In the latter part of the eighteenth century, the renowned English painter Sir Joshua Reynolds travelled through the Low Countries. In his journal, which was published in 1781, Reynolds naturally described the paintings he had seen along the way. For example: ‘Cattle and a shepherd, by Albert Cuyp, the best I ever saw of him; the figure is likewise better than usual [Cuyp was known mainly for his landscapes]; but the employment which he has given the shepherd in his solitude is not very poetical: it must, however, be allowed to be truth and nature; he is catching fleas or something worse.’ And he described a work by Metsu thus: ‘A woman reading a letter; the milk-woman who brought it is in the meantime drawing a curtain, a little on one side, in order to see the picture under it, which appears to be a sea-view.’ Reynolds himself was well aware that his descriptions did not do justice to the undeniable qualities of these seventeenth-century masters. He noted, almost apologetically, that in order to appreciate the works fully, one had to see them first-hand. His descriptions also strike a chord of puzzlement, for what on earth had inspired Metsu to depict such a scene? In the case of the Cuyp there are even overtones of disapproval: catching fleas was surely not a suitable subject for a true work of art.

Reynold's opinion was no doubt a candid one, but his view of Dutch art was far from original.