^ Died on 03 May 1703: Eglon Hendrick van der Neer, Dutch Baroque painter born in 1634. — {His artwork was a Neer success, just as that of his father}
— Eglon van der Neer was the son and student of Aert van der Neer [1603 – 09 Nov 1677], Dutch landscapist and wyntapper (tavern keeper) active in Amsterdam. Eglon is best known for genre pieces done {neerly} in the style of Terborch [1617 – 08 Dec 1681] and Metsu [Jan 1629 – 24 Oct 1667 bur.]. He carried on Terborch's and Metsu's tradition of showing interiors with scenes of the life of the wealthy classes, and he did so effectively. Eglon painted landscapes as well as history pictures, portraits, and genre scenes, was more peripatetic and had greater financial success than his father. About 1654, at the beginning of his career Eglon went to France where he served as painter to the Counts of Dona, Dutch governors of the principality of Orange (in Provence) {which had no resemblance to a banana republic and whose national anthem, if it even had one, was certainly not “Yes, we have no bananas today”.}. He returned to his native Amsterdam by 1659 and married Maria van Wagensvelt in Rotterdam on 20 February 1659. The couple had 16 children. From 1664 until 1679, Rotterdam was his base. Thereafter he spent a decade in Brussels. He was appointed court painter of Charles II of Spain in 1687; however, he apparently never made the trip to the king's court. In 1690 he accepted the post of court painter to the Elector Palatine, Johann Willhelm in Düsseldorf. Adriaen der Werff, Eglon's student, made contact with the Elector Palatine in 1696 and quickly became his favorite. However, Eglon continued to hold his position until his death.

— LINKS
— Young Lady at her Breakfast (1665, 31x27cm; 660x570pix, 55kb _ ZOOM+ to 1250x1080pix, 197kb _ ZOOM++ to 2500x2160pix, 908kb) _ At a heavy oak table with turned legs sits a noble young woman dressed in a red silk dress and a white satin bodice with slitted sleeves. Her right hand is touching a tin plate with three oysters on the half-shell and a spirally partly peeled lemon on it. In her left hand, crossed under the right hand, she lightly holds an oyster fork by the wrong end. On the table also lie a knife and two rolls along with a silver tray with a wineglass and a white jug, in the deep shadows further back there seems to be another tray with food difficult to identify. The lady is distracted by something out-of-frame at which she is looking. Van der Neer painted numerous pictures of this type. In most cases the activities of the women depicted and the surrounding objects appear to have a symbolic meaning in reference to a virtue, a vice or the five senses. Genre paintings also offered the opportunity to depict the qualities of precious materials in all their finery. With a virtuosity inspired by and rivals Terborch's, Eglon van der Neer knew how to reproduce the sumptuous form and silky sheen of the woman’s clothing. The interplay of the three shades of red in the chair, the dress and the sleeves intensifies the color. In this respect the picture is representative of the last phase of 17th century genre painting, when artists concentrated more than before on the craftsmanship involved in painting.
— Man and Woman in a Room (1666, 74x68cm; 872x800pix, 122kb _ ZOOM to 1493x1370pix, 287kb) _ An affluent couple is seated comfortably in their handsome room, with embossed leather covering the wall and a Persian carpet on the table. Dutch artists often depicted paintings within paintings to comment on their subjects: here the image of Venus over the mantel may allude to the couple's marital harmony.
