^{page 103 note 1} Vide p. III below.

^{page 104 note 1} See the text in Rauschen, G., Legende Karls d. Gr., Leipzig, 1890Google Scholar, and Neue Untersuchungen über die Descriptio, etc., in Hist. Jahrb. der Görres-Gesellschaft, vol. xv, München, 1894, p. 257Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} A vague and almost valueless account of some of the treasures is given by Thomas Platter the younger of Basle, who visited St.-Denis in 1599. It is included in his Description de Paris, printed in the Mémoires de la Société histortque de Paris (vol. xxiii, 1896, p. 218)Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 1} The following is the account of the incident taken out of Caxton's edition of the Golden Legend: ‘King Charles heard speak of the renown of him (St. Giles) and implored him that he might see him. And he received him much honourably, and he prayed him to pray for him, among other things because he had done a sin so foul & villainous that he durst not be shriven thereof to him, nor to any other. And on the Sunday after, as Saint Giles said mass and prayed for the King, the Angel of our Lord appeared to him and laid upon the altar a cedule wherein the sin of the King was written by order, and that it was pardoned him by the prayers of Saint Giles, so that he were thereof repentant and abstained him from doing it any more.’

^{page 105 note 2} Article ‘Autel’, vol. ii, p. 26Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 1} D., P. 24, A.

^{page 107 note 2} Platter, in 1599, says that the bronze tomb of Charles the Bald was in the middle of the choir; those of Clodomir, Charles Martel, and a son of Dagobert were to the right, those of Hugues Capet and Othon to the left. These were of white marble. He noted eleven other royal tombs farther back.

^{page 107 note 3} M., p. 71.

^{page 107 note 4} D., pp. 245, 1247; F., p. 174.

^{page 107 note 5} More fully in the Inv. 1634, pp. 220–33.

^{page 107 note 6} F., P. 428.

^{page 108 note 1} F., p. 555.

^{page 108 note 2} D., p. 1240.

^{page 108 note 3} Inv. 1505, nos. 185, 186, where there is a mistake. St. Louis was not buried ‘devant’ (where lay Charles the Bald) but ‘derrière’ the Matutinal altar,

^{page 108 note 4} D., p. 182.

^{page 109 note 1} D., p. 1196, ‘son corps gist sous le Maistre Autel, qui est dès lors du premier bastiment de l'eglise.’

^{page 110 note 1} In this connexion a remark of Rohault de Fleury (La Messe, ii, p. 38) may be cited: ‘Lorsqu'on renonça aux ciboria en France leur souvenir fut conserveé par quatre colonnes placées aux angles de l'autel sans couronnement, mais reliées par des tringles pour les rideaux,’

^{page 111 note 1} It is evident that the bulk of this passage is copied from a much older inventory, the passage about the changes made in 1610 alone referring to later conditions. It will be observed that the passage in the 1505 inventory is an inaccurate abbreviation of the original as embodied in the inventory of 1634.

^{page 111 note 2} Felibien, p. 247. This was a way they had in those days. Our Henry V's body was likewise dismembered and boiled, and only the bones and, I believe, the heart brought to Westminster Abbey. So at least Félibien states.

^{page 112 note 1} F., p. 306. He gives the date 1393, but the MS. inventory says 1392.

^{page 113 note 1} Thus Inv. 1634, f. 2601^r, begins the paragraph corresponding to Item 193 in the printed Inv. 1505 thus: ‘Soubs une voulte ayant entrée derriére ledict grant autel, ung crucifix,’ etc. Inv. 1634, f. 2611^r (corresponding to Item 195, Inv. 1505), says: ‘Dessus la dicte voulte dessus le pavement devant l'autel des corps saints … au dessus de la porte de la dicte voulte un pilier,’ etc., i. e. the great cross of Suger. Again, Inv. 1634, f. 267^v, continues ‘au dessus de la voulte devant declareée ’, the altar of St. Denis (which Inv. 1505 omits), so that the vault was under the altar of St. Denis and therefore under the chevet.

