French Art – Architecture Of The Nineteenth Century

UNITY of purpose—so remarkable an attribute of the French artistic genius, which finds its highest enjoyment, its most natural and national expression, in the well-ordered lines of Architecture—is nowhere seen to greater advantage than in the relations of Architecture and the State. The State in France has always recognized its duty to Art, although perhaps it has not been uniforinly successful in fulfilling that duty. But as a Builder, the State has given evidence of a lively artistic conscience ; and this has produced results of extreme grandeur and importance. The evils of excessive centralization and State aid may be great. They may encourage a condition of tutelage, and check private initiative and enterprise. But on the other hand, with regard to public works, the gain of a certain unity of purpose is immense. A Haussman may not be an unmixed blessing. But “it must be acknowledged that if Paris were divided ” into a number of vestries or other local organizations, with ” a Corporation in the Ile Saint Louis, and a County Council ” on the Boulevards, it would not be the very beautiful city ” that every one owns it to be.”

What is termed in France ” The Administration of Fine Arts ” is no new invention. Art, as I have endeavoured to show, was at first wholly dependent upon the Church ; then with the full development of the Feudal system, on the King and the great nobles ; and was found grouped in independent provincial schools. Later on, as the kingdom and body politic became organized and centralized, Art followed the same impulse. It became ordered and organized in the Guilds, and centred more and more round the King and his Court, wherever that might happen to be fixed—in Touraine or in Paris. Till, with the founding of the Academy, Art became official, almost exclusively dependent on the King and the State.

The official department of Art has seen many vicissitudes. Up to the Revolution of 1789, the ” Direction des Beaux Arts ” was included in the administration of the Royal Buildings and Royal Demesne. The first Republic made it a part of the Ministry of the Interior. In 1830 Louis Philippe transferred it to the Ministry of Commerce and Public Works. In 1833 it was divided between the Ministry of the Interior and that of Public Instruction. In 1848 it was attached—with some show of reason—to the Museums. With the third Empire it was first joined to the Ministry of State ; then to the Imperial Household. And when in 1870 a separate Ministry of Fine Arts was formed, it was given the direction of the State Stud Farms ! After the fall of the Empire, the Direction of Art was tossed about from one department to another—always, let it be remembered, doing good work for the State in spite of these many administrative changes–till in 1881, Gambetta during his brief term of office created a ” Ministry of Art “—not of Fine Arts—a step of great importance. This, however, was only for a time. And the Administration of Fine Arts now forins part of one of the eleven ministries of the French Government—the ” Ministère de l’Instruction Publique et des Beaux Arts “. But though it is under the Minister charged with that department, Art has a separate head in the Director of Fine Arts, who enjoys a position of almost unlimited independence ; and, happily for the interests of French Art, is not changed with changes of Government. Many distinguished men have filled this unique position. And it is now occupied by M. Roujon, under whose wise and able conduct French Art has entered upon a period of unprecedented liberty.

Besides being the chief patron of Art, in whose hands are vested the powers of reward and encouragement, the State in France exercises three distinct functions in regard to Art. First, as an Educator. Secondly, as a Curator. Thirdly, as a Builder. And in this last—in its relations to Architecture—the State is enabled to encourage all other branches of Art, in the embellishment of the buildings it erects.

The State acts as an Educator by three means. By the École des Beaux Arts in Paris. By the Academy of France in Rome. And by the travelling Scholarships granted to young artists whose works in the two Salons show such talent as would be benefited by a sojourn in foreign countries. The scope of these Scholarships has been greatly extended of late. Italy, Sicily, and Greece are no longer considered the only field for study. And the Boursiers now go to Spain. Algiers, Egypt, and even to the far East to study the monuments of India, China and Japan.