— The Betrothal: Elegant Couple in a Room (1678, 85x70cm; 1009x840pix) _ It is not known why van der Neer made the the man {!!!} look at least 8-months-pregnant; satiric comment on something or another? If it is inadvertent, it is not typical of van der Neer, who devoted a great deal of attention to the minutest details in his genre paintings — from the foreground to the most distant point in the background — though this did not always serve to heighten the natural effect of these scenes. The very precise and accurate rendering of the various materials sometimes gives his paintings a cool, distant feel. Nevertheless, Van der Neer was highly successful: the opulent interiors and the extremely costly materials he so accurately depicted must have appealed to the imagination of his clients. He was admired by many of the crowned heads of Europe and worked as court painter to the Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm. The rich, fashionably dressed burghers who shown standing in Elegant Couple in an Interior are surrounded by several servants. Van der Neer paid great attention to the costly fabrics of the clothes of the elegant couple in the foreground. He rendered the sheen and transparency of ribbons, embroidery and lace with the utmost care, and the man's beautifully coifed wig received the same meticulous attention to detail. The various elements in the painting have not been forged into a unified whole, however. Eglon van der Neer probably wanted to demonstrate his technical skill in the depiction of details. The great variety of materials is certainly no coincidence. We cannot say with any certainty whether the painting depicts anything more than two people in a stylish interior. The fact that the couple in the background are drinking and their rather too intimate behavior might indicate that this is a brothel scene. _ At one time the painting belonged to the Jewish owner of an art gallery in Elberfeld (present-day Wuppertal), Germany, Walter Westfeld [1889–] who died at the Auschwitz death camp some time between 1942 and 1945.
— Allegory of Religion (1693, 26x20cm) _ Van der Neer used a polished style in depicting this moralistic allegory, encouraging the viewer to choose the path of true faith. Depicted in the orb of faith are various scenes from the life of Christ including the Road to Calvary. They were intended as examples to follow. A painting at the Castello Sforzesco in Milan forms the companion piece to this work. In that work Van der Neer depicted wicked worldly pleasures, such as dancing and smoking.
— The Reader (38x28cm)
— La marchande de poissons (17x21cm; 700x549pix, 200kb)
— Children with a Cage and a Cat (24x19cm; 575x448pix, 100kb) _ {Could it be titled: Where's the canary?}
—(060502)

^ Died on 03 May 1918: William Frederick Yeames, British painter born on 18 December 1835, son of a British consul in Russia.
— William Yeames was sent to school in Dresden after the death of his father in 1842. He also studied painting there. The collapse of the Yeames family fortune resulted in a move to London in 1848, where Yeames learnt anatomy and composition from George Scharf [1788–1860]. He later took lessons from F. A. Westmacott. In 1852 he continued his artistic education in Florence under Enrico Pollastrini [15 Jun 1817 – 11 Jan 1876] and Raphael Buonajuto, from whom he learnt the methods of the Old Masters. He drew from frescoes by Ghirlandaio [1449 – 11 Jan 1494], Gozzoli [1420 – 04 Oct 1497] and Andrea del Sarto [16 Jul 1486 – 28 Sep 1530], and painted in the Life School at the Grand Ducal Academy. He then went to Rome and made landscape studies and copied Old Masters, including the frescoes of Raphael [06 Apr 1483 – 06 Apr 1520] in the Vatican.
      His extensive study of Italian art gave him a precision and facility that assisted his artistic success upon his return to London in 1859. There he set up a studio in Park Place and became a leading member of the Saint John's Wood Clique, led by the flamboyant Philip Hermogenes Calderon [03 May 1833 – 30 Apr 1898]. The group often rented Hever Castle in Kent during the summer months and used it as a setting for some of their pictures. Yeames sought a fresh approach to historical subject matter. Yeames and Frederick Goodall [17 Sep 1822 – 28 Jul 1904], another member of the clique, specialized in Tudor and Stuart subjects, but often departed from the tradition of depicting a particular specific historic event by creating situations which simply captured the mood of bygone times.
      Yeames exhibited at the Royal Academy and the British Institution from 1859 and became an ARA in 1866. At first Yeames attempted large-scale decorative work, contributing the figures of Torrigiano and Holbein to the series of mosaic portraits of artists at the South Kensington Museum (1866).