^{page 113 note 2} On the history of the burying-place of St. Denis, and on the chasse or tomb made for his bones by St. Eloy, see Bapst, G. in Revue archéol., viii (1886), p. 306Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 3} Rigord, a monk of St.-Denis, in his biography of Philip Augustus, refers to the raising of the bones of St. Denis on the 9th of June, 1053, before which time they had lain ‘reclusa in alia cryptula auro et gemmis extrinsecus decorata in qua duabus seris etiam Christi Domini clavus et corona simul asservabantur’. See Mabillon, , Ann. ord. S. Bened., iv, Paris, 1707, p. 538Google Scholar. It has, however, been suspected that the above statement may be a later addition to support the authenticity of the Nail and Thorn relics.

^{page 115 note 1} Diet, de l' Architecture, T. ii, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Arts industriels, T. i, p. 412 note.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 3} The full description is in Doublet, pp. 248, 289.

^{page 115 note 4} F., p. 447.

^{page 116 note 1} ‘Cendal' was a silk fabric

^{page 116 note 2} F., p. 335.

^{page 117 note 1} See plates in V.-le-Duc's Did. du Mobilier, t. ii, p. 220.

^{page 117 note 2} See the Catalogue of Orfévrerie, etc., in the Galerie d'Apollon in the Louvre by Monsieur J. J. Marquet de Vasselot, no. 64.

^{page 118 note 1} F., pl. i R; D., p. 347; M., p. 112. F.'s engraving shows it upside down.

^{page 118 note 2} For a list of so-called Cana vases and remarks on them see F. de Mely in Monuments et Mémoires (Piot), vol. x. The Reichenau vase is mentioned early in the tenth century, and is the first to be recorded. Many Cana vases were merely ‘Vases de la Cene', i. e. Byzantine chalices inscribed with the formula for the benediction of wine. According to the legend six vases were used for the miracle.

^{page 118 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 221; Inv. 1634, f. 320; Inv. 1739, no. 107; M., p. 64.

^{page 119 note 1} Thomas Platter records having seen at St.-Denis in 1599: ‘une cuvette en jaspe dans laquelle e roi Dagobert se serait lave et qui sert maintenant pour l'eau bénite; sur les bords ont été sculptées des tétes de dieux païens.’ I can find no other mention of this vessel.

^{page 119 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 69; Inv. 1634, f. 169’; Inv. 1739, no. 70; D., p. 342; M., p. 109; F., pl. iii F and pl. vi. E. Babelon, Cat. des Camées, p. 201.

^{page 120 note 1} Suger, referring to Charles the Bald's tomb, writes: ‘Karolus imperator tertius qui eidetn altari subiacet gloriose sepultus ’, loc. at, p. 202.

^{page 120 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 87; Inv. 1634, f. 176^r Inv. 1739, no. 32; F., pl. ii Q; D., p. 368.

^{page 121 note 1} At St. Denis it was also used daily by the celebrant at Mass at the High altar.

^{page 121 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 76; Inv. 1634, f. 174r; Inv. 1739, no. 76; D., p. 342; M., p. 128; F., pl. IVM.

^{page 121 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 202; Inv. 1739, no. 63; F., pl. iii z; M., p. 99.

^{page 121 note 4} Inv. 1505, no. 53; Inv. 1634, f. 163^v; D., p. 346; M., p. 100.

^{page 122 note 1} E. Aus'm Weerth: Das Siegeskreuz, etc. Bonn, 1866, with coloured plate.

^{page 122 note 2} For which I have to thank Prof. R. S. Conway, of Manchester University.

^{page 122 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 52; Inv. 1634, f. i63v. According to the latter the silver mountings were gilt.

^{page 123 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 69; Inv. 1634, f. 169’; Inv. 1739, no. 57; F., pl. iii R.

^{page 123 note 2} The well-known gold plaque from Siberia, which is in the Hermitage and represents an eagle with displayed wings and raised tail, may have had rows of such stones along the tail where only the grooves and rings remain. It is attributed to about the third to fifth century A. D.—probably fifth.

^{page 124 note 1} I follow Riegl in attributing the finest work of this kind not to barbarian but to imperial artificers.

^{page 124 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 175; Inv. 1634, f. 231^v; Inv. 1739, no. 105.

^{page 124 note 3} Nema, p. 2; Akermann, pl. 33, and V. C. H. Kent.

^{page 124 note 4} Baron de Baye, in Bull. Mon., 1907, who cites the examples that follow.