The importance of the Educational function of the State with regard to Architecture has been admirably pointed out by Mr. W. H. White, late Secretary of the R.I.B.A. ” Any ” one,” he says, ” with knowledge sufficient of France and its ” architects . . cannot fail to admit the direct influence of ” organization or system upon the national Architecture of ” that country. It has not only men enough to design and ” superintend the erection of public buildings, but the talents ” of those men are uniformly good, some are exceptionally ” good. This result is largely due to systematic training. ” A student of the School in Paris and in the Academy at ” Rome, who for a time works in a subordinate quality on ” important public buildings, in due course endows the ” capital with a Bibliothèque de Ste. Geneviève, or a Palais ” de Justice ; and though I am treating of Paris alone, the ” system holds good for all France. Years pass and he ” is elected by the Academy to fill a vacant chair in the ” National Institute ; he is chosen by the State to fill per-” haps one of the important offices of Inspecteur-Général ” des Monuments Nationaux des Édifices Diocésains, or des ” Batiments Civils, whereby he becomes one of the profes sional advisers of the Minister entrusted with the charge ” of a public department. Thus Schools, Academy, and ” State work together for the general good. The State ” moreover, recognizes and supports the Académie des Beaux ” Arts as the domain of the living chiefs of painting, sculpture, architecture,—the acknowledged arbiters in questions ” arising out of the theory and practice of the Fine Arts, ” and men, who in early life have won the honours that ” School or Academy offer to merit, whom the State, economically careful of its investments, assists in their unequal ” struggle with the sordid interests of the community at ” large, and who, figuratively and substantially, reimburse ” the country a hundred times for the cost of their training ” in Paris, Rome, Athens, and among the master edifices of ” France.”

As a Curator, the State has done work of incalculable importance to the whole civilized world. It has recognized that it is the trustee of the treasures of Art which belong to the Nation ; and therefore that it has a plain duty in regard to Museums, and in the protection of artistic and historic buildings. French museums are of comparatively recent date. In fact they nearly all date from the Revolution, before which event Art treasures were in private collections. The Revolution, as I have already shown, created provincial museums, as well as the national ones of the Louvre and Lenoir’s Museum of Comparative Sculpture and Architecture. Now every provincial city has its museum, which is aided by the State as well as supported by the local Municipality. And the four National Museums of France are the Louvre, the Luxembourg, Versailles, and Saint-Germain. While two other museums of very recent date have been instituted with regard to their direct educational effect on the artists of France. These are the Museum of Decorative Art, and the Museum of Comparative Sculpture of the Trocadero.

This last, which originated in the excellent Lenoir’s ” Musée des Monuments Français ” of 1795, “is, from an ” educational point of view, one of the greatest achievements ” of the present Government in France”. It was revived and reconstituted through the exertions of Viollet-Le-Duc and the ” Commission des Monuments historiques “.

And this brings us to one of the most important movements of the century. “Founded in 1837 the Committee “have slowly but steadily made their way, thanks to the ” energy and talent of such men as Mérimée, Vitet, ” Lenormant, de Laborde, Lamartine, Vaudoyer, Labrouste, ” Questel, Victor Hugo, Lasteyrie, Viollet-Le-Duc, Beulé, ” Quicherat, Abadie, Ruprich-Robert, M.M. Boeswillwald, ” Antonin Proust, and many more. The Committee enjoy ” an almost complete independence, disposing as the “members think fit of the money—more than a million “francs—put every year in their hands by the State. It ” may be that their restaurations have not always been fault-” less. But they have done great service. They had from “the first three objects in view : a classification of the ” monuments of France ; the constitution of a museum of ” arts, reproducing the different specimens of French ” architecture and sculpture from the time when those arts ” first had conscience of themselves ; and the passing of a ” bill empowering the Government to oppose the destruction ” of a classified building, when such a destruction is con-” templated by the owner, whether private individual or ” public body. The classification has been made, and is still “carried on as far as the movable objects of art are concerned ; the Trocadero Museum has been established ; and ” since 1887 France has had a law protecting her historical buildings, such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark ” possessed long ago, Italy in 1872, and other countries at ” different times.”

Lastly the State is a great public builder. And if it fully recognizes its duty and its power, it may in itself become a great artist. For its duty in this department is to promote that perfect artistic collaboration between architects, painters, and sculptors, which alone has given and will give the world noble and complete monuments. This artistic completeness is often lost sight of. But we may safely say, that in spite of many failures, in no country is its importance so fully recognized as in France. The revival of Decorative Art is bringing to the architect’s aid the talents of the best artists in all departments, who with the splendid spirit of the sculptors and painters of the past, are ready to serve together, if thereby they can produce a whole which shall be worthy of the highest civilization.

