purpose; to which he also added the features of many others. In his figures of the two Saints Jacopo, presenting fine forms, most appropriate to the characters, he availed himself of the same plan; and being unable with his utmost diligence to invest that of Christ with a superior air to the rest, he left the head in an unfinished state, as we learn from Vasari, though Armenini pronounced it exquisitely complete. The rest of the picture, the tablecloth with its folds, the whole of the utensils, the table, the architecture, the distribution of the lights, the perspective of the ceiling, (which in the tapestry of San Pietro, at Rome, is changed almost into a hanging garden) all was conducted with the most exquisite care; all was worthy of the finest pencil in the world. Had Lionardo desired to follow the practice of his age in painting in distemper, the art at this time would have been in possession of this treasure. But being always fond of attempting new methods, he painted this masterpiece upon a peculiar ground, formed of distilled oils, which was the reason that it gradually detached itself from the wall, a misfortune which had also nearly befallen one of his Madonnas, at S. Onofrio, at Rome, though it was preserved under glass. About half a century subsequent to the production of his great Supper, when Armenini then saw it, it was already _half decayed_; and Scanelli, who examined it in 1642, declares that it "_was with difficulty he could discern the history as it had been_." In the present century a hope had been indulged of this magnificent painting being restored by aid of some varnish, or other secret, as may be seen by consulting Bottari. In regard to this, however, and the other vicissitudes of this great picture, we ought also to consider what is stated in a tone of ridicule and reproach by Bianconi, in his _New Guide_.[52] It will be sufficient for my purpose to add, that nothing remains in the modern picture from the hand of Vinci, if we except three heads of apostles, which may be said to be rather sketched than painted. Milan boasts few of his works, as those which are ascribed to him are for the most part the productions of his school, occasionally retouched by himself, as in the altar-piece of S. Ambrogio _ad nemus_, which has great merit. A Madonna, however, and Infant, in the Belgioioso d'Este palace, as well as one or two other pictures in private possession, are undoubtedly from his hand. We are assured, indeed, that he left few pieces at Milan, as well from his known fastidiousness in painting, as from his having been diverted from it, both by inclination and by the commissions received from the prince, to conduct works connected with engineering, hydraulics, and machinery for a variety of purposes, besides those of architecture;[53] and especially in regard to that celebrated model of a horse, of which, owing to its size, as we are told by Vasari, no cast could be taken in bronze. And this writer is the more