Biography

Discussion

Maurits Verveer was the second of three painting brothers. Up until the age of twenty-seven, he was raised to work in the mercantile business of his parents, who owned a textile store in The Hague. It was not until about 1845 that Maurits followed his brothers Salomon (also called ‘Samuel’ or ‘Sam’) and Elchanon by pursuing a career in the arts. In 1856, he stayed with his brother Elchanon for eight months in Brussels, Belgium, working as a wood engraver on a publication of Le juif errant (‘The Wandering Jew’), written by the then immensely popular French novelist, Eugène Sue. In response to a questionnaire sent one year later by the artist’s biographer Johannes Immerzeel Jr., who was gathering information at this time for his lexicon De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche kunstschilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en bouwmeesters (‘The Lives and Works of the Dutch and Flemish Painters, Sculptors, Engravers, and Architects’), Verveer stated that he was ‘currently busy with practicing painting (…)’. In this endeavour, he received instruction from his brothers. Starting in 1845, Verveer submitted various entries to the annual Tentoonstelling van Levende Meesters (‘Exhibition of Living Masters’). His entries in the years 1845 and 1847 consisted of wood engravings. From 1851 on, however, he sent in paintings. As was customary at the time, Verveer was specialised in a single genre: the beachscape (usually that of Scheveningen) with ships and human figures. In a number of Maurits’ paintings, such figures were painted by his brother Salomon—quite commonly, the task of staffage was assumed by a fellow painter.

Verveer, who never married, always remained in close contact with his family: for most of his life, he lived together with his brothers and sisters, who likewise remained unmarried. This was also the case at Zeestraat numbers 46 and 52, where Verveer’s studios were located from 1861 to 1891. One may conclude that, in addition to a photographic studio, there was also at least one painting studio present at these addresses. In his Haagsche Schetsen. Personen en voorvallen (‘Hague Sketches. Persons and Incidents’), P.A. Haaxman wrote: ‘When one entered the home of the Verveer brothers on the Zeestraat, one bathed in spirit and humour.’ Especially Salomon had a reputation for being an amusing figure.

As a a painter, Verveer had less success in comparison with his two brothers. Salomon was a renowned painter; Elchanon had built a reputation as an illustrator and caricaturist. Of the three Verveers, Maurits always received the least attention. A passage in an article concerning ‘De Haagsche Joden’ (‘The Jews of The Hague’), published immediately after Maurits’ death in 1904, aptly describes the situation: ‘(…) The canvases of Sam and Elchanon are in great demand. Maurits’ artistic labour also had merit (…)’. Paintings by Salomon and Elchanon are indeed found in public Dutch collections—Maurits’ paintings are not. During his lifetime, not much was written about Maurits’ paintings. The few accounts and facts that do exist are by no means clear-cut. In 1853, Maurits is known to have received a medal at a painting exhibition held in Dunkirk, France; two years prior to this, however, his entry to an exhibition in Brussels received an extremely negative review in the Album der Schoone Kunsten (‘Album of Fine Arts’). The Belgian reviewer spoke of a ‘(…) worn-out genre, twenty years outdated (…) [the] late [painter] Nuyen (…) but then washed-out’, adding that ‘(…) a trend finishes, always and everywhere, with becoming an old trend’.

Besides the possibility of being a lesser talent, a second explanation for Maurits’ limited fame may very well be the simple fact that his years of activity as a painter were far fewer than that of his brothers. It was in 1857 that Maurits opened a photographic studio on the Wagenstraat in The Hague. Perhaps he hoped to make a better living working in this profession as opposed to being a painter. He may also have combined his old profession with the new for a number of years, as he continued to participate in the yearly Tentoonstelling van Levende Meesters up until 1861. At the exhibition of 1857, he is known to have submitted three paintings and one photo.

By 1862, at the very latest, Verveer was devoting his full time and energy to photography, as his brother Salomon suggests in a letter providing information to the artist’s biographer Christiaan Kramm: ‘(…) I have a brother who is a painter, Elchanon Verveer, born in 1826 (…)’. Maurits is mentioned only as a photographer: ‘Should you desire a portrait for your album, please furnish the size for the head, as well as the entire format as you would like to have it, then I will have my brother the photographer produce it specifically, because the [lithographic] portrait that you meant by Van Brederode bears no resemblance, and [is] moreover very bad.’

