pupils. His genius, however, was limited, or rather, he had none at all; what he possessed was mechanical skill. He at one time, it is said, aspired to the imitation of Rembrandt's effects in boldly contrasted light and shade, but

found success in this too difficult for his powers; the light of sunshine was too strong and diffusive, so he had recourse to a lamp or a candle. Any peculiar talent begets a reputation, more or less, according to its novelty or frequency. What is new in art pleases for a time, and it becomes the fashion to admire; but when it is found that the artist possesses only the talent for one thing, easily imitated, his reputation abates, and he is considered rather as an artisan or mechanic. Schalcken's productions on a small scale were new and striking; they emanated from a school whose master was renowned for the skill and beauty of his representations, and some of this reputation attached itself to the scholar. No doubt his pictures of candle-light effect at first had a clearness and nearer approach to truth than they now possess, and a beauty of colouring and penciling that did honour to the school, and would justify the approbation with which they were received. Time has deprived them of their pristine qualities, and many of them now present but masses of lurid red and smoky darkness, quite inconsistent with the effect of a lighted candle or lamp in an apartment. This may in part be the result of the method he adopted in painting them. He placed his model in the proper position, and illuminated it with a lighted candle or lamp in a darkened room, looked through an aperture in the wainscot, and performed the work in an adjoining apartment. His day-light pictures are beautifully finished, but have frequently a coldness in the flesh tints that detracts from the pleasure they otherwise would give. Some, however, are so sweetly and harmoniously painted that the highest master in his class might be proud to own them. Schalcken was patronized by William the Third, and came to England, and painted not only the king's portrait but those of several of the nobility; he returned to Holland, settled at the Hague, and died there in 1706. Smith's Catalogue Raisonné contains descriptions of one hundred and twenty-seven of his pictures; some of the best in England are in the Royal Collection, and there is one in the National Gallery.

G

SCHOLARS AND IMITATORS OF GODFREY SCHALCKEN.

ARNOLD BOONEN was a scholar of Godfrey Schalcken, and skilful imitator of his manner in candle-light pieces, which are painted with a delicacy, in some instances, almost equal to his master. His pictures of fancy subjects are few, as he devoted himself chiefly to portrait painting. He was born at Dort in 1669, and died in 1729.

PHILIP VAN DYCK was a scholar of Arnold Boonen. Like his master, perhaps from his example, he painted several pictures in imitation of Schalcken, which approach so nearly to that master that they are not easily distinguished. They are discriminated by their sparkling effect, in which he loved to indulge; his females have agreeable expression and a graceful air, but the execution wants the delicacy and sweetness of Schalcken's pencil. His chief employment being portrait painting, both large and small, his fancy subjects are rare, and, when in good preservation, deservedly prized. He was born at Amsterdam in 1680, and died at the Hague in 1752. See Imitators of Metsu..

KAREL DE MOOR, born at Leyden in 1656, was first a scholar of Gerard Dou, then of Abraham Vander Tempel, Francis Mieris, and, lastly, of Schalcken, under whom he studied at Dort for some years. His works partake occasionally of the manner of each of his masters, but there is much greater freedom of penciling and force of colouring, and very little of the restraint of a copyist. He was successful in his profession. He died at the Hague in 1738. See Scholars of Gerard Dou and Francis Mieris.

OLIVIER VAN DURREN, or D'EUREN, supposed to be the artist called JOHN FRANCIS DOUVEN, was born at Ruremonde in 1655; he was a good copyist and clever portrait painter. He was much employed at courts in Germany and Italy. It is said that some of his smaller pictures approach so closely to the style and colouring of Schalcken as to induce the supposition that he had studied under him; there is no record that he did so. There are different dates given of the time of his death; namely, 1724, 1726, and 1727.

ANSELM WEELING, copied and imitated the pictures of Schalcken almost to deception, particularly his candle-light

pieces. He was a brilliant colourist, and understood perfectly the principles of chiaroscuro; had he been less a slave to intemperance and debauchery he might have attained a rank in art equal to the master he imitated.

MICHIEL VEERSTEEG, or VERSTEIGH, a modern Dutch painter of landscapes with cattle, has proved himself an excellent imitator of Schalcken in conversation subjects by candle-light. In the distribution of the light he is, perhaps, superior, as he diffuses it over a wider space, preserving at the same time its proper gradation from the illuminating power. He was born at Dort in 1756, and died about 1840.

JUSTUS VAN BENTUM was a pupil of Schalcken, and painted subjects in the manner of his master. He was born at Leyden in 1670, and died in 1727.

GERARD JAN PALTHE painted portraits, familiar subjects, and interiors by candle or torch light, in the manner of Schalcken. He was born in 1681, and died in 1750. He had a son who painted similar subjects; his name was Jan.

B. MATON was a successful imitator of Schalcken in candle-light pieces. His works are perhaps more brilliant in colour, but have not the purity and highly finishing of the masters he imitated. See Imitators of Gerard Dou and William Mieris.

ADRIAN VANDER WERF

WAS born at Kralinger-Ambacht, near Rotterdam, in 1659. His first master was a portrait painter of the name of Cornelius Picolet; after two years' study with him, he was placed under Eglon Vanderneer, whose manner of painting he found more congenial. The style of Van Loo, under whom Vanderneer had studied, had still greater attraction for him, as being more classical, and he accordingly applied himself to drawing after plaster casts of the finest antique statues. From these he obtained correctness of form, gracefulness of attitude, and elevation of character, and was perhaps seduced to adopt that exquisite polish so conspicuous in all his works. To too much application in drawing from plaster models may be attributed also that coldness of colouring, which prevails in his otherwise animated and beautiful forms, and gives them rather the ap