5. Domenichino. St. John, full length, life size; young and beautiful, in an ecstasy of inspiration, and sustained by two angels; the eagle at his feet: formerly in the Giustiniani Gallery;[131]—finer, I think, than the St. John in Sant’ Andrea. Another, half length, a scroll in his hand, looking upwards as one to whom the glory of the heavens had been opened;—you see it reflected in his eyes,—while love, wonder, devotion, beam from his beautiful face and parted lips: behind him hovers the attendant eagle, holding the pen in his beak; near him is the chalice, with the serpent; so that here he is in his double character of apostle and evangelist.[132] Domenichino excelled in St. Johns, as Guido in Magdalenes; perhaps the most beautiful of all is that in the Brera, at Milan, where St. John bends on one knee at the foot of the throne of the Madonna and Child, his pen in one hand, the other pressed to his bosom, and looking up to them with an air of ecstatic inspiration. Two little angels, or rather _amoretti_, are in attendance: one has his arms round the neck of the eagle, sporting with it; the other holds up the cup and the serpent. Every detail is composed and painted to admiration; but this is the artistic and picturesque, not the religious, version of the subject. St. John is frequently represented with St. Peter, because, after the ascension, they taught and acted in concert. In such pictures, the contrast between the fiery resolve and sturdy, rugged grandeur which is given to St. Peter, and the refinement, mildness, and personal grace of St. John, produces a fine effect: as in Albert Dürer’s picture,[133] where John is holding open the Gospel, and Peter apparently reading it; two grand and simple figures, filling the mind as we gaze upon them. As this picture was painted _after_ Albert Dürer became a Protestant, I have thought it possible that he might have had some particular meaning in thus making Peter study the Gospel of John. At all events, Albert Dürer was quite capable of such an intention; and, whether intended or not, the picture may be, and has been, thus interpreted. The prophets and the poets often say more than they intended, for their light was for others more than for themselves: so also the great painters—the Raphaels and Albert Dürers—prophets and poets in their way. When I have heard certain critics ridiculed because they found more in the productions of a Shakspeare or a Raphael than the poet or painter himself ever perceived or ‘intended,’ such ridicule has appeared to me in the highest degree presumptuous and absurd. The true artist ‘feels that he is greater than he knows.’ In giving form or utterance to the soul within him, does he account to himself for all the world of thoughts his work will excite in the minds of others? Is its significance to be circumscribed either by the intention and the knowledge of the poet, or the comprehension of the age in which he