As a photographer, Verveer focused primarily on making portraits. The Dutch female writer A.L.G. (‘Truitje’) Bosboom-Toussaint was among those to sit in front of his camera in the first few weeks following the studio’s opening in 1857. After having been engraved, the portrait was published in Aurora, a Dutch almanac. In a letter, Bosboom-Toussaint remarked: ‘I hope on behalf of those who are fond of me that [the engraver] will be able to give it a bit of life, because I look like a dead person.’ At a later point, Verveer’s portrait work would indeed earn him substantially more praise.

In addition to private individuals, Verveer photographed many renowned literary figures, artists, scientists, clergymen, politicians, and members of the Dutch royal house. In 1861, he placed several advertisements featuring the names of renowned figures such as Jacob van Lennep, J.A. Alberdingk Thijm, Cornelis Springer, and Louis Royer, who were all included in a series of photos that Verveer had given the title Tijdgenooten in Kunsten en Wetenschappen (‘Contemporaries in the Arts and Sciences’). These images were all carte-de-visite portraits, in fulfilment of the public’s desire—cultivated by photographers and publishing companies—to possess portraits in this format depicting themselves, family members, and acquaintances, as well as of famous figures both at home and abroad. Quite often, such photos were kept in albums specifically designed for this purpose. (The notion that Verveer sold ready-made portrait albums, as is sometimes purported in photo-historical academic literature, is based on misconception). Verveer belonged to the first generation of professional photographers in the Netherlands who were specialised in carte-de-visite portraits, which were smaller and more affordable than the formats that had been prevalent up until this time. In the Netherlands, this format probably started becoming popular in 1860. By early 1861, Verveer was offering portraits of more than one hundred well-known contemporaries, indicating that he was already very well aware of the carte-de-visite portrait’s commercial potential from a very early stage.

Verveer’s portrait production and publication, which was more or less serial in nature, is part of a long tradition. Since the sixteenth century, there have been numerous series of portrait prints in circulation, depicting renowned and illustrious men and women, varying from princes, leaders, and politicians, to academics, writers, and artists. Verveer was not the only one to compile such a series through the medium of photography: outside the Netherlands, many such series are known to have been produced, sometimes accompanying the written biographies of the person portrayed. Between 1860 and 1862, the Parisian photographer A.A.E. Disdéri published a Galerie des contemporains (‘Gallery of Contemporaries’) in weekly editions of two photos. Similarly, Joseph Dupont, a photographer in Antwerp, Belgium, brought out his series L’Ecole d’Anvers (‘The School of Antwerp’) circa 1860, which would ultimately entail at least 142 carte-de-visite artists’ portraits.

In order to take portrait photos of renowned figures—not just of those living The Hague, but also those residing in Amsterdam—Verveer set up a temporary studio in the building of the artists association ‘Arti et Amicitiae’ (‘Art and Friendship’) in February 1861. On 8 March 1861, the newspaper Amsterdamsche Courant reported that the only artists whose photographs had been taken up until this time were virtually all foreign. The newspaper expressed a very favourable view of Verveer’s portraits, which were being shown by the Amsterdam art dealer Frans Buffa & Zonen. The poses and lighting were generally better than what one typically encountered in the work of other photographers (‘the regular mechanical practitioners’). The magazine Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode took a more critical viewpoint. In May 1861, the magazine stated that Verveer’s series ‘(…) [may] enjoy deserved support, as indeed many pictures found in it may be considered charming’. Nevertheless, the magazine lamented ‘(…) that several examples of physiognomies are to be found there, which are essential for a Collection of [the nation’s] Men and Women, and which nevertheless appear here in a highly unfavourable manner, [as] the consequence of an ill-conceived positioning and lighting of the images, particularly (which, yes, is one thing that matters the most) of the head.’ Instead, the reviewer preferred the carte-de-visite portraits of Robert Severin, a photographer in The Hague who had opened a studio of his own on the Noordeinde, in the vicinity of Verveer’s studio, in September 1860. At this time, virtually all of the photography studios in The Hague were located in the north-eastern district of the city’s historic city centre. Consequently, they were all in direct competition. Severin and Verveer appear to have kept a close eye on each other’s business, with both men placing advertisements in the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage (‘Newspaper of South Holland and The Hague’) often appearing at the same time and immediately adjacent to one another. Severin’s ads were consistently in French; Verveer’s were typically in Dutch.

