Page:Hofstede de Groot catalogue raisonné, Volume 3, 1910.djvu/575

 xii ADRIAEN BROUWER 561 PUPILS AND IMITATORS OF ADRIAEN BROUWER In the case of Brouwer, as in that of most other artists, we have to distinguish between those who were his pupils in the true sense of the word, painters who were more or less subject to his influence, and those whose works are attributed to the artist for commercial reasons although their resemblance to his pictures is only slight. To the first category belong only two artists : JAN BAPTIST DANDOY, who, according to the Antwerp registers, became Brouwer's pupil immedi- ately after that painter had been admitted to the Guild of St. Luke (1631- 1632), though nothing whatever is known of the pupil's works; and JOOST VAN CRAESBEECK (i6oi-after 1654), originally a baker, who was led by Brouwer to take up painting. Craesbeeck painted, not without merit, in the style of his master, in somewhat stronger tones, with less variety in the short sturdy figures, and with a less delicate expression. He ventured on larger compositions, as, for instance, in his pictures in the Arenberg gallery and in the Louvre. In the second category of imitators of Brouwer we may place above all DAVID TENIERS the younger (1610-1690), who was four or five years younger than Brouwer. For a certain period he was much under the in- fluence of his brilliant fellow-countryman, and exerted in his turn some influence on Brouwer, so that it is not always easy to distinguish the Brouwer-like pictures of Teniers from the Teniers-like pictures of Brouwer. On the whole, it may be said that the Brouwers are always freer and more spirited than the Teniers, in which, despite all their technical completeness, there is always something commonplace that leaves one cold. It is a surprising fact that painting at Dordrecht and Rotterdam, the two most southerly art-centres in Holland, was strongly influenced from Antwerp, although the towns were separated from Antwerp by war, and although they were geographically more remote from it than, for instance, from Amsterdam. The school of painters of peasant life represented by ARENT DIEPRAEM (1622-1670), HENDRICH MAERTENSZ SORGH (about 161 1-1670), HERMAN (1609-1685) and CORNELIS SAFTLEVEN (about 1607- 1681), PIETER DE BLOOT (about 1601-1658), HUBERT VAN RAVESTEIJN (i638-between 1683 and 1691), JOHANNES NATUS (1636-1660), and others show this influence both in composition and in types. However, David Teniers, who was more prolific and lived longer, appears to have exercised a greater influence than Adriaen Brouwer, although Diepraem, for in- stance, in his types of figures stands nearer to Brouwer himself. Adriaen Brouwer was a great power in Haarlem and throughout Holland long after he had left them for ever. This is shown by the numerous traces of his influence in Dutch painting. It is not long since the early works of Adriaen van Ostade, with their harsh lighting and their caricatured figures, were commonly regarded as examples of Brouwer's Haarlem period, in common with many interiors by Isack van Ostade. Yet the similarity is only superficial, based on the treatment of the peasant VOL. Ill 2 O