composition of Paul Veronese, there are twenty-three figures; in that of Zucchero, forty-five; in that of Baroccio, twenty-one. These supernumerary persons detract from the dignity and solemnity of

the scene.

Tintoretto has introduced several spectators, and among them an old woman spinning in a corner, who, while she turns her spindle, looks on with an observant eye. This alludes to an early tradition, that the Last Supper was eaten in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark the evangelist. But it is nowhere said that she was present, and therefore it is an impropriety to introduce her. Magnificent architecture, as in the picture by B. Peruzzi, (who, by the way, was an architect,) seems objectionable but equally unsuitable is the poor dismantled garret in this picture of Tintoretto; for the chamber in which the scene took place was "the guest chamber," a large upper room, ready prepared; and as it was afterwards the scene of the Pentecost, it must have held more than a hundred persons.

It is a fault, as I have already observed, to represent John as asleep on the breast or the shoulder of our Saviour.

Though countenanced by the highest authorities in Art, I believe it must be considered as a fault, or at least a mistake, to represent our Saviour and his apostles as seated, instead of reclining round the table. It is a fault, not merely because the use of the triclinium or couch at all social meals was general in the antique times, for the custom of sitting upright was not so entirely extinct among the Jews but that it might on any other occasion have been admissible, but, from peculiar circumstances, it became in this instance an impropriety. We know that when the Passover was first instituted the Jews were enjoined to eat it standing, as men in haste, with girded loins and sandalled feet: but afterwards it was made imperative that they should eat it in an attitude of repose, lying upon couches, and as men at ease; and the reason for this was, that all the circumstances of the meal, and particularly the attitude in which it was eaten, should indicate the condition of security and freedom which the Israelites enjoyed after their deliverance from

the Egyptian bondage. In the then imperfect state of Biblical criticism, this fact seems to have been unknown to the earlier artists, or disregarded by those who employed and directed them. Among modern artists, Poussin and Le Sueur have scrupulously attended to it, even when the moment chosen is the mystical distribution of the bread and wine which succeeded the Paschal Supper. Commentators have remarked, that if Christ and his disciples reclined at table, then, supposing Christ to have the central place of honour, the head of John would have been near to the bosom of Christ: but under these circumstances, if Judas were sufficiently near to receive the sop from the hand of Christ, then he must have reclined next to him on the other side, and have taken precedence of Peter. This supposed a propinquity which the early Christian artists deemed offensive and inadmissible.

In the composition by Stradano the arrangement of the table and figures is particularly well managed: all recline on couches; in the centre of the table is a dish, to which Christ extends his hand, and Judas, who is here rather handsome than otherwise, at the same time stretches forth his; the moment is evidently, " He that dippeth with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." Two circumstances spoil this picture, and bring it down to the level of the vulgar and the commonplace. In the background is seen a kitchen and the cooking of the supper. Under Judas crouches a hideous demon, with horns, hoof, and tail, visible only to the spectator.

When the Cenacolo represents the Eucharist, it is, perhaps, allowable to introduce angels, because it was, and I believe is, an established belief, that, visible or invisible, they are always present at the Sacrament. The Holy Ghost descending from above is unsanctioned by Scripture, but may serve to mark the mystical and peculiar solemnity of the moment chosen for representation. It may signify, "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." But where angels attend, or where the Spiritual Comforter comes floating down from above, then the presence of Judas, or of any superfluous figures as spectators or servitors, or of dogs or other animals, becomes a manifest impropriety.

The introduction of the Devil in person as tempting Judas is rendered pardonable by the naïveté of the early painters: in the later schools of art it is offensive and ridiculous.