— LINKS
— And when did you last see your father? (1878, 103x143cm; 321x629pix, 24kb) _ This is Yeames' most famous picture. He wrote: “I had, at the time I painted the picture, living in my house a nephew of an innocent and truthful disposition, and it occurred to me to represent him in a situation where the child's outspokenness and unconsciousness would lead to disastrous consequences and a scene in a country house occupied by the Puritans during the Rebellion in England suited my purpose.” The people in the painting are composed like characters on a stage. This adds to the sense of drama in an already tense setting. The viewer is left guessing what the boy will answer. The painting deals cleverly with the themes of innocence and childhood. We wonder whether the boy, who will have been told that honesty is a virtue, will realize in time the gravity of the situation. The small size of the boy, his blonde hair and blue suit highlight his innocence. In order to save his father, he may have to lose some of his innocence and lie to the men questioning him. Yeames does not appear to favor one side over the other, letting the drama of the situation speak for itself. Although we are aware of the purpose of the soldiers' visit to the house, he invests the scene with a sense of their 'moral duty'. The Victorians believed that men in the English Civil War fought out of a sense of conviction and loyalty. This is shown by Yeames as, despite the situation, he depicts the men's human qualities. The soldier in the left of the scene is seen comforting the little girl, who appears aware of the significance of the question.
     This painting shows a Royalist family who have been captured by the enemy during the English Civil War (1642-1649). The boy is being questioned about the whereabouts of his father by a panel of Parliamentarians. We can tell from the boy's clothes that he is a Royalist. Possibly his father is commander of a Royalist army and the Parliamentarians are hoping to gain knowledge of its whereabouts. The young boy in the painting was based on Yeames' nephew, James Lambe Yeames [1873-1960], who was about five years old when this was painted. The girl is dressed in Royalist clothing so we can assume that she is the boy's sister. She is crying, probably because she is afraid of what the soldiers might do to her family. The young girl was modelled by the artist's niece, Mary Yeames [1868-1960]. We can tell by the clothes of the two women in the background that they are Royalists. The lady at the back is hiding behind the other and seems to be more afraid. The lady in the front does not seem so afraid and is looking directly at the interrogators. The lady hiding could be an older sister and the tall lady in the front their mother. Another possible interpretation is that the lady dressed in green is the children's mother while the one dressed in black is a maidservant. The maidservant could have informed the Parliamentarians that the family is hiding something.
      The man on the bench is a cavalry officer. We know this because of the long riding boots that he is wearing. He is watching the interrogation of the boy with interest. The officer is wearing the yellow sash of Parliament over his uniform. All Parliamentarian soldiers wore yellow sashes during battle so that they could easily spot members of their own army. The man writing is a clerk. He is writing down everything that is said. His presence also makes the scene more official as the interrogation is clearly being carried out as if it were a court case. The man in the corner is almost hidden by the shadows in the room. However, he is looking directly at the boy and seems assured that the family is guilty. He holds in his arms a number of books, probably literature that had been forbidden by the Puritans. He seems to be happy that it is he that holds the evidence of the Royalist nature of the family and he is enjoying seeing the distress of the family. The bundle of books is clearly an important piece of evidence since the man in the corner has not put them down. During the period of the Civil War the Puritans banned the reading of many books of literature believing the Bible to be the only book that should be read. It would seem that they are being offered as evidence that the boy's father is an enemy of Parliament.
      We know that the man standing at the left is a sergeant because he is carrying a halberd and they were always carried by sergeants from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. He is the man who has arrested the family and has brought them before the Parliamentarians for questioning. However, he does not seem too happy with his task. The arm around the girl seems to be comforting rather than arresting and he is not looking directly at the scene in front of him. We can guess that maybe he has a family of his own and feels that questioning of children in this way is wrong. The man dressed in black with white collar and sitting bolt upright on the bench is a typical Puritan figure. He stares at the boy with a stern expression on his face. He seems glad that another Royalist family has been discovered and probably believes that they deserve harsh punishment.
      The interrogator questioning the boy does not seem as intimidating as the other Parliamentarians in the room. He is leaning forward with his chin resting on his hands and his expression seems almost sympathetic towards the boy. Possibly he is tired of having to carry out such tasks and believes that the war against the King should be won on the battlefield and not through the interrogation of women and children. The man at the edge of the picture, like the one in the center, is sprawled on the bench. He is wearing a heavy looking brown coat of the type worn by cavalrymen. He appears to be present as an onlooker rather than a member of the interrogation team. Possibly he is hoping for some information that will help his own cavalry to be victorious over the Royalists.
