e hardly held his characters in group owing to a
sacrifice of values, and in color he was often "spotty," and lacking
in the unity of mass.

THE GENRE PAINTERS: This heading embraces those who may be called the
"Little Dutchmen," because of the small scale of their pictures and
their _genre_ subjects. Gerard Dou (1613-1675) is indicative of the
class without fully representing it. He was a pupil of Rembrandt, but
his work gave little report of this. It was smaller, more delicate in
detail, more petty in conception. He was a man great in little
things, one who wasted strength on the minutiae of dress, or
table-cloth, or the texture of furniture without grasping the mass or
color significance of the whole scene. There was infinite detail about
his work, and that gave it popularity; but as art it held, and holds
to-day, little higher place than the work of Metsu (1630-1667), Van
Mieris (1635-1681), Netscher (1639-1684), or Schalcken (1643-1706),
all of whom produced the interior piece with figures elaborate in
accidental effects. Van Ostade (1610-1685), though dealing with the
small canvas, and portraying peasant life with perhaps unnecessary
coarseness, was a much stronger painter than the men just mentioned.
He was the favorite pupil of Hals and the master of Jan Steen. With
little delicacy in choice of subject he had much delicacy in color,
taste in arrangement, and skill in handling. His brush was precise but
not finical.

[Illustration: FIG. 83.--J. VAN RUISDAEL. LANDSCAPE.]

By far the best painter among all the "Little Dutchmen" was Terburg
(1617?-1681), a painter of interiors, small portraits, conversation
pictures, and the like. Though of diminutive scale his work has the
largeness of view characteristic of genius, and the skilled technic of
a thorough craftsman. Terburg was a travelled man, visiting Italy,
where he studied Titian, returning to Holland to study Rembrandt,
finally at Madrid studying Velasquez. He was a painter of much
culture, and the keynote of his art is refinement. Quiet and dignified
he carried taste through all branches of his art. In subject he was
rather elevated, in color subdued with broken tones, in composition
simple, in brush-work sure, vivacious, and yet unobtrusive. Selection
in his characters was followed by reserve in using them. Detail was
not very apparent. A few people with some accessory objects were all
that he required to make a picture. Perhaps his best qualities appear
i