The work done by the State in France as a builder is of prodigious importance in the nineteenth century. It has left a mark on Paris—to say nothing of the provinces—unequalled since the days of Louis XIV. It has given Paris some of its noblest monuments ; while it has preserved and restored those which otherwise would have been lost. To the architects of the nineteenth century are due the completion of the Louvre and the Madeleine. The building of the Arc-de-Triomphe. The Bourse. The Bibliothèque Ste. Geneviève. The École des Beaux Arts. The Palais de Justice. The New Sorbonne. And the New Opera—” one of the ” monuments of the century which represent progress in ” Architectural design, and the most typical creation of the ” Style Napoléon III.”.’ The nineteenth century has also witnessed the opening of that superb street, the rue de Rivoli. Begun by Napoleon I., it was carried from the Place de la Concorde beyond the Tuileries. Napoleon III. cut through the thick mass of buildings about the Palais Royal, and it was pushed on to the Hotel de Ville. It has now been carried right on by the rue St. Antoine to the Place de la Bastilea magnificent artery from West to East. Besides this, under Baron Haussman and the Empire, and of late under the Republic, new Boulevards and Avenues, streets, squares and public gardens, have been opened out in all directions. And while they have undoubtedly destroyed many buildings of historic interest, they have helped to produce a general effect of extreme magnificence.

The temporary buildings of the great Exhibitions—especially that of 1889—must not be forgotten. They have displayed architectural qualities of a very high order. While the magnificent permanent Palace of Art which is to form so large a part of the Universal Exposition of 1900, will endow Paris with a fresh evidence of the high architectural attainments of her artists, and the importance of the State as a Builder.


BRONGNIART, ALEXANDRE-THÉODORE (b. Paris, 1739 ; cl. 1813), will always be remembered as the author of the Bourse, in Paris. It was begun in 1808, in the full tide of the Classic revival. And whether such a building be suitable or no for such a purpose, it is a, stately and magnificent object, surrounded by a colonnade of sixty-six Corinthian pillars ; and is one of the purest specimens of classical architecture in Paris. It was finished by Labarre in 1826. To Brongniart, who was received as a member of the Royal Academy of Architecture in 1781, were also due the Theâtre Louvois ; the Hotels de Bondy, Montessor, and Monaco ; the Bains Antiques in M. de Bessenval’s Hotel, decorated by Clodion ; the chapel in the cemetery of Mont St. Louis, etc., etc.

BALTARD, LOUIS-PIERRE (b. Paris, 1764 ; d. 1846), owed his success to no master but himself. He was both architect and painter, as well as a prolific writer on architectural subjects, from the monuments of Rome, to prisons and fortifications. Government architect, Professor of Architecture at the École des Beaux Arts, and honorary president of the Society of Architecture at Lyons, he exhibited drawings, paintings and plans in most of the Salons from 1791 to 1835. In the city of Lyons he built the Magazin à Sel, the prison de la Perrache, and the Palais de Justice—his last work. He succeeded Dufourny as architect to the prisons of Paris, of Bicètre, and of les Halles et Marchés ; and built the chapels of Ste. Pélagie and Saint Lazare ; and the magnificent Abattoirs of La Villette.

HUVÉ, JEAN-JACQUES-MARIE (b. Versailles, 1783 ; d. 1852), the son of another J. J. Huvé, also an architect, was pupil of his father and Percier. Under Vignon he was appointed Manager of Works in 1808 for the ” Temple de la Gloire,” which in 1817 was transformed into the Church of La Madeleine. And on Vignon’s death in 1828 Huvé was appointed architect, and completed the work in 1842. Its cost amounted to £520,000.

PERCIER, CHARLES (b. Paris, 1764 ; d. 1838).

FONTAINE, PIERRE – FRANOIS – LÉONARD (b. Pontoise, 1762 ; d. 1853).

The names of these two artists are so indissolubly connected that it is not possible to treat them separately. In work as in friendship, they were associated. Percier, the son of an old soldier who was Concièrge at the Tuileries, gained the premier prix d’Architecture in 1786 on a projet de Palais pour la réunion de toutes les Académies. In Rome be found his friend Fontaine who he had known at the École, and who, only receiving a second prize, had come to Italy at his own expense. The two young men began to work together. And from this moment no influence could weaken their generous and devoted union. Returning to France in 1793, the two friends found themselves penniless ; and were glad to furnish designs to the famous cabinet-maker, Jacob.’ But at last Percier was appointed architect to Malmaison. He of course shared his good fortune with Fontaine. And their future was assured when Napoleon entrusted the two friends with the completion of the Louvre.

