Another question is this, Does the picture represent a mass? It probably has gained its title as much from being the companion _volet_ to Lord Northbrook's S. Giles as to the incident of the scroll-bearing Angel. But there is not the slightest resemblance between the hunting personage in Lord Northbrook's picture and the king in the "Mass." In the former, the kneeling hunter appears in a cap, and has no beard; may not this be Charles Martel? We are told in the legend of S. Giles that the king of France was one day hunting in the South, near Nismes, when, in the pursuit of a hind, the hunters came upon S. Giles living hermit-wise in a cave. Charles Martel was never actually sovereign, although governing the kingdom; therefore a cap would be an appropriate head covering for the Maire du Palais. And the dates correspond. S. Giles died in 725; Charles Martel in 741. Is there any evidence that the S. Denis picture represents the S. Giles legend? There is no reason why each _volet_ of a triptich should be decorated with incidents in the life of the same saint. Again, does the picture represent a mass? There are no lights upon the altar, which is contrary to the almost invariable custom of the church from all time. Two lights were used from the earliest period; whereas a single light, either taper, torch, or lantern, borne by an assistant kneeling behind the celebrant, generally denotes a communion of the faithful, after, or out of, mass. It is true there is a picture by van der Weyden in the National Gallery of the "Mass of S. Hubert," with no lights, and there is no doubt about the subject, as the vessels requisite for a mass are visible upon the altar; but in the "Mass of S. Giles" there are no evidences of the celebration of mass, except that the priest is elevating the Host while facing the altar, and reading from a book placed thereon; whereas at a communion the celebrant turns his back to the altar when elevating the consecrated wafer. Now may not the picture represent either the communion of Charles le Chauve, or his induction as abbot, or his presentation of the retable? I have not lost sight of the difficulty of the Angel. But if it be really the sin-forgiven scroll which he holds, there is no reason why this particular king should not have had a hidden sin, pious man though he may have been; indeed, that would be a reason for his thinking ill of himself. And must the subject be necessarily that incident, when we know that in Mediæval times Angels were constantly in the habit of flying about with all kinds of objects of celestial manufacture--stoles, girdles, chalices, crowns, palms, &c. (In van der Weyden's picture, mentioned above, an Angel is descending with a stole).