finds himself suddenly before the masterpiece of Leonardo and of modern painting, without any of that preparation the mind receives by approaching a work of art set in fit surroundings. The composition is painted on the end wall; it fills the entire width, and is thus naturally enframed at either end by the return of the wall, and above, by the two little vaults.

Leonardo, as I have already said, disliked working in fresco. It is a process demanding a decision and rapidity utterly opposed to his methods. He accordingly used oil-colour, which, in addition to its other merits, had the charm of novelty to recommend it.

Before examining his work in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, we must pass in review the Last Suppers by which it had been preceded. For terms of comparison I may take those by Giotto, Andrea del Castagno, Ghirlandajo, and the unknown painter of the monastery of Sant' Onofrio at Florence.

As Burckhardt has well observed, representations of this sacred feast include two distinct motives, the institution of the Eucharist, and the solemn declaration made by Christ to his apostles: "Unus one of you shall betray me.

vestrum

In Giotto's Last Supper, in the Arena Chapel at Padua, the disciples are placed all round the table, an arrangement which practically suppresses three of the number, their backs being turned to the spectator. By an arrangement no less curious—I refrain from applying the word comic, even to the oversight of such a master as Giotto-the haloes of these three are placed, not behind their heads, but in front of their faces, making it impossible for them to see what was happening before them. Action-of which Giotto was generally so lavish-there is none; not a gesture, not a movement; the disciples look inquiringly at one another. That is the whole drama, a very negative one, as we see. A fresco of the school of Giotto, in the cloister of Santa Croce at Florence, shows greater skill in the arrangement, and more animation. We note certain reminiscences of the triclinia of the ancients, and one very touching motive, the beloved disciple leaning his head on Jesus' breast-(" discipulus recumbens in sinu Jesu;" S. John xiii, 23).

A work that comes much nearer to Leonardo's masterpiece, and

is, in fact, its true prototype in many respects, is the Last Supper painted by the harsh and gloomy Andrea del Castagno in the refectory of the convent of Sant' Apollonia at Florence. The figures are placed in a setting of severe architecture inlaid with marbles; a monumental bench or seat surrounds the table. The personages gain greatly in vigour and in dignity by this arrangement of the background. In the centre, Christ raises his hand in benediction; beside him is the beloved disciple in the traditional attitude, his head leaning on the table; opposite is Judas, startled and trembling. One of the

LODOVICO IL MORO GRANTING A CHARTER TO THE PRIOR OF SANTA MARIA DELLE GRAZIE.

other disciples-the prototype of the third apostle from the end on the right in Leonardo's painting-opens his hands, as if in amazement, while one of his neighbours clenches his; a third drops his head on his hand, as if bowed down by the fatal discovery; others whisper their suspicions to one another, or ponder over the matter in silence. The action is of the liveliest; it abounds in life-like traits, and bears witness to rare faculties of observation. The figures themselves are grave, austere, almost grandiose. It is the composition which is the spot in this important work, a work that was undoubtedly known. to Leonardo, for he imitated it. Andrea has isolated the actors, in

weak

stead of welding them together in harmonious groups; and has thus sacrificed both variety of line and richness of combination. In spite of this, his fresco, a work too little known, is the one that comes nearest to Leonardo's masterpiece.

With Domenico Ghirlandajo's fresco, in the convent of San Marco at Florence, we return to the vagaries of the Primitives. The The grouping is faulty to a degree. The apostles at the end of the table are huddled together, those near Jesus are too far apart; the stooping figure of S. John leaves an unpleasant void in the composition, which Judas, who is placed opposite, on the outside of the table, fills but imperfectly. The general lack of animation and unity aggravates this initial fault; the majority of the apostles know not what to think, still less what to say. One clasps his hands and raises his eyes to heaven; another throws back the folds of his toga with an unmeaning gesture; not one among them shows any vigour, not to say eloquence. Ghirlandajo, indeed, seems to have depicted the institution of the Eucharist ("Dispono vobis sicut . . . .") rather than the revelation of Judas' treachery.

A Last Supper contemporary with Leonardo's adorns the refectory of the monastery of Sant' Onofrio at Florence. Certain accomplished critics, M. Vitet among the number, have attributed it to Raphael, but on insufficient grounds. It is a timid work, and but for the youthful grace of expression in some of the heads, one might describe it as childish, so naïvely does the painter's inexperience betray itself in the dramatic conception of the subject. The beloved apostle, his head on the table, appears to be sleeping; thus one actor disappears ; another pours himself out some wine; the rest look calmly in front of them. As to Judas, he is placed, as usual, on the near side of the table, opposite to Jesus. We look in vain for men who show traces of astonishment, indignation, or grief; all we see are personages—and even this is almost too emphatic a term for them-without elevation. and without character. I pass over the other faults of the composition, the absence of grouping, the distraction caused by the portrayal of the subordinate incident in the background-Christ on the Mount of Olives the introduction of movable discs, detaching themselves in the most puerile fashion on the chancel enframing the principal