Perrault’s building was ruinate, and had to be finished before anything else. Napoleon then (1802) demanded a scheme for uniting the Louvre with the Tuileries on the north of the Carousel. Percier and Fontaine submitted no less than eleven plans. But before any decision was arrived at, the rue de Rivoli was opened ; and on the Emperor’s return from Austerlitz, the vast space of the place du Carousel was swept free of the buildings and houses which encumbered it. In 1807 the Arc de Triomphe du Carousel was erected between the two palaces, winning the grand prix d’architecture for Fontaine in 1810. They then set about the northern gallery from the Tuileries. This they carried as far as the pavillon de Rohan. But happily the fall of the Empire put an end to their scheme for cutting the huge place in two, by a transverse line of building from the Pavillon Lesdiguières to the Pavillon de Rohan ; and the magnificent open space was saved from fresh disfigurement. After Napoleon’s fall their position as architects to the Louvre was continued ; and they completed the decoration of the Musée Charles X., etc. They had already (1807) built the two great staircases at each end of the Colonnade of the Louvre ; and re-arranged the interior of the Grande-Galerie. The nine bays, the columns of precious marbles which divide them, and the lighting of this magnificent gallery, are due to Percier and Fontaine. It was finished just before the marriage of Napoleon and Marie-Louise, 2nd April, 1810.

After 1830 Fontaine alone continued architect to Louis Philippe ; and Percier spent the last years of his life in his friend’s appartement in the Louvre. With the third Empire, Fontaine hoped that at last he would be able to carry out his projects for the completion of the Louvre. But he died in 1853. And it was left to Visconti and Lefuel to accomplish the great work.

VISCONTI, LOUIS-TULLIUS-JOACHIN (b. Rome, 1 791 ; d. 1853).—Though he was the son of an Italian—Ennius Visconti, the celebrated archaeologist, who Napoleon I. employed to organize the museum of antiques and pictures at the Louvre—yet Visconti must be included among French architects. He was naturalized at the age of eight ; brought up in the Louvre by his father ; as a pupil of Percier he entered the École des Beaux Arts in 1808 ; and gained the second prize in 1814. He was made an Officier of the Legion d’Honneur in 1846 ; and a Membre de l’Institut in 1853.

In spite of his father’s high position, Visconti began humbly as manager of works at the Entrepot des Vins in 1820. – He then became sub-inspector to the Ministère des Finances ; inspector in 1822 ; and a little later architecte-voyer to the third and eighth arrondissements—a post he kept for twenty-two years. In 1824 he built the Fontaine Gaillon. And the next year, as architect to the Bibliothèque Nationale, he prepared twenty-nine different plans for the restoration and arrangement of this vast building. But it proved a dream that he was unable to realize. Under Louis Philippe he executed many works—among them the Fontaine Molière ; the Hotel Collot, quai d’Orsay ; Hotel Pontalba ; many tombs, etc. And as architect to the Minister of the Interior for Fêtes Publiques—undertakings in which the imaginative, faculty bears so large a part—his success was very great. It. was Visconti who arranged the funeral of Napoleon I., in. 1840, of which Victor Hugo gives so moving a picture in Choses Vues ; and the Fête of 15th August, 1853. Visconti also gained the competition in 1842 for Napoleon’s tomb.

But his greatest work was the completion of the Louvre, for which he furnished the general plan. The difficulties. were immense, because the lines were not parallel. But he cleverly managed to disguise, not to destroy, this defect ;. and by means of a double lateral gallery, succeeded in. harmonizing the apparently insurmountable differences of parallelism between the buildings along the river face, and those along the rue de Rivoli. The first stone was laid in July, 1852. In July, 1853, the walls were half way up of the buildings joining the old Louvre—i.e., the Cours Visconti and Lefuel, and the pavillons Daru, Denon, and Molien, with which every one who has visited Paris is familiar as the part of the palace by which we enter the picture galleries. Those of the rue de Rivoli were finished as far as the roof line. But on 29th November, 1853—fifteen months after this immense work was begun—Visconti died suddenly of apoplexy. And his superb scheme had to be carried out by Lefuel.

LEFUEL, HECTOR MARTIN (b. Versailles, 1810 ; cl. Paris, 1880), entered the École des Beaux Arts in 1829. He gained the grand Prix de Rome in 1839. Became architect of the Palace of Meudon ; then of that of Fontainebleau ; and in. 1854 succeeded Visconti on the works of the Louvre and Tuileries.

On succeeding Visconti, Lefuel made various alterations and additions with regard to the decorations : but he adhered to the general plan of his predecessor. He arranged the interiors, designed the rich ornamentation on the rue de Rivoli, and decorated the façades, directing the work of 154 sculptors and an army of decorators. And on 14th August, 1857, the ” New Louvre ” which we all know, was solemnly inaugurated by the Emperor.