In 1866, the Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen posed for Verveer. Even at this time, the newspapers were still reporting on Verveer’s series, describing it as his collection of ‘praiseworthy contemporaries’ or applying terms of this nature. Clearly, Verveer was still adding new images to his series. On 30 March 1866, the newspaper Algemeen Handelsblad wrote: ‘Our photographer Verveer has not wasted a single moment in enticing the tall, Northern bard to enter his chambre obscure [‘dark chamber’], to eternalise his benevolent features on paper, and in so doing, to expand his collection of contemporary celebrities’.

The portrayal of well-known domestic and international figures served primarily a commercial aim. The same article continues, suggesting that some portraits were sold more easily than others: ‘If only the portrait of an important writer would sell as well as that of the church ministers currently in vogue; the booksellers would have gone bankrupt long ago with [the portraits] of our Dutch musicians, painters, and literary figures, were they not more than compensated by the sale of the [portraits of] orthodox preachers, female dancers with their low necklines, modern church ministers, and of the German female artist who sang at the latest concert.’

A variety of Verveer’s photos were used for engravings and lithographs that were published as separate images as well as in magazines. One example was the portrait of the female writer Bosboom-Toussaint mentioned above, which served as a model for D. Sluyter’s engraving in the almanac Aurora Jaarboekje voor 1858 (‘Aurora Annual of 1858’, published by A.C. Kruseman). Verveer produced one of the earliest examples of a group portrait in the Netherlands. It depicted twenty-two Malaysian passengers on the mercantile ship Twenthe, who had murdered a significant number of the ship’s crewmembers in 1856 and were subsequently sentenced to prison in 1858. The original photo is currently nonextant, leaving only the lithograph.

In his portraits, Verveer incorporated the same attributes used by other photographers of his day: the usual tables, chairs, carpets, columns, railings, and curtains are featured in abundance. His later portraits are often bust shots, with no visible decor. Verveer adhered to the latest trends in the portrait genre: besides the regular, plain rectangular portrait, he is also known to have produced oval and vignetted portraits. He also did the so-called ‘cameo’ portraits, which are slightly convex as opposed to being flat. A number of his portraits from later years indicate that he as well took shots in which painted backdrops were introduced, as well according to popular fashion. Far less standard are his stereoscopic portrait photos, with four surviving from the years 1861 to 1863. In addition, there also exist a number of cartes-de-visite in which four small portraits were printed rather than one, each in the form of an oval.

Verveer also receive recognition from the Dutch royal house. In September 1861, he received permission to bear the coat of arms of King William III. Verveer is likely to have presented one or more photos to the king as a gift, who in turn granted him this privilege. At this moment, it appears he was feeling quite confident in himself—four years after having decided upon photography as a profession—as affirmed by a letter in which he addressed this particular matter: ‘While changing the place of residence [= address] having expanded his Establishment, and furnishing [it] on such a large scale that he is flattered by being able to compete with the foremost Photographic Studios. Wishing now to add a maximum of splendour to his business, and flattered in living up to this High Favour through his skill in his profession.’ Starting in 1863, he referred to himself as ‘Photographe van Z.M. den Koning’ (‘Photographer of H.M. the King’), and two years later ‘Photograaf van Z.M. den Koning en van H.M. de Koningin’ (‘Photographer of H.M. the King and of H.M. the Queen’). Verveer had apparently also received permission to bear the coat of arms of the reigning queen at the time, Sophie. In 1865, Verveer was named a Knight in the Order of the Oaken Crown, a Luxembourg-based distinction established by the William III’s father, King William II. Verveer is likely to have received this honour based on his reproductions (one of a painting, one of a foreign photograph) of portraits depicting Queen Mother Anna Paulowna, who had died just previous to this time. Considering the ease with which William III bestowed the Order of the Oaken Crown, its significance should not be overestimated.

Verveer made portraits of various members of the royal family, though this honour had befallen numerous photographers in The Hague. In 1865, he was commissioned by Prince Hendrik to photograph the interior and exterior of Soestdijk Palace, as it had been lived in by his recently deceased mother, the queen mother, Anna Paulowna. Verveer received the favour of the royal court at least until 1880. On 19 October of that year, the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage reported that he ‘(…) [had] been given the honour of producing the first photographic portrait of Princess Wilhelmina of the Netherlands at the Palace.’ The photo had actually been taken on the previous day. Considering that Wilhelmina departed for the Het Loo Palace on 20 October, this image is likely to have remained a premiere up until her return to The Hague. Later, Verveer was obliged to forfeit this honour to younger photographers such as Richard Kameke, who produced most of Wilhelmina’s portraits in the 1880s.