^{page 124 note 5} La Messe, iv, pl. 339, but this is not of barbarian make.

^{page 125 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 189; Inv. 1634, f. 252^r; Inv. 1739, no. 100. A long description is printed in Labarte, t. i, p. 247. The earliest mention of it is by the eighth-century author of the Gesta Dagoberti, cited by Labarte, who already records that St. Eloy was its maker, so that the attribution of it to him is much more than a mere tradition.

^{page 125 note 2} Possibly the silver border is the obviously Gothic addition seen in the picture.

^{page 125 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 15: ‘Une grant croix d'or garnie de plusieurs pierres et perles', was the rather similar cross of Charlemagne. It was valued at 2,705 écus 8 sols, the cross of St. Eloy at 2,291 écus; so that the cross of Charlemagne was the more valuable of the two.

^{page 126 note 1} D., pp. 288, 333; M., pp. 40, 71; F., p. 174.

^{page 126 note 2} Babelon's Cat. des Camées, no. 374. See De Linas, , Saint Éloi, p. 60Google Scholar.

^{page 127 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 74; Inv. 1634, f. 172^v; Inv. 1739, no. 87 bis; F., p. 175 and pl. iv cc; D., p. 344; M., p. 131.

^{page 127 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 22; Inv. 1634, f. 144^v; Inv. 1739, no. 21; F., pl. ii E; D., pp. 172,335; M., p. 94.

^{page 127 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 3 1; Inv. 1634, f. 150^v; Inv. 1739, no. 33; F., pl. ii R; D., pp. 173, 348; M., p. 125.

^{page 127 note 4} They are generally assigned to the fifth century.

^{page 128 note 1} D., pp. 289, 1202.

^{page 128 note 2} D., p. 289; Viollet-le-Duc, , Did. Arch., ii, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 4; Inv. 1634, f. 24^v; Inv. 1739, no. 67; D., p. 335; M., p. 101; F., pl. iv c.

^{page 130 note 1} According to Molinier these pearl-settings point to the fourteenth-century restoration, when the box was added at the foot.

^{page 130 note 2} An admirable essay on nail relics is included in an article by de Linas, C. in Le Beffroi, vol. iii (1866–1870), p. 32Google Scholar. It contains special reference to the St.-Denis nail.

^{page 130 note 3} Inv. 1505, nos. 21, 203; Inv. 1634, ff. 143^r, 291^v, iv; Inv. 1739, no. 3; F., p. 228, pl. iv D; M., p. 86.

^{page 131 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 15; Inv. 1634, f. 87^r; Inv. 1739, no. 66; F., p. 174 and pl. iv B; D., pp. 245, 335; M., p. 88; De Linas, , St. Eloi, p. 67Google Scholar.

^{page 131 note 2} Loc. cit, p. 203: ‘Crucem etiam mirabilem quantitatis suae, quae superposita est inter altare et tumulum eiusdem Karoli, in cuius medio fama retinuit confixum nobilissimum monile Nantildis reginae uxoris Dagoberti regis ecclesiae fundatoris, aliaud vero in frontem sancti Dionysii (tamen huic minori nullum aequipollere peritissimi artifices testantur) erigi fecimus, maxime ob reverentiam sanctissimae boiae ferreae, quae, in carcere Glaucini sacratissimo collo beati Dionysii innexa, cultum et venerationem tam a nobis quam ab omnibus proraeruit.’

^{page 131 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 16; Inv. 1634, f. 93^v; Inv. 1739, no. 18; F., pl. ii B; D., p. 335; M., p. 88.

^{page 132 note 1} Nos. in, 112, 113, 114.

^{page 132 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. III; Inv. 1739, no. 80; D., pp. 347, 371; M., p. 126; F., pl. iv R; Galerie d'Apollon, Cat., no. 16.

^{page 133 note 1} Originally it was placed among the candles over the altar of the Trinity.

^{page 133 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 209; D., pp. 320, 324; M., p. 134.

^{page 134 note 1} See D., p. 1258, for a list of Charles the Bald's reputed gifts to St.-Denis.

^{page 134 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 188; Inv. 1634, f. 230^r; Inv. 1739, no. 103; D., p. 330; Labarte, p. 369.