BLOUET, GUILLAUME ABEL (b. Paris, 1795 ; cl. 1853), ” un véritable artiste, une intelligence d’élite, un homme ” plein de décision et de jugement,” gained the prix de Rome in 1821. Ten years later we find him chief of the French scientific expedition to the Morea. And in 1832 he replaced Huyot as the architect chosen to complete the Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile. This magnificent monument was begun in 1806 by Chalgrin. But the work had progressed slowly ; architects and plans alike had been frequently changed ; and it was not until Blouet succeeded Huyot, that the work was vigorously pushed on to its completion. Thoroughly convinced of the high merit of Chalgrin’s original conception, Blouet’s only endeavour was to carry this to its logical conclusion. He returned to Chalgrin’s plan of monumental trophies on the four piles of the Arch. And M. Thiers suggested that Rude should furnish the scheme of decoration.’ To Blouet therefore France owes the ” definite ” realization of the finest architectural idea of the century” .2

Besides this great work, Blouet was one of the chief authorities on penitentiaries upon the cellular system. He constructed the buildings for the well-known Agricultural Colony of Mettray ; and wrote many valuable reports and suggestions on prisons. He also restored and embellished the gardens and palace of Fontainebleau ; and erected the tombs of Bellini and Casimir Delavigne.

DUBAN, FÉLIX (b. Paris, 1797 ; (d. 1870), was for the last twenty years of his life one of the best known personalities in Paris. ” As he walked along the Quai Voltaire, on his “way to the École des Beaux Arts or the Institute, even ” those who were not personally acquainted with him ” were tempted to bow to him, because they felt themselves “in the presence of a man of note.”‘ Dignified and imposing, yet with the eye of the dreamer, Félix Duban might have been mistaken for a speculative philosopher—a retired Minister of State—a subtle writer—for anything rather than the professor of such a positive science as Architecture. Indeed—as his friend M. Charles Blanc has pointed out—the strong dose of poetry which he brought to bear on architecture might have upset the absolutely essential balance between sentiment and reason, without that first quality of a builder — the firm, steady good sense which Duban possessed in so high a degree.

It was this poetic and imaginative faculty which not only enabled Duban in his admirable drawings and plans to reconstitute the buildings of ancient Rome and Pompeï—the spot where first he experienced the enchantment of the Greco-Roman genius—but later on helped him to complete the Galerie d’Apollon, and to build the École des Beaux Arts. This last was a most complicated work. Its requirements were many and varied, with its studios for work from the model, for the teaching of all the arts ; assembly rooms for the professors ; cells for the competitors for the Prix de Rome ; a Library ; a Museum for the diploma works ; vast spaces for casts from the antique ; one hall for competitions, another for prize works ; a great gallery for the Envois de Rome ; and a theatre for the distribution of prizes. Added to this, the remains of the ancient Convent of the Petits Augustins, their cloister, their garden, their church, had all to be turned to some use. And it was necessary also to incorporate those exquisite specimens of French Architecture already on the spot, which Lenoir had collected during the revolution—the gateway of Anet, the fragments of Gaillon, etc. Duban’s perfect taste enabled him to succeed in this most difficult task ; evolving a building which was mainly in the style of the Italian renaissance, ” but with a ” more lively sentiment of the spirit of antiquity “. And to those who much frequent the École des Beaux Arts, the whole building is invested with the charm of unity and repose.

But Duban’s success did not stop with the Beaux Arts. To him we owe the restorations of the Sainte-Chapelle ; the façade of the Old Louvre facing the river ; the Galerie d’Apollon which had remained untouched since the great fire of 1661 ; and the Chateau de Blois, that most marvellous of Renaissance buildings. In all these, Duban’s extraordinary intuition as well as his profound archaeologic knowledge„ enabled him to reconstitute each building by an effort of imagination ; and to work from the vision which his intelligence and his poetic instinct had conjured up.

Needless to add he was a most active member of the Commission des Monuments historiques.

LABROUSTE, HENRI (b. Paris, 1801; d. 1875),-pupil of Vaudoyer and Lebas, won the grand prix de Rome in 1824 with a Cour de Cassation. His fine drawings of the Temple of Neptune at Paestum are preserved in the Archives of the Institute. They were a revelation of the true import of Doric architecture in all its magnificence ; and Labrouste was the first to discover traces of the use on the exterior of polychromatic work, which made a considerable stir at the Institute.

His great work was the Bibliothèque Ste. Geneviève (1843-49).. And he succeeded Visconti as director of the works of the Bibliothèque Nationale. Besides this M. Labrouste built the Hospice at Lausanne. La Prison cellulaire d’Alexandrie. Le petit collège de Sainte-Barbe at Fontenay-aux-Roses. And with M. Duc, his fellow-worker at Paestum, he organized the cérémonie des funérailles des victimes de Juin, 1848.

