Other Portraits in the Mauritshuis.—Of other notable portraits in the Mauritshuis there are three by Moreelse (one of himself); six by Honthorst, including one of a child gathering fruit, originally in the Castle of Honsholredijk; nine by Mierevelt (chiefly of various Princes of Orange); three by Ravesteyn, one a group; two by Moro, one of a goldsmith, the other supposed to be Prince William I. in his youth; three by Netscher; Ter Borch's of himself; two by Frans van Mieris; one by Cuijp, and other examples by Rubens and Van Dijck.
Ferdinand Bol's Pay for Portraits.—Of Rembrandt's numerous pupils, one of the most eminent in portraiture was Ferdinand Bol (1616-80), whose earliest signed work is dated 1642. In his earliest period he devoted himself chiefly to large pictures of Biblical subjects; but, like many other artists, he very soon found that there was a great deal more money to be made in portraiture. At that time, when photography was unknown, it was only natural that everybody who could afford it had his picture painted. From the burgomaster to the ordinary tailor or skipper—all wanted to have pictures of themselves and their families hanging on their own walls; and the purchaser could indulge himself in this natural vanity at comparatively small cost, for the demand naturally increased the supply; and there were only too many painters who were glad enough to serve their patrons. As the artists became famous their prices naturally increased; and some received higher pay than others who to-day have a greater reputation. Rembrandt probably received as much as anybody else for a time; but at the end of his life there was a greater demand for portraits by others, such as Maes, who were more pliant to the changing mode. Rembrandt received 500 gulden each for his famous portraits, whilst others were content with 150, 100, and even 30 or 40 gulden. Caspar Netscher, for instance, received only from 50 to 70 gulden for his elegantly finished pictures. The usual custom was for an artist to paint portraits for a living, meanwhile working and developing himself along the lines of his special genius. Thus we find several of the Little Masters practically relinquishing portraiture as soon as they had made a big reputation in genre, or other fields.
Bol's Work in Portraiture.—Bol was a portrait-painter exclusively; he married first in 1653, and a second time in 1669. Probably both wives belonged to rich and important families, for Bol was kept busy his whole life long and became wealthy, dying in 1680 in his beautiful house with its fine grounds and stables.
With him, as with so many other successful painters, his last pictures were not his best. In his earlier portraits he represents his sitters in beautiful chiaroscuro. The painting is broad and spirited; the color strong and brilliant. He painted so much in Rembrandt's style at first that many of Bol's pictures have been taken for those of his master; and later, when Bol's reputation had faded, unscrupulous dealers did not hesitate to change his signature on the canvases for that of Rembrandt. A celebrated instance of this practice is the so-called Portrait of Flinck and his Wife in Munich, which by many connoisseurs was long admired as Rembrandt's work; but, by Hauser's skill, the false Rembrandt signature was obliterated and the real one of Bol brought to light.
Bol's Portrait of De Ruyter's Son.—The Mauritshuis owns one of the best portraits by Bol, painted in his later period, that of the handsome twenty-year-old son of the great Admiral de Ruyter. This son, Engel de Ruyter, was born in 1649 and died in 1683. Bol painted him in the year 1669, as may be seen by the date on the picture. It is only quite recently that the pendant, a portrait of the great Admiral de Ruyter, has come to be regarded as a copy after Bol. The charming little marine in the picture is undoubtedly by the hand of Willem van de Velde the younger, and adds greatly to the interest of the painting because it is of itself a fine picture of that great master. In many of his later portraits, Bol is somewhat dull in his color and painted them too rapidly, besides giving to his flesh too strong a red-rose tint; but that cannot be said of him in this case, where he has done his very best. In particular, he has handled the rich costume with affectionate and masterful touch.
F. BOL
Admiral de Ruyter
Description of the Sitter.—The genial countenance, which displays none of the real martial type of his celebrated father, rises finely out of the red drapery. The bearing is elegant, though perhaps there is a little too much pose in it. The portrait is particularly interesting, because the sitter had a career of great promise which was cut short all too soon. Nine years after the portrait was painted, the youth had already risen to the rank of Vice-Admiral and had been created a Spanish count, having also refused the title of duke; but before he had attained thirty-four years of age, he died, not a hero's death like his father, as he had desired, but in his own luxurious dwelling in Amsterdam. However, he had already while very young fought valiantly beside his father in the Battle of Solebay.
A Picture by Salomon Koninck.—Another pupil of Rembrandt whom we shall see in the Rijks is G. van den Eeckhout. A picture formerly attributed to him, the Adoration of the Magi, is now known to be by Salomon Koninck (1618-88). One of the Magi in a red cloak is kneeling before the Infant Jesus and another on the right wears a golden mantle. The color is vigorous and the work shows the knowledge of chiaroscuro for which Rembrandt's school was so famous.
Two Pictures by Nicholas Maes.—Nicholas Maes (1632-93) is represented in the Mauritshuis by only two pictures,—one of them of questionable origin, moreover; and therefore the student must go to Amsterdam for varied examples of his work. The portrait here is that of the Grand Pensionary, Jakob Cats, an original replica of which hangs in the Budapesth gallery. Diana and Her Nymphs shows some of the qualities to be expected of one who worked in Rembrandt's studio for eighteen years; but it is now sometimes attributed to Vermeer of Delft. The signature, "N. M. 1650," is said to be false.