Perugino's works, which show so remarkable a feeling for space.[1]
If he is right, it is on this principle, rather than because of its
subject, that the Angelus is, as it has sometimes been called, "one of
the greatest religious paintings of the age."

While Millet's art is, in its entirety, quite unique, there are
certain interesting points of resemblance between his work and that of
some older masters. He is akin to Rembrandt both in his indifference
to beauty and in his intense love of human nature. Millet's
indifference to beauty is the more remarkable because in this he stood
alone in his day and generation, while in the northern art of the
seventeenth century, of which Rembrandt is an exponent, beauty was
never supreme.

As a lover of human nature, Millet's sympathies, though no less
intense than Rembrandt's, were less catholic. His range of observation
was limited to peasant life, while the Dutch master painted all
classes and conditions of men. Yet both alike were profound students
of character and regarded expression as the chief element of beauty.
Rembrandt, however, sought expression principally in the countenance,
and Millet had a fuller understanding of the expressiveness of the
entire body. The work of each thus complements that of the other.

Millet's passion for figure expression was first worked out in
painting the nude. When he abandoned such subjects for the homelier
themes of labor, he gave no less attention to the study of form and
attitude. The simple clothing of the peasant is cut so loosely as to
give entire freedom of motion to the body, and it is worn so long
that it shapes itself perfectly to the figure. The body thus clad
is scarcely inferior to the nude in assuming the fine lines of an