Diocesan Architect of Ile-et-Vilaine ; Vice-president of the Société Centrale des Architectes ; Member of the Commission des Monuments historiques, of the Conseil des batiments civils, and of the Jury des beaux-arts, M. Labrouste was one of the most influential architects of the century.

VAUDOYER, LÉON (b. Paris, 1803 ; d. 1872), gained the premier prix de Rome in 1826 with a projet de Palais pour l’Académie de France a Rome. In 1845 he was appointed architect to the Abbaye Saint-Martin des Champs, whose buildings were appropriated to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers. Vaudoyer restored the church and refectory of the famous monastery ; and added the new portions of the building, which harmonize admirably with the fine remains of the original edifice. To Vaudoyer also, is due the monument to General Foy in Père Lachaise, of which David d’Angers executed the sculpture. But his greatest work is the new Cathedral of Marseilles. He laid the foundations in 1855, and devoted the whole of the remaining years of his life to this magnificent work, though he was not destined to see its completion.

His son, M. Alfred Vaudoyer, is also a distinguished architect.

QUESTEL, CHARLES AUGUSTE (b. Paris, 1807 ; cl. 1888), a pupil of Vincent, Blouet, and Duban, was one of the most active of the architects of the third Empire.

The Amphitheatre of Arles, and the Pont du Gard were re-stored by him. While among his original buildings are the Church of Saint-Paul, Nîmes, 1838 ; Fountain of Nîmes 1846 ; Prefecture, 1862, and Musée, 1864, Grenoble ; Hospice de Gisors, 1862 ; Asile des Aliénés, Paris, 1863 ; etc., etc.

LASSUS, J. B. ANTOINE (b. Paris, 1807 ; cl. 1857), one of the greatest Gothic architects of the century, was charged with the restoration of the Palais de Justice, and the Sainte Chapelle—that gem of early pointed architecture. He also began the restorations of Notre Dame, and of Saint Denis, in conjunction with Viollet-Le-Duc. He built the Église Saint Nicholas, Moulins ; the Eglise Saint Nicholas, Nantes. And was the author of many and learned works upon the history of Gothic Architecture—among others the valuable monograph on the Cathedral of Chartres, written in collaboration with M. Amaury-Duval.

VIOLLET-LE-DUC, EUGÈNE, C. (b. Paris, 1814; d. Lausanne, 1879).—Few men have had so great an influence on the Art of their own time, few have made so valuable a contribution to the history and science of architecture as Viollet-Le-Duc. His writings alone would have formed a life’s work for most men. The famous Dictionnaire raisonné de l’Architecture Française, in ten volumes, is the standard work on its subject. So is the Dictionnaire du Mobilier français.

Not to mention essays and books innumerable on kindred subjects. But it is as a restorer of some of the most precious buildings of France that we must study Viollet-Le-Duc’s career. For from 1840 he worked continually for and with the Commission des Monuments historiques, and helped to found that most valuable institution the Museum of Comparative Architecture of the Trocadero. It is indeed impossible to over-estimate the debt which France and the world at large owes to this distinguished and learned man.

A pupil of Leclère, young Viollet-Le-Duc on leaving his studio in 1831, travelled for eight years in France, Italy, and Sicily, closely studying the buildings of these countries. On his return in 1839 he was appointed auditor to the Conseil des batiments civils and inspector of works at the Sainte-Chapelle with Lassus. ‘

In 1840 the Commission des Monuments historiques entrusted him with the restoration of the Abbey Church of Vézelay ;1 and of the churches of Montréal ; Saint Pierresous-Vézelay ; Sémur ; Saint-Nazaire ; Carcassonne ; and the Hotels de Ville of Saint-Antonin and Narbonne. A competition for the restoration of Notre Dame de Paris was opened in 1843. The plans of Viollet-Le-Duc and Lassus were chosen : but it was several years before the works began. Meanwhile in 1846 he was appointed Architect to the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis, and Inspector-general of diocesan edifices in 1853. Besides these important functions he carried on the restorations of Amiens and Reims. And his colossal Dictionaries were published between 1853 and 1858. After the death of Lassus in 1857, Viollet-Le-Duc remained sole architect of Notre Dame. The beauty of his restoration of that incomparable cathedral is known to every one who has visited Paris. He built the flèche which crowns the transept, and completed the work as we see it to-day.

