time of Pontius Pilate. (De Historia SS. Imaginibus, &c., lib. i. c. vi. p. 65.)

The most ancient examples now remaining of the decorations employed by the early Christians, are doubtless those found in the catacombs at Rome. I have not access to any recent copies of these interesting antiquities; but so far as my recollection serves, they contain no example of a crucifix, or any literal delineation of the death of the Saviour. In fact, even in these gloomy retreats, the vigilance of persecution compelled the Christians to caution, and forced them to conceal, under allegories and mystery, the memorials of their faith; the figure of the Redeemer being always veiled under an assumed character, most generally that of a shepherd bearing in his arms a recovered lamb. This, which is the most common form of allegory of this period, occurs in the catacomb of the Via Latina, in that of Priscilla in the Via Salaria, discovered in 1776, both of which, according to Aringhi, are amongst the oldest Christian monuments now remaining. (Roma Subterranea, vol. ii. p. 25. 292.) In a sepulchral chamber in the cemetery of St. Calixtus, Jesus is represented as Orpheus with a lyre, as emblematic of the subduing influences of his life. But his death is still more cautiously shadowed forth by the types of Jonas, Isaac on the altar of Abraham, and Daniel in the den of lions,—examples of all of which are numerous; and the cover of an urn figured by Agincourt presents them all three. (Histoire de l'Art par les Monumens, vol. iv.; Dec. Sculp., pl. v. no. 10.)

Art, after its decline in Rome, was later cherished by the Greeks at Byzantum, and allegory in their hands, during the third and fourth centuries, exhibited a much higher refinement than amongst the degenerate Romans,—the divinity and life of Jesus being represented in their paintings by a youth of godlike mien and heavenly grace, with his foot upon the mane of a lion, whilst his death is still typified by a lamb expiring at the foot of a cross, which it sprinkles with its blood, and his resurrection by a phœnix, which rests upon the summit of a palm-tree, the emblem of his victory.

I have stated that even the cross, as an emblem, was admitted "reluctantly" into the churches of the early Christians. The fact, and the causes of this reluctance, are stated fairly by Gibbon (ch. xx.), principally on the authorities consulted by Basnage in his Histoire des Eglises Reformées, to have had their origin in the idea of infamy and ignominy which they attached to the mode of execution by crucifixion,—feelings analogous to those inspired by a gallows or a gibbet; and it required a long lapse of time, even after Constantine had abolished throughout the Roman dominions the punishment which had prevailed for slaves and malefactors, but which the Saviour of mankind had submitted to suffer, before the people could be led to regard as a symbol for veneration that which had so long been an object of horror and disgust. A most interesting account of the subsidence of this feeling, and of its effects upon Sacred Art whilst it prevailed, will be found in Emeric David's Discours sur la Peinture Moderne, p. 115. It rendered allegory so indispensable, that in the exhaustion of fancy it declined into conceits and puerility, which finally brought the subject into contempt, and compelled the hierarchy to exert the influence of the Church for its correction. This led to a measure the record of which is strongly corroborative of the statement of Mr. Curzon; namely, that A.D. 692, at the Quine Sextine, or Council in Trullo, it was ordered that thenceforth fiction and allegory should cease, and the real figure of the Saviour be depicted on the tree. (Can. 82. Act. Concil. Paris, 1714, v. iii. col. 1691, 1692.)

The Greeks complied, but with reluctance, to delineate the actual crucifixion; and as, in the controversy which arose in the second century, and never entirely subsided, regarding the beauty or deformity of the Saviour's features, the Greek Church had espoused the side of St. Basil, Tertullian, and Origen, who maintained that "he was without form or comeliness," their artists exhibited such a spectacle of deformity on the cross, that to the present hour a proverb compares a lean and ugly person to "un crucifix des Grecs." The Latins and Italians, on the other hand, whilst they were equally hostile to the literal exhibition of the Redeemer's death, and forbore for nearly a century to comply with the orders of the Council in Trullo, adopted, as to his beauty, the party of Celsus and Chrysostom,—quoted the expression of David, "thou art fairer than the children of men,"—and painted the Saviour, albeit suspended on the fatal tree, as a youth of heavenly mien; and instead of the crown of thorns, the lance, and the sponge, they represented him with a diadem, and insensible to suffering or pain.

These remarks, though they will no doubt be insufficient as an answer to your correspondent, may perhaps direct him to authorities, the consultation of which will satisfy his inquiry.

J. EMERSON TENNENT.

London.

THE WORD Αδελφος
(Vol. iv., pp. 339, 458.)

In commenting on the criticisms of J. B., may I be allowed to follow the order of his own reasoning as much as possible?

1st. I am glad to find that Scapula is right, but I must object to the use of the participle acquiescing, as applied to me. My word is "deduction," and is applied to a rule grounded upon Scapula's correctness, and may, I think, settle the sense of those disputed verses in Matt. xiii. 55, 56, to say nothing of two indisputable proofs which might be adduced.

2nd. I am wrong—for what? for appearing, in the eyes of J. B., to have done that which I have not done,—for bringing in links of "the Indo-Germanic languages," which I have neither done, nor can do.

3rd. "The word is solely and peculiarly Greek." Let me give only one etymon by way of preparation for my answer. Let us take the word mouse. Well, it comes from the Latin mus, which comes, you will say, from the Greek μυς, and there are many clever etymologists, excepting a few, with J. B. and myself, would say, "it is solely and peculiarly Greek;" but we go up to the Sanscrit (the mother of European languages), and bring forward mush, a mouse, and here is the terminus—and why? because mush signifies to steal, and therefore sufficiently describes the nature of the little animal. Now, because we cannot find an existing link between the Greek and Sanscrit, is that a reason for asserting αδελφος to be of pure Greek origin? No; and if J. B. will only recollect that all words in Sanscrit, excepting bare primary roots, are compounded after the same manner as αδελφος or rather δελ-φ, he will, I hope, find that I have not been wrong in my etymon. Moreover, let J. B. prove, if he can, what is the meaning of δελφ in the Greek, unaided by any other language.

4th. Why is the Sanscrit bhratre brought into the contest? perhaps to prove what has not been proved, viz. that it also signifies frater uterinus.

5th. "How happened it that the word φρατηρ was lost in Greek?" Why, because the Greeks thought it too barbarous a word to own, as coming through the Latins from the barbarous Goths, Scandinavians,