ixvi HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ART

 

reely inferior to Vermeer of Delft, and frequently confounded
with him, is Pieter de Hooch (1630-ca. 1677), celebrated for the
fascinating effects of light in his interiors. And last, but not least
of this artist array who, whether as pupils or followers, are associ-
ated with Rembrandt, comes Gerard Dou (born at Leyden in 1613;
d. 1675), the great master of minuteness of finish, whose ‘Night
School’, ‘Maidens by candle-light’, and ‘Hermits’ are in so much
favour with the public, commanding prices commensurate with the
admiration bestowed upon them, though it must be said of his
works that skilful and delicate manipulation takes the place of poet-
ical expression, and that the range We his fancy is contracted in
measure corresponding with his painstaking elaboration of finish.
This latter quality, however, must receive its due meed of praise.
On the other hand Dou is connected with a number of painters
of declining excellence, such as Frans van Mieris the Elder, of
Leyden (1635-81), Pieter van Slingelandt ( (4640-91), Godfrey
Schalcken (1643- 4706 6), Abraham de Pape cee 1625-1666), and
many others.

 

 

    

1.

 
 

 

   

 

 

It will be seen, then, that Rembrandt’s influence was as weighty
and comprehensive as the products of his easel were great in
number and surpassing in quality. Painters of the most widely
differing motives acknowledge him as their master and example,
and he has led the way, not only in historical and portrait painting,
but in landscape too, and in the so-called genre painting. In this
respect Bartholomew van der Helst, to whom many would assign a
place amongst the foremost realists next to Rembrandt, cannot compare
with him. Van der Helst was born at Haarlem in 1613, and ended
his days at Amsterdam in 1670, in the enjoyment of great wealth and
general esteem. Nicolaes Elias (p. lxii) is regarded as his teacher.
Nothing is known of his relations with Rembrandt, whose path he
appears to be continually crossing without compromising his independ-
ence. He was the favourite portrait-painter of the wealthy burghers
of Amsterdam, and confined himself almost entirely to the painting
of ‘Regent’ pieces and portraits. His most celebrated work, the
Arquebusiers’ Banquet (1648), is in the Museum of Amsterdam
(which also possesses the Arquebusiers’ Guild of 1642, and the
‘Doelenstuk’ of 1657), and when compared with Rembrandt’s ‘Night
Watch’, admirably illustrates the points of difference between the
two masters. Van der Helst presents to us Nature as she is, un-
relieved, a bare reality. If Nature herself could paint she would
have given us a picture such as Van der Helst’s. It is otherwise
with Rembrandt. Upon all his works he sets the seal of his in-
dividuality. As the reality presents itself to his eye, so he re-
produces it with just that degree of truthfulness which his intention
prescribes. Van der Helst’s are mere imitations, illusive in their
fidelity, but leaving no enduring impression.