But in spite of these prodigious tasks, Viollet-Le-Duc found time from 1851 to 1854 to travel in Germany, England, Spain, and Algeria, for the purpose of study. And in 1858 he undertook the rebuilding of the Chateau de Pierrefonds—a work of extreme interest and magnificence, which was not completed till 1875.

Among his other restorations and constructions are the Churches of Saint-André, Autun ; Notre Dame à Beaune; Notre Dame at Sémur-en-Auxois ; Neuvy-Saint-Sépulcre (Indre) ; Saint Sernin, and Le Couvent des Jacobins, Toulouse ; Le Chateau de Montbard (Côte d’Or) ; Salle Syndicale, Sens ; Church and Cloister of Moissac ; Ramparts of Carcassonne; Palais des Papes and ramparts, Avignon ; Church of Eu.

BAILLY, ANTOINE-NICHOLAS, M. DE L’INST. (b. Paris, 1810), a pupil of Debret, was chief divisional architect to the City of Paris, and diocesan architect to the departments of le Cher, l’Indre, les Basses-Alpes, and la Drome. He built the Tribunal de Commerce, a fine work in the Renaissance style, in Paris, 1860-65 ; the façade of the Lycée St. Louis, 1861-65 ; and the Mairie of the fourth Arrondissement, 1866.

As Diocesan architect at Bourges his work was of great importance ; as to him is due the restoration of parts of the Cathedral, and of the justly celebrated Hotel Jacques Coeur—one of the most delightful of mediaeval buildings. Bailly also rebuilt the Cathedral of Digne ; and the tower of that of Valence ; besides many private hotels and chateaux.

MAGNE, AUGUSTE (b. Etampes, 1816 ; d. 1885), pupil of Debret and Guénepin, is the author of the restorations of the Palais de l’Institut, and the Mont Saint-Michel. While in Paris he built the Eglise Saint Bernard, 1862 ; the Théatre du Vaudeville, 1872 ; the Marché des Martyrs ; and the Marché de l’Ave-Maria.

BOESWILLWALD, EXILE, C.* (b. Strasbourg, 1815), a pupil of Labrouste, entered the École des Beaux Arts in 1837. An architect of much distinction and learning, he has been one of the most active members of the Commission des Monuments historiques. The Commission appointed him their Inspector-General ; besides which important office he has been architect to the Sainte-Chapelle, and diocesan inspector of the Basses-Pyrénées, Eure-et-Loir, and la Sarthe. To M. Boeswillwald are due the plans for the restoration of the Cathedral of Laon, which were exhibited in 1844, and again in 1855. He also built the churches of Niederhaslach, Neuwiller, and Guebwiller, in Alsace-Lorraine, etc., etc.

DENUELLE, ALEXANDRE (b. Paris, 1818 ; d. 1879), though not strictly speaking an architect, was an architectural painter, whose work as painter to the Commission des Monuments historiques was of great value. To M. Denuelle is due the decoration of Saint-Germain-des-Près, Paris ; of the Grande Galerie of the Louvre ; of the Cathedrals of Limoges, Bayonne, Toulouse, Carcassone, Grenoble, Orléans, Beauvais, Amiens, Séez, Fréjus ; the Abbey of St. Denis ; the Oratory at Birmingham ; and numberless other buildings in France.

BALLU, THÉODORE (b. Paris, 1817 ; d. 1885), who completed the modern Gothic Church of Ste. Clotilde, begun by Gau, rebuilt the Hotel de Ville, after its destruction during the Commune of 1871.

MILLET, EUGENE (b. Paris, 1819 ; d. 1879), a pupil of Labrouste and Viollet-Le-Duc, was in turn the master of many of the most distinguished architects of to-day. He designed the well-known Church of Paray-le-Monial ; the Chapelle Saint-Gilles at Troyes ; the Churches of Château-neuf ; Chatel-Montagne, etc. But his greatest work was the restoration of Saint-Germain-en-L aye—a gigantic under-taking which he did not live to carry out. It has been in hand for twenty-five years, and it is not yet finished : but the old palace, which has undergone so many changes and such cruel usage, has been admirably reconstituted.

RUPRICH-ROBERT, VICTOR-MARIE-CHARLES (b. Paris, 1820; cl. 1887), was one of the most active and valuable members of the Commission des Monuments Historiques, which, as I have said, has conferred such inestimable benefits not only on France but on all who are interested in the architecture of the past. To his learning and care we owe the restoration of some of the most magnificent monuments of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.—The Abbaye-aux-Dames, Caen; the Chateau d’Amboise, which is still going on; Saint-Sauveur, Dinan ; Saint-Luc, Calvados ; The Cathedral of Séez, Orne ; and many others.