The Cenacolo of Baroccio, painted by order of Clement VIII. (1594), for his family chapel in the Santa Maria-sopra-Minerva, is remarkable for an anecdote relating to it. Baroccio, who was not eminent for a correct taste, had in his first sketch reverted to the ancient fashion of placing Satan close behind Judas, whispering in his ear, and tempting him to betray his Master. The Pope expressed his dissatisfaction," che non gli piaceva il demonio si dimesticasse tanto con Gesù Cristo," and ordered him to remove the offensive figure. This is not the last example of the ancient manner of treatment. In the Cenacolo of Franceschini, painted nearly a century later, two angels are attending on the sacred repast, while Judas is in the act of leaving the room, conducted by Satan in person.

It is surely a fault, in a scene of such solemn and sacred import, to make the head of Judas a vehicle for public or private satire, by giving him the features of some obnoxious personage of the time.' This, according to tradition, has been done in some instances. Perhaps the most remarkable example that could be cited is the story of Andrea del Castagno, who, after having betrayed and assassinated his friend Domenico Veneziano, painted himself in the character of Judas: a curious instance of remorse of conscience.

Volumes might be written on the subject of the Last Supper. It extends before me, as I think and write, into endless suggestive associations, which, for the present, I dare not follow out: but I shall have occasion to return to it hereafter.2

For a signal example, see Stirling's "Artists of Spain," p. 493.

For some remarks on the subject of the Pentecost, v. "Legends of the Madonna," p. 325.

ST. BARNABAS.

Ital. San Barnabà. Fr. Saint Barnabé. June 11.

ST. BARNABAS is usually entitled the Apostle Barnabas, because he was associated with the Apostles in their high calling; "and," according to Lardner, "though without that large measure of inspiration and high authority which was peculiar to the TWELVE APOSTLES, properly so called, yet he is to be considered as Apostolical, and next to them in sanctity." For this reason I place him here.

St. Barnabas was a Levite, born in the island of Cyprus, and the cousin-german of Mark the evangelist. The notices of his life and character scattered through the Acts invest him with great personal interest. He it was who, after the conversion of Paul, was the first to believe in his sincerity, and took courage to present him to the other apostles, "who were afraid of him, and would not believe that he was a disciple." (Acts, xv. 39.) Barnabas afterwards became the fellowlabourer of Paul, and attended him to Antioch. We are told that "he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith;" and to this the legendary traditions add, that he was a man of a most comely countenance, of a noble presence, grave and commanding in his step and deportment; and thence, when he and Paul were at Lystra together, "they called Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius." Subsequently, however, Paul and Barnabas fell into a dispute concerning Mark, and separated. The tradition relates that Barnabas and Mark remained for some time together, being united by the ties of friendship, as well as by those of kindred. Barnabas preached the Gospel in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy; and there is an old legendary tradition that he was the first bishop of Milan. The legend also relates that every where he carried with him the Gospel of St. Matthew, written by the hand of the evangelist, preaching what was written therein; and when any were sick, or possessed, he laid the sacred writing upon their bosom, and they were healed; (a beautiful allegory this!) and it happened that as he preached in a synagogue of Judea against the Jews, they were seized with fury and took him, and put him to a cruel death. But Mark and the other Christians buried him with many tears.

The body of St. Barnabas remained in its place of sepulture till the days of the Emperor Zeno, when, according to Nicephorus, it was revealed in a dream to Antemius, that the apostle rested in a certain spot, and would be found there, with the Gospel of St. Matthew lying on his bosom. And so it happened: the remains were found; the Gospel was carried to the emperor at Constantinople; and a church was built, dedicated to St. Barnabas.

It is, I presume, in consequence of his being the kinsman of St. Mark, that Barnabas is more popular at Venice than elsewhere, and that devotional figures of him are rarely found except in Venetian pictures. He is represented as a man of majestic presence, holding in his hand the Gospel of St. Matthew, as in a fine picture by Bonifazio; in his church at Venice he is represented over the high altar, throned as bishop, while St. Peter stands below.

He often occurs in subjects taken from the Acts and the life of St. Paul. In the scene in which he presents Paul to the other apostles, he is the principal personage; but in the scene at Paphos, where Elymas is struck blind, and at Lystra, he is always secondary to his great companion.