golden ornaments and decoration of garments."

"Is his work anything like that of Michael Angelo, Mr. Sumner?" asked
Barbara. "He was Angelo's teacher, was he not?"

"Yes, history tells us that he held that position for three years; but
judging from the work of both, I should say that not much was either
taught or learned. Ghirlandajo's work possesses great strength, as does
Michael Angelo's, but on wholly different lines. Ghirlandajo loved to
represent grave, dignified figures,--which were portraits,--clad in long
gowns, stiff brocades, and flowing mantles; and there are superb
accessories in his pictures,--landscapes, architecture, and decorated
interiors. On the other hand, Michael Angelo's figures are most
impersonal, and each depends for effect simply on its own magnificence
of conception and rendering. The lines of figures are of far more
importance than the face, which is the farthest possible removed from
the portrait--and for accessories of any kind he cared not at all."

At this moment callers were announced and Mr. Sumner said they would
resume their talk some other time.

"It will be well for you if you can look at these paintings by
Ghirlandajo to-morrow morning if it be a bright day," he said, "while
all that I have told you is fresh in your minds. I cannot go with you,
but if you think of anything you would like to ask me about them, you
can do so before we begin on Botticelli."