^{page 134 note 3} Suger, loc. cit., p. 196: ‘Principale igitur beati Dionysii altare, cui tantum anterior a Karolo Calvo imperatore tertio speciosa et preciosa habebatur, quis eidem ad monasticum propositum oblati fuimus, ornatum iri acceleravimus, et utrique lateri aureas apponendo tabulas, quartum etiam preciosiorem, ut totum circumquaque altare appareret aureum, attollendo circumcingi fecimus.’ The frame or border containing enamel must have been added by Suger.

^{page 135 note 1} Another, somewhat later, ivory of the same school, which is in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Graeven, no. 63), has a similar type of mandorla with symbols of the Evangelists in the corners like the Berlin ivory. Christ in a similar mandorla with Evangelists' symbols in the angles occupies one of the four corners of a Carlovingian ivory belonging to a binding now in Cluny Museum (Michel, fig. 446). Here the ground of the mandorla is covered with six-rayed stars, much as the crosslets must have been dotted about on the retable.

^{page 135 note 2} See reproductions of the ivories and Munich binding with some notes on them by the present writer in the Burlington Magazine, March, 1915.

^{page 136 note 1} The golden altar-frontal in Cluny Museum, which the Emperor Heinrich II presented to Basle Cathedral, is a later development of the same arcaded type as the frontal of Charles the Bald.

^{page 137 note 1} Probably Inv. 1505, no. 34; Inv. 1614, f. 155^v; Inv. 1739, no. 17; D., p. 339; M., p. 103; F., pl. ii A, pp. 430, 538.

^{page 137 note 2} F., pl. iv G; D., pp. 342, 1258; M., p. 128. The entries in the inventory of 1505 are too vague to admit of identification. See also Migeon, G., Manuel d'art musulman, p. 373Google Scholar. It was fabled to have come from Solomon's temple.

^{page 138 note 1} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 13.

^{page 138 note 2} Other manuscripts and book-covers in the Bibliothéque Nationale which once belonged to St. Denis are the following:

fonds lat. 2630; St. Hilary on the Trinity. MS. of the seventh century,

fonds lat. 256; Gospels. MS. of the seventh century,

fonds lat. 7899; Terence. MS. of the ninth-tenth centuries,

fonds lat. 2; The Bible of Charles the Bald.

fonds lat. 9387; Gospels of the ninth century. Binding of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

fonds lat. 9436; Missal of the eleventh century. Binding, one side eleventh-twelfth centuries, the other fifteenth century.

^{page 139 note 1} February, 1914.

^{page 139 note 2} See Œuvres de Suger, ed. de la Marche, Lecoy; Paris, 1867Google Scholar.

^{page 139 note 3} February, 1914, p. 93; D., p. 251; Inv. 1505, nos. 195–8; Inv. 1634, ff. 26^r–267^v.

^{page 141 note 1} Inv. 1634, f. 220^v.

^{page 141 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 187; Inv. 1634, f. 234^v

^{page 142 note 1} Henrietta Maria was married to Charles I in 1625.

^{page 142 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 75; Inv. 1634, f. 173^r; Inv. 1739, no. 85; F., pl. iv z; D., p. 344; M., p. 130; Labarte, , Arts indus., i, p. 410Google Scholar, pl. 32 (coloured plate); Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 21.

^{page 142 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 27; Inv. 1634, f. 148^v; Inv. 1739,110.69; F., pl. iv E; D., p. 343; M., p. 129; Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no, 19.

^{page 143 note 1} Hist, du Cab. des Médailles, p. 166.

^{page 143 note 2} Loc. cit., pl. iii, p. 27.

^{page 143 note 3} Inv 1505, no. 71; Inv. 1634, f. 170^r; Inv. 1739, no. 57; D., pp. 247,345; M., p. 109; F., pl. iii R.

^{page 144 note 1} de Fleury, R. (La Messe, iv, pl. 296)Google Scholar attempted to harmonize them.

^{page 144 note 2} Loc. cit., pl. vii, p. 27. Inv. 1505, no. 62; Inv. 1634, f. 166^r; Inv. 1739, no. 58; D., p. 346; p. 99; F., pl. iii s.

