HIC LAPIS EGREGII MARCI TEGIT OSSA CELEBRIS. BENZIUS IS LOGICUS, IS MEDICUS-QUE FUIT. ALTER ERAT SOCRATES MEDICINA MAXIMUS ARTIS. HIC AVICENNA FUIT, ISQUE GALENUS ERAT. QUOS IS NON POTUIT CURASSE ... EGROS HERBIS NE CREDAS ID VALUISSE DEOS. was placed to the memory of Marco Benzi. We find too, that another physician, Sozzini Benzi, belonging to the same family, was also buried here. The decoration of this chapel, by Sodoma, did not take place until 1526; and it is not improbable, that the floor was subsequent to that date. So that it may have been the work of the last of the Pavement Masters, Giovanni Battista Sozzini, spoken of above. The Sozzinis were a distinguished family, and if the name tells us anything, may have been related to this very Sozzini Benzi. The figure of Æsculapius, seated among various wild beasts, would then have appropriate reference to the merits of these two physicians. It is strange to find such a classical piece of composition in a chapel dedicated to Sta. Caterina di Siena, a saint so pre-eminently ecclesiastical; but it is quite in accordance with the spirit of the time. Æsculapius, a handsome nude youth, resembling Orpheus or Bacchus, is seated on a rock in a grove of oaks, laurels, and fruit-trees. In his right hand he holds a mirror in which is reflected his own face. To his right, are an unicorn and a wolf: to his left, a leopard and a lion. Perched on the trees, in various directions, are sundry birds: owls, vultures, eagles, etc. One vulture, on the right of the principal figure, is screaming at a monkey, who is eating fruit. On the other side, another bird is clawing at an over-grown squirrel. Around the composition is a frieze representing water, on which are swimming swans and ducks.[231] The composition is good, but the perspective is odd, and the use of many coloured marbles profuse, and not altogether happy. CHAPTER V MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP OF THE PAVEMENT Most of the writers on the Pavement, speak of its workmanship, as being of four kinds. This would give the idea of four distinct methods, abruptly divided, which is most certainly not the case. The line of division is so indistinct, and the various styles so blended one into the other, that I can only describe it as an _evolution_, during which four special changes took place.