Verveer’s entries to exhibitions received awards on numerous occasions, such as in Amsterdam in 1866 (where he incidentally refused to accept his bronze medal due to his dissatisfaction with the jurying process, for reasons unknown), Arnhem in 1868, Hamburg in 1868, Vienna in 1873, and Amsterdam again in 1874. Regarding his entry to the Exposition universelle (World Exhibition) of 1867, The Illustrated London News wrote: ‘Virveer [sic], M., portraits large and small and groups. These pictures are all artistically arranged, and have a character very distinct from all other photographs in the Exhibition; in composition, they very much resemble some of Rembrandt’s etchings.’ One year later, the jury of the photography exhibition in Hamburg, Germany, awarded him ‘(…) für Composition im Geiste der niederländischen Schule’ (‘for composition in the spirit of the Dutch School’).

In addition to the recognition he received as a photographer, Verveer was also successful financially. Surviving tax records suggest that among photographers working in The Hague at this time, the only photographer in a better financial position than Verveer was Severin. If indeed Verveer had switched from painting to photography in 1857 in order to make a better living, then he most certainly made the right decision. Compared to that of renowned painters such as J.H. Weissenbruch, Willem and Matthijs Maris, Chr. Bisschop, Johannes Bosboom, and David Bles, Verveer’s tax assessment was higher than the majority of those working in his former field. Salomon and Elchanon Verveer also fell far behind their brother in this respect. While nineteenth-century tax assessments merely form an indirect and not entirely reliable indication of wealth and income, by no means was Verveer in any financial need. Between 1864 (the year in which Verveer’s name first appeared in surviving tax records) and 1885 (the year in which the tax system was significantly overhauled, thus prohibiting an accurate comparison), Verveer’s tax assessments are very consistent, suggesting a stable revenue and profit. Even after relinquishing his career as a painter, he remained a member of the artists association Pulchri Studio (excepting the years 1857 to 1862). His two brothers were also active as painters throughout their lives, which may partially explain why Verveer was still always in contact with painters working in The Hague, many of whom he photographed. In 1867, he made a group portrait of the members of Pulchri Studio, a well-known photograph that was presented to the painter Andreas Schelfhout on his eightieth birthday.

Not only did the ‘werkende leden’ (‘working members’, i.e. artists) pose for this shot— as has previously been assumed on occasion—but also the ‘lovers’ of art, including Carel Vosmaer. The group assembled at the bowling alley in the garden of Pulchri’s location at the time, the ‘Hofje van Nieuwkoop’ (‘Courtyard of Nieuwkoop’). Verveer himself also appears in the photo (the second person from the far right). According to Pulchri Studio’s 1866-67 annual report, Salomon Verveer, who at this time was president of the association, presented Schelfhout with ‘(…) an exquisite photograph, in which all of the society’s members, gathered together in the garden of the hall, are posed in proper artistic form’. Verveer was also the person responsible for (a majority of?) the portraits in Carel Vosmaer’s Onze hedendaagsche schilders (‘Our Contemporary Painters’). This series was published in volumes appearing between 1881 and 1885, each accompanied by the portrait of the specific artist concerned. In part because of the Woodburytype technique that was used to print the portraits, Onze hedendaagsche schilders is one of the most interesting and beautiful nineteenth-century books illustrated by photomechanical means in the Netherlands. Verveer provided the negatives only. Because Woodburytype printing required such a major investment, it was never introduced by any of the Dutch printing houses. Consequently, the Woodburytypes for Onze hedendaagsche schilders were printed by the French company ‘Goupil & Cie’, which changed its name to ‘Boussod, Valadon & Cie’ in the years that the series was being published.

Verveer did try out two other photomechanical printing techniques, specifically photolithography and the collotype. Onze hedendaagsche schilders features two reproductions of drawings that Verveer printed using the photolithographic process. Various collotypes are known to have been made by Verveer, who was involved in this technique at an early stage, as reported in the 21 April 1870 issue of the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage: ‘As no trouble or effort has been spared when it comes to improvements in the furnishing of [Verveer’s studio], for several months [Verveer] himself visited the studio of one of the most famous photographers in Munich, where this process is being put into practice, in order to learn every detail of this new method.’ This is certainly a reference to Joseph Albert, the renowned photographer of Munich, Germany, who competed with Jakob Husnik of Prague, Czechoslovakia, in obtaining the honour of having invented the collotype just a short time before. Verveer became interested in the collotype not much later than Julius Schaarwächter (Nijmegen) and P.A. Mottu (Amsterdam), who were the first in the Netherlands to try out this process and who visited Albert and Husnik respectively, precisely for this purpose. In August 1873, Verveer advertised that he was working with the collotype ‘(…) for which his Photographic Studio is now also equipped’. He submitted collotype portraits to the Weltausstellung (‘World Exhibition’) of 1873 in Vienna, for which he received a ‘Medaille für guten Geschmack’ (‘Medal for good taste’). As an advertisement relates, Verveer was still in possession of a lithographic press and three cylinder presses for collotype at the time he shut down his company in 1891. Apart from the examples that have been cited here, very little exists with respect to his activity as a printer, certainly when compared to the ‘collotypers’ Emrik & Binger, whose names regularly appear under the heading ‘printing work’ in nineteenth-century books and magazines.