^{page 144 note 3} Manuel d'art musulman, ii, p. 374, fig. 323Google Scholar.

^{page 144 note 4} Inv. 1505, no. 28; Inv. 1634, f. 149^r; Inv. 1739, no. 89; D., p. 343; M., p. 129; F., pl. iv EE.

^{page 145 note 1} Loc. cit., p. 52, pl. x, xi.

^{page 145 note 2} Guibert, , loc. cit., pl. viii; F., pl. iii N; Inv. 1505, no. 70; Inv. 1634, f. 170^v; Inv. 1739, no. 53.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Doublet, p. 366.

^{page 147 note 1} On crowns for suspension, see references in the index of Labarte's Arts indnstriels.

^{page 147 note 2} Nos. 1, 2, 92, 93, 104,’ 129, and 205.

^{page 147 note 3} The crown of Charlemagne: Inv. 1505, no. 1; Inv. 1634, f. 2^r; Inv. 1739, no. 72; D., p. 367; M., p. 122; F., pl. iv H; Labarte, , Arts indus., i, p. 366.Google Scholar

The crown of St. Louis: Inv. 1505, no. 2; Inv. 1634, f. 10^r; Inv. 1739, no. 55; D., p. 367; M., p. 122; F., pl. iii p.

La Sainte Couronne: Inv. 1505, no. 205; Inv. 1634, f. 293^v. I have sometimes suspected that this crown was intended in some of the references to the crown of Charlemagne.

^{page 149 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 161; F., p. 554; D., p. 1257.

^{page 150 note 1} Thomas Platter writes that the crown of St. Louis, which he saw in 1599, was of pure gold and diamonds, and included one very precious stone said by some to have belonged to Charles IX.

^{page 150 note 2} Nos. 89, 91, 109, and 115.

^{page 150 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 117; Inv. 1634, f. 205^r; Inv. 1739, no. 80; F., pl. iv R; D., pp. 347, 371; M., p. 127.

^{page 151 note 1} Inv. 1505, no. 42; Inv. 1634. f. 159^v; Inv. 1739. no. 47; F., pl. iii G.

^{page 151 note 2} Inv. 1505, no, 127; Inv. 1634, f. 207^v; Inv. 1739, no. 75; D., p. 371; M., p. 125; F., pl. iv I.,

^{page 151 note 3} Inv. 1505, nos. 101, 102; Inv. 1634, f. 1861^v; D., p. 342; M., p. 314.

^{page 152 note 1} E. Babelon, Cab. des Antiques, pl. 60.

^{page 152 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 5; Inv. 1634, f. 68V; Inv. 1739, no. 4; D., pp. 336, 1235; M., p. 97; F., pl. i E.

^{page 152 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 3; Inv. 1634, f. 15^v; Inv. 1739, no. 1; D., p. 336; M., p. 86; F., pl. i A.

^{page 153 note 1} Mem. sur les Instruments de la Passion, pp. 123, 124, and 303.

^{page 153 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 41; Inv. 1634, f. 158^v; Inv. 1739, no. 2; D., p. 341; M., p. 89; F., pl. i B. The inventory of 1505 knows nothing about the connexion of any popes or kings with this object.

^{page 153 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 24; Inv. 1634, f. 146^v; Inv. 1739, no. 20; D., p. 336; M., p. 96; F., pl. ii D.

^{page 153 note 4} Inv. 1505, no. 73; Inv. 1634, f. 172^r; Inv. 1739, no.29 bis; D., p.344; M., p. 131; F., pl. iv BB; Babelon, , Cat. des Camées, no. 209Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 1} D., p. 247 (citing Suger).

^{page 154 note 2} Inv. 1505, no. 40 (a blue stone broken in half set in silver-gilt); Inv. 1634, f. 1581^r Inv. 1739, no. 46; D., p. 343; M., p. 95; F., pl. iii F; Barbet de Jouy, Gemmes, etc., pl. xi, 2.

^{page 154 note 3} Inv. 1505, no. 97, might refer to one of them, O. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art, p. 560, fig. 343, states that the smaller plaque belonged to St.-Denis, as asserted by Laborde (Notice des Emaux, etc., 1853, p. 380). The Louvre catalogue is silent on the matter.

^{page 155 note 1} F., pl. iii G, H, K, L, M, P.