— Prince Arthur and Hubert (1882, 201x126cm; 828x508pix, 26kb) _ The subject is from the play King John by Shakespeare. Hubert de Burgh [–1243] has been instructed by the usurper King John to kill young Arthur, the imprisoned legitimate king, but finds he cannot hurt an innocent child. Instead, he will give the King a false report of Arthur's death (Arthur eventually dies anyhow, in an escape attempt). The painting depicts the figures of the young boy, Prince Arthur, and Hubert seated on a wooden bench against a heavy wooden table. Hubert leans against the table behind him, with one hand clasping its edge and the other pinned between his knees, his head is lowered, his brow furrowed and eyes downcast; he is depicted in a black, belted medieval robe with a separate hood pulled over his head. The boy, by contrast, wears a gleaming white robe and has fair hair and almost translucent skin; sitting to the side of Hubert, he leans towards him with one arm wrapped around his shoulders and the other pressing on his arm with an imploring expression on his face. On the wooden floor in the right foreground is a coil of rope. The bench and table, which is covered with a white cloth with a simple striped design at each end, are of a functional design in a red colored wood and are the only visible furnishings. In the right background is a large stone column.
     Historically, Arthur [29 Mar 1187 – 03 Apr 1203] duke of Brittany, a grandson of King Henry II [1133 – 06 Jul 1189] of England; was a rival of his uncle John “Lackland” [24 Dec 1167 – 18 Oct 1216] (king of England from 1199) for several French provinces, both in his own interest and in that of King Philippe II Auguste [21 Aug 1165 – 14 Jul 1223] of France. In October 1190 Arthur was recognized as heir presumptive to the English throne by another uncle, the childless King Richard I “the Lion-Heart” [08 Sep 1157 – 06 Apr 1199]. Arthur was a posthumous child of Geoffrey, fourth of Henry II's five sons, and his wardship was a point of contention between Richard and Philippe. From 1196 he was reared in the household of Philippe Auguste, causing Richard to disinherit the boy in favor of John, who, after Richard's sudden death, was accepted as king in England and Normandy. Philippe, however, recognized Arthur's right to Brittany, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Maine and betrothed his daughter Mary to the young duke. The situation was complicated by Eleanor of Aquitaine [1122 – 01 Apr 1204], widow of Henry II, who wanted Aquitaine and Anjou for John. Captured in battle by John at Mirebeau-en-Poitou on 01 August 1202, Arthur (several years older than he looks in the picture) was imprisoned and, according to tradition, was murdered either by John himself or at his order.
— Amy Robsart (1877, 281x188cm; 512x336pix, 14kb) _ Yeames was clearly fascinated by the intrigue surrounding Amy Robsart's death and may have been familiar with Sir Walter Scott's version of the incident, as recounted in Kenilworth (1831). When the picture was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1877 he included a lengthy explanation of the work's historical background in the catalogue. This took the form of an extract from a History of Berkshire by John Aubrey [12 March 1626 – June 1697]:
     Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, being the great favourite of the Queen Elizabeth, it was thought she would have made him her husband; to this end, to free himself of all obstacles, he had his wife, Amy Robsart, conveyed to the solitary house of Cumnor Hall, in Berkshire, inhabited by Anthony Forster, his servant. This same Forster, in compliance with what he well knew to be the Earl's wishes, came with others in the dead of night to the lady's bedchamber and stifled her in bed, and flung her downstairs, thereby believing the world would have thought it a mischance, and so blinded their villainy; and the morning after, with the purpose that others should know of her end, did Forster, on pretence of carrying out some behest of the Countess, bring a servant to the spot where the poor lady's body lay at the foot of the stairs.
      The woman's body lies bathed in light, her cloak romantically arranged across the bottom steps of the staircase. She appears less the bruised and battered victim of a vile murder than a seductive sleeping beauty. The devious Forster leads his manservant down the back stairs from the bedroom above. The latter is clearly horrified by the sight of the dead woman, and Forster pushes him back, for fear that he might discover the actual method of her death.
— La Biccolante: A Venetian water-carrier (1879 diploma work, 158x87cm; 600x328pix, 56kb)