s; but it was evidently largely
restored after the peace of the Church. The upright supports at the
four corners were whittled away by early pilgrims.

[Illustration: The Chair of S. Peter; after photograph from
original--_A_ Oak wood, much decayed, and whittled by pilgrims. _B_
Acacia wood, inlaid with ivory carvings.]

Another work of art deserves attention, because its origin, age, and
style are still matters of controversy. I mean the bronze statue of S.
Peter (see p. 142) placed against the right wall of the nave, near the
S. Andrew of Francis de Quesnoy. Without attempting a discussion which
would be inconsistent with the spirit of this book, I can safely state
that the theories suggested by modern Petrographists, from Torrigio to
Bartolini, deserve no credit. The statue is not the Capitoline Jupiter
transformed into an apostle; nor was it cast with the bronze of that
figure; it never held the thunderbolt in the place of the keys of
heaven. The statue was cast as a portrait of S. Peter; the head
belongs to the body; the keys and the uplifted fingers of the right
hand are essential and genuine details of the original composition.
The difficulty, and it is a great one, consists in stating its age.
There is no doubt that Christian sculptors modelled excellent
portrait-statues in the second and third centuries: as is proved by
that of Hippolytus (see p. 143), discovered in 1551 in the Via
Tiburtina, and now in the Lateran Museum, a work of the time of
Alexander Severus.

There is no doubt also that there is a great similarity between the
two, in the attitude and inclination of the body, the position of the
feet, the style of dress, and even the lines of the folds. But
portrait-statues of bronze may belong to any age; because, while the
sculptor in marble is obliged to produce a work of his own hands and
conception, and the date of a marble statue can therefore be
determined by comparison with other well-known works, the caster in
bronze can easily reproduce specimens of earlier and better times by
taking a mould from a good original, altering the features slightly,
and then casting it in excellent bronze. This seems to be the case
with this celebrated image. I know that the current opinion makes it
contemporary with the erection of Constantine's basilica; but to this
I cannot subscribe on account of the comparatively modern shape of the
keys. One of two things must be true,--either that these keys are a
comparativ