ast wing was the most remarkable. Here we saw the helm and
breastplate of Attila, king of the Huns, which once glanced at the head
of his myriads of wild hordes before the walls of Rome; the armor of
Count Stahremberg, who commanded Vienna during the Turkish siege in
1529, and the holy banner of Mohammed, taken at that time from the
grand vizier, together with the steel harness of John Sobieski of
Poland, who rescued Vienna from the Turkish troops under Kara Mustapha;
the hat, sword and breastplate of Godfrey of Bouillon, the crusader-king
of Jerusalem, with the banners of the cross the crusaders had borne to
Palestine and the standard they captured from the Turks on the walls of
the Holy City. I felt all my boyish enthusiasm for the romantic age of
the crusaders revive as I looked on the torn and moldering banners which
once waved on the hills of Judea, or perhaps followed the sword of the
Lion-Heart through the fight on the field of Ascalon. What tales could
they not tell, those old standards cut and shivered by spear and lance!
What brave hands have carried them through the storm of battle, what
dying eyes have looked upward to the cross on the folds as the last
prayer was breathed for the rescue of the holy sepulcher.

[Footnote A: From "Views Afoot." Published by G.P. Putnam's Sons.]

[Footnote B: The population of Vienna, according to the census of 1910,
was 2,085,888.]

ST. STEPHEN'S CATHEDRAL[A]

BY THOMAS FROGNALL DIBDIN

Of the chief objects of architecture which decorate street scenery in
Vienna, there are none, to my old-fashioned eyes, more attractive and
thoroughly beautiful and interesting--from a thousand associations of
ideas than places of worship, and of course, among these, none stands
so eminently conspicuous as the mother-church, or the cathedral, which
in this place, is dedicated to St. Stephen. The spire has been long
distinguished for its elegance and height. Probably these are the most
appropriate, if not the only, epithets of commendation which can be
applied to it. After Strasburg and Ulm, it appears a second-rate
edifice. Not but what the spire may even vie with that of the former,
and the nave may be yet larger than that of the latter; but, as a whole,
it is much inferior to either--even allowing for the palpable falling
off in the nave of Strasburg cathedral.

The spire, or tower--for it partakes of both characters--is indeed
worthy of general admiration. It is oddly situated