Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/449

 his name are wholly his own handiwork. He settled down in his native town, but went frequently to The Hague, where he entered the gild of St Luke in 1625. So great was his reputation that he was patronized by royalty in many countries and acquired great wealth. The king of Sweden and the count palatine of Neuburg presented him with golden chains, Archduke Albrecht gave him a pension, and Charles I. vainly endeavoured to induce him to visit the English court. Though Mierevelt is chiefly known as a portrait painter, he also executed some mythological pieces of minor importance. Many of his portraits have been reproduced in line by the leading Dutch engravers of his time. He died at Delft on the 27th of June 1641.

The Ryks Museum in Amsterdam has the richest collection of Mierevelt’s works, chief of them being the portraits of William, Philip William, Maurice, and Frederick Henry of Orange, and of the count palatine Frederick V. At The Hague Museum are the portraits of four princes of the house of Orange, of Frederick V., king of Bohemia, and of Louise de Coligny as a widow. Other portraits by him are at nearly all the leading continental galleries, notably at Brunswick (3), Gotha (2), Schwerin (3), Munich (2), Paris (Louvre, 3), Dresden (4), Berlin (2), and Darmstadt (3). The town hall of Delft also has numerous examples of his work.

Many of his pupils and assistants rose to fame. The most gifted of them were Paulus Moreelse and Jan van Ravesteyn. His sons Pieter (1596–1623) and Jan (d. 1633), and his son-in-law Willem Jacobz Delff, probably painted many of the pictures which go under his name. His portrait was painted by Van Dyck and engraved by Delff.

MIERIS, the name of a family of artists who practised painting at Leiden for three generations in the 17th and 18th centuries.

1., the elder (? 1635–1681), son of Jan van Mieris, a goldsmith and diamond setter, was born, according to Houbraken, at Leiden on the 16th of April 1635, and died there on the 12th of March 1681. His father wished to train him to his own business, but Frans preferred drawing to chasing, and took service with Abraham Torenvliet, a glazier who kept a school of design. In his father’s shop he became familiar with the ways and dress of people of distinction. His eye was fascinated in turn by the sheen of jewelry and stained glass; and, though he soon gave up the teaching of Torenvliet for that of Gerard Douw and Abraham van den Tempel, he acquired a manner which had more of the finish of the exquisites of the Dutch school than of the breadth of the disciples of Rembrandt. It should be borne in mind that he seldom chose panels of which the size exceeded 12 to 15 in., and whenever his name is attached to a picture above that size we may surely assign it to his son Willem or to some other imitator. Unlike Gerard Douw when he first left Rembrandt, or Jan Steen when he started on an independent career, Mieris never ventured to design figures as large as life. Characteristic of his art in its minute proportions is a shiny brightness and metallic polish. The subjects which he treated best are those in which he illustrated the habits or actions of the wealthier classes; but he sometimes succeeded in homely incidents and in portrait, and not unfrequently he ventured on allegory. He repeatedly painted the satin skirt which Ter Borch brought into fashion, and he often rivalled Ter Borch in the faithful rendering of rich and highly-coloured woven tissues. But he remained below Ter Borch and Metsu, because he had not their delicate perception of harmony or their charming mellowness of touch and tint, and he fell behind Gerard Douw, because he was hard and had not his feeling for effect by concentrated light and shade. In the form of his composition, which sometimes represents the framework of a window enlivened with greenery, and adorned with bas-reliefs within which figures are seen to the waist, his model is certainly Gerard Douw.

It is a question whether Houbraken has truly recorded this master’s birthday. One of his best-known pieces, a party of ladies and gentlemen at an oyster luncheon, in the Hermitage at St Petersburg, bears the date of 1650. Celebrated alike for composition and finish, it would prove that Mieris had reached his prime at the age of fifteen. Another beautiful example, the “Doctor Feeling a Lady’s Pulse” in the gallery of Vienna, is dated 1656; and Waagen, in one of his critical essays, justly observes that it is a remarkable production for a youth of twenty-one. In 1657 Mieris was married at Leiden in the presence of Jan Potheuck, a painter, and this is the earliest written record of his existence on which we can implicitly rely. Of the numerous panels by Mieris, twenty-nine at least are dated—the latest being an allegory, long in the Ruhl collection at Cologne, illustrating what he considered the kindred vices of drinking, smoking and dicing, in the year 1680.

Mieris had numerous and distinguished patrons. He received valuable commissions from Archduke Leopold, the elector-palatine, and Cosimo III., grand-duke of Tuscany. His practice was large and lucrative, but never engendered in him either carelessness or neglect. If there be a difference between the painter’s earlier and later work, it is that the former was clearer and more delicate in flesh, whilst the latter was often darker and more livid in the shadows. When he died his clients naturally went over to his son Willem, who in turn bequeathed his painting-room to his son Frans. But neither Willem nor Frans the younger equalled Frans the elder.

2. (1662–1747), son of Frans. His works are extremely numerous, being partly imitations of the paternal subjects, or mythological episodes, which Frans habitually avoided. In no case did he come near the excellence of his sire.

3., the younger (1689–1763), also lived on the traditions of his grandfather’s studio.

MIFFLIN, THOMAS (1744–1800), American soldier and politician, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 10th of January 1744, of Quaker parentage. He graduated at the college of Philadelphia (now the university of Pennsylvania) in 1760. As a member of the Pennsylvania house of representatives in 1772–1775, he was an ardent Whig, and in 1774 was a member of the first Continental Congress. After the outbreak of the War of Independence he devoted himself chiefly to the enlisting and drilling of troops, and was chosen major of a regiment. In June 1775 he entered the continental service as Washington’s first aide-de-camp, and in August was chosen quartermaster-general. He became a brigadier-general in May 1776 and a major-general in February 1777. On the 5th of June 1776 he was succeeded as quartermaster-general by Stephen Moylan. Moylan, however, proved incompetent, and Mifflin resumed the office on the 1st of October. In the autumn of 1777 Mifflin was a leader in the obscure movement known as the Conway Cabal, the object of which was to replace Washington by General Horatio Gates. On the ground of ill health Mifflin tendered his resignation on the 8th of October, and on the 7th of November Congress accepted his resignation as quartermaster general, but continued him in rank as major-general without pay. On the same day he was appointed a member of the new board of war, and on the following day was asked to continue as quartermaster-general until his successor should be appointed. On the 21st of November he urged before the old board of war and ordnance that Gates should be made president of the new board of war “from a conviction that his military skill would suggest reformations in the different departments of the army essential to good discipline, order and economy, and that his character and popularity in the army would facilitate the execution of such reformations when adopted by Congress.” The attacks on Washington failed, and in March 1778 Mifflin was finally superseded as quartermaster-general by General Nathanael Greene. In October of the same year he was removed from the board of war. The sufferings of the troops at Valley Forge having been charged to his mismanagement as quarter-