Besides portraits, Verveer also occasionally photographed other subjects: interiors of Soestdijk Palace, the winning design for the Monument 1813 in The Hague, maritime instruments, the Binnenhof (Dutch Houses of Parliament), interior views of exhibition spaces, and artworks. When considering the modest number of images that are known to have survived, these subjects would appear to have made up only a small part of Verveer’s work.

In 1890, Verveer announced he was ‘liquidating his businesses’. According to his own inventory, he had more than 80,000 negatives in his possession—if starting from 1857, this amounts to an average annual production of 2,300 shots. In June 1891, Verveer sold the items in his studio at a public sale, including a camera with four objectives for carte-de-visite shots. The painter and photographer A.J.M. Steinmetz, as well an inhabitant of The Hague, reprinted a number of negatives—portraits of artists and members of the royal house—under his own name. It is not known, however, whether he acquired Verveer’s entire negatives archive.

As far as we know, Verveer no longer participated in any more photography exhibitions following the closure of his studio. He served as a member on the jury for the Tentoonstelling van Photografie en aanverwante Kunst-Nijverheid (‘Exhibition of Photography and Related Applied Art’) of 1892 as a ‘former professional photographer’. The exhibition was held on the grounds of the Internationale Sport- Visscherij- en Paardententoonstelling (‘International Sport, Fishing, and Horse Exhibition’) in Scheveningen. Here he used a camera one last time, or rather, three photographs taken at this event bear the name of Verveer.

In the ‘art section’ of this exhibition, Verveer participated again as a painter for the first time in decades, resuming with the genre he had specialised in prior to becoming a photographer: the beachscape. On 29 June 1892, the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage praised the painting he submitted, stating the opinion that Verveer ‘(…) following a repose of many years, he has again taken up the painting pallet, apparently confident in himself and mindful of the noblesse oblige, which the Verveers may never disavow. It seems to me that this Verveer never laid down his pallet, even though he has not exhibited for many years.’ Starting in 1891, Verveer referred to himself as a painter in The Hague address books. He likewise submitted work to painting exhibitions in in Arnhem (1893), Rotterdam (1894), The Hague (1896), and Maastricht (1896). It cannot be determined if the aged Verveer—who turned seventy-five in 1892—viewed painting as a source of income or as nothing more than a hobby for which he now had the time. For his eightieth birthday in 1897, the Dagblad van Zuidholland en ‘s Gravenhage quoted the magazine Petit Bleu, which spoke of ‘(…) the outstanding health and the amazing mental clarity of the man whose birthday it is.’ During the last years of his life, Verveer’s health forsook him. Following his death in 1903, Pulchri Studio’s annual report stated: ‘(…) died at the age of 85, Mr. M.L. Verveer. While the attainment of such an age may be seen as a rare privilege, it makes one sad to think that the final years of his life were a period of endless suffering. Initially devoting himself entirely to photography, he practiced painting in emulation of his more renowned brothers, Samuel and Elchanon, who died before him; the deceased was one of the Society’s [Pulchri Studio’s] oldest members.’

Verveer was one of the most successful portrait photographers of his day. Notwithstanding, his photos are not remarkably different when compared to those of his colleagues and competitors in his profession. The portrait was a generally practiced genre, of which Verveer was an adroit representative. His circle of clientele was more interesting than that of the average photographer. It is for this reason that his portraits are still published on a regular basis. During his lifetime, but also according to an article published by the later photographer C.M. Dewald in the Fotografisch Maandschrift (‘Photographic Monthly’) in 1909, Verveer’s fame was in part based on his ‘groups’. Considering that so few of these shots have been preserved, it is difficult to ascertain whether the source of this praise was an overly friendly press or that precisely his best work was destined to be lost in the tides of history.

Documentation