^{page 155 note 2} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 64. A fine Limoges reliquary, which was in the Beckford and Zouche collections, and was shown for many years in the South Kensington Museum, has now gone to America. It was called ‘the Reliquary of St. Louis’, and was said to have come from St.-Denis. It is not identifiable with any item in the inventories.

^{page 155 note 3} Most of the following are engraved in Felibien:—

Jeanne d'Evreux:— Figures of the Virgin and St. John (pl. i F), and her crown (pl. iv T). See F., p. 275.

Margaret, Countess of Flanders:— A figure of St. Denis (pl. ii M), and a reliquary of St. Louis of Toulouse (D., p. 337).

Charles V:— Reliquary of 1368 (pl. ii D); chalice and paten (pl. iv DD); a retable (Inv. 1505, no. 155); a silver-gilt cross (D., p. 345); a pax (D., p. 345); and a sceptre (pl. iv p).

Jean, Due de Berry: — Reliquary of the cross of Clement III (pl. i B); reliquary of St. Benedict (pl. iv A); reliquary of St. Thomas (pl. iii B).

Guy de Monceau (D., p. 267):— Images of the Virgin and SS. Nicholas and Catherine (pls. i 1, and ii G, N); ivory Virgin; silver-gilt crucifix and relics (D., p. 340).

Charles VI: —Reliquary for the holy nail.

^{page 156 note 1} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 150; Inv. 1505, no. 8; Inv. 1634, f. 76^r; Inv. 1739, no. 5; D., p. 337; M., pp. 92, 95; F., pl. i F. Phot. Giraudon.

^{page 156 note 2} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 149; Inv. 1505, no. 116; Inv. 1634, f. 203^r; Inv. 1739, no. 79; D., p. 368; M., p. 123; F., pl. iv P.

^{page 156 note 3} Where were these odds and ends kept ? and is there any such cupboard of miscellaneous objects still in existence ? It might contain unconsidered trifles such as other fragments from the pre-Revolution Treasuries of France, which would now be of inestimable value.

^{page 156 note 4} F., pl. i K, and p. 537; Inv. 1739, no. 10.

^{page 157 note 1} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 123; Inv. 1505, no. 57; Inv. 1634, f. i65T; Inv. 1739, no. 54; D., p. 346; M., p. 106; F., pl. iii o; Barbet-de-Jouy, Gemmes, etc., pl. xi, 3; Labarte, Arts Indus., i, 204.

^{page 157 note 2} Galerie d'Apollon, Cat. no. 128; Barbet-de-Jouy, Gemmes, etc., pl. xi.

^{page 157 note 3} Probably F., pl. ii z. Compare Inv. 1505, no. 10; Inv. 1634, f. 79^v; Inv. 1739, no. 38; D., p. 340; M., p. 93.

Mr. Maurice W. Brockwell has sent me the following notes on the picture of the ‘Mass of St. Giles'. It is probable that between the years 1796 and 1850 it was in Lord Bessborough's collection, where it was attributed to Van Eyck. Viollet-le-Duc knew of it only as in the collection of Lord —, and the print he published of it (Did. De l'Architect., ii, p. 26Google Scholar) inaccurately represents only its architectural background. Waagen, (Art Treasures, 1854, vol. ii, p. 237Google Scholar) stated that this ‘Mass of St. Gregory’ in Lord Ward's collection was ‘attributed, without the slightest ground, to John Van Eyck; it is a good and interesting picture of the Dutch School of the latter part of the fifteenth century’. It was lent by Lord Dudley to the Exhibition of Old Masters at Burlington House in 1871 (no. 326) as a ‘Celebration of High Mass’ by John Van Eyck, and it appeared there again in 1892. The frame is said to have borne at one time a cutting from an old catalogue describing it as ‘st. Thomas Aquinas performing Mass in the Abbey of St.-Denis to Louis IX of France’. On June 25, 1892, it was included in the Dudley sale as a work of the Early Netherlandish School, when it was purchased by the late Mr. Edward Steinkopf, father of the present owner. He lent it in the same year, 1892, for exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, and the compiler of the catalogue stated that it was ‘possibly the work of Gerard van der Meire, who, it is believed, spent some time in France’.