Page:Hofstede de Groot catalogue raisonné, Volume 5, 1913.djvu/326

310 GODFRIED SCHALCKEN SECT. Dou ; and he acquired a new method of lighting and rendering effects of light, which in turn makes it very easy for one to confuse his works with the better works of his pupil Arnold Boonen. He tried also to combine the effects of two sources of light, such as the moon and a candle, or a ray of sunlight entering a room and a charcoal fire. These experiments were very highly admired by his contemporaries and by the whole eighteenth century, but they have lost their attraction now. Schalcken also painted daylight scenes. His masterpiece, which was praised by Houbraken, is the picture at Buckingham Palace (166) repre- senting a scene from the " Vrouwtje kom ten Hoof," a comedy which to our ideas seems somewhat curious. This is indeed a work of art which may in every respect be compared with the best pictures of a Netscher or a Frans van Mieris. Again, the " Boy Angling " in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin (139), is an especially attractive and unpretending work, finely observed and pleasing in colour. Schalcken's portraits are smooth and mannered, as the fashion of the time required. They are most closely related to the portraits of Adriaen van der Werff. The landscapes often attributed to G. Schalcken in old catalogues are the work of an older Haarlem painter, Cornelis Simonsz van der Schalcke. PUPILS AND IMITATORS OF GODFRIED SCHALCKEN Schalcken taught his sister Maria and his nephew Jacobus to paint. The author has never seen a picture by either of them, and can offer no opinion as to their work. CAREL DE MOOR (1656-1738) was unquestionably the one among Schalcken's pupils who went farthest, as measured by worldly honours, although there was not a very close affinity between his style and that of his master. But he first went to study under Schalcken, when he himself was already a fairly prolific painter and, according to his contemporaries, understood drawing better than the master. De Moor's art is, however, pretty well forgotten to-day and little valued. This is also the case with ARNOLD BOONEN (1669-1729). But he contrived to imitate Schalcken's candlelight scenes with such precision that it is not always easy to distinguish his works from those of his master. As a rule they repeat the formula more literally ; they are more mannered, more exaggerated in effect, and harder in colour and outline. ANTHONY VREEM (1660-1681), R. MORIS, S. GERMIJN (1650-1719), J. VAN BENTUM (said to have been born in 1670-1727) and GIAMAGLI, who, as we know from documents or from tradition, were pupils of Schalcken, have left scarcely any traces of their activity.