From 1851 M. Ruprich-Robert lectured on the history and composition of ornament at the Imperial school of design and mathematics. And besides his innumerable drawings and plans which appeared every year in the salons, and most of which are now in the Archives of the Monuments Historiques, he wrote many valuable pamphlets on architectural subjects.

GARNIER, CHARLES, G. 0.u, M. DE L’INST. (b. Paris, 1825 ; d. Paris, 1898).—The death of M. Charles Garnier, in August, 1898, removes a distinguished and well-known personality from French Art. A pupil of Leveil and Lebas, Charles Garnier entered the Ecole des Beaux Arts at the age of seventeen. In 1848 he carried off the grand prix d’architecture. And his friendship with Baudry, which had begun at the École, was strengthened when the painter arrived at the Villa Medicis, two years later.

After Charles Garnier’s course of study in Rome was over, he travelled with Théophile Gautier and Edmond About in Italy, Greece, and Turkey ; returning to Paris in 1854. Eight drawings of the actual condition and a restoration of the ” Temple de Jupiter-Pan-hellénien,” at Egina—made in 1852—were exhibited in the Salon of 1855. Meanwhile, Garnier was appointed sub-inspector of works for the restoration of the Tour-St.-Jacques, a small and ill-paid post ; and in 1860 he became architect to the city of Paris.

But his great talent was not recognized until M. Walewski, Minister of State, opened a competition for the construction of the New Opera House. His project was one of 170 which were sent in by all the best architects in France. It was unanimously chosen. A plaster plan, executed at the artist’s expense, was exhibited by a special decree without appearing in the catalogue, at the Salon of 1863, and the works of the New Opera House were begun at once. With unlimited money at his disposal, M. Garnier was able to give full scope to his vivid imaginative faculty. The magnificent building was not finished until 1875—during the War of 1870-71 it was used as a granary. The architect called to his aid the talent of all the best sculptors and painters of the day. Carpeaux’s “Danse” on the exterior, and Paul Baudry’s decoration of the Foyer, give some idea of the superb scale on which M. Garnier carried on his life’s-work—for such in fact it was. With a few exceptions since 1875, he has been almost exclusively occupied with his duties as permanent architect to the Opera. Among the exceptions are : The Casino of Monte Carlo, 1879. The House, No. 195 Boulevard Saint-Germain, Paris, 1880. The Observatory, Nice. Panorama Marigny, Champs Elysées, Paris, 1883. And the extremely interesting historic series of dwellings, L’histoire de l’habitation, at the Universal Exposition of 1889.

Paul Baudry’s portrait and Chaplain’s medal have made us familiar with the personal appearance of this great artist, who was also a distinguished writer upon his profession.

VAUDREMER, ÉMILE-JOSEPH-AUGUSTE, O., M. DE L’INST. (b. Paris, 1829).—A pupil of Blouet, M. Vaudremer gained the grand prix de Rome in 1854. His most important works are the Prison de la Santé. The restoration of the lateral façade of the church of Saint Germain l’Auxerrois. And the Bishop’s Palace, Beauvais.

The most important works of M. SAUVAGEOT, LOUIS-CHARLES, * (b. Santenay, Côte d’Or, 1842), a pupil of M. Emile Millet and Viollet-Le-Duc, are to be found at Rouen, where he is Government and City Architect. Among these are the Théatre des Arts, the Musée-Bibliothèque, the Church of St. Hilaire, and many other buildings and monuments.

NENOT PAUL,, M. DE L’INST. (b. Paris), who gained the Prix de Rome in 1877, has had a rapid success in life ; for eighteen years later he was elected a membre de l’Institut, in recognition of his great work, the building of the New Sorbonne.

FORMIGÉ, J. CAMILLE, . (b. au Bouscat, Gironde, 1845), a pupil of Laisne, was the architect of what were familiarly known as the two ” Blue Palaces ” at the Universal Exposition of 1889, or to give them their official names, the Palais des Arts-Libéraux, and the Palais des Beaux-Arts. To M. Formigé was also due the plan of the great central fountain in the gardens, of which M. Coutan was the sculptor.

M. Formigé has for many years been employed by the Commission des Monuments historiques.

BOUVARD, JOSEPH-ANTOINE, O. (b. St. Jean de Bournay, Isère),—a pupil of Dufeux, is closely connected with the Exhibitions of 1889 and 1900. For he was the author of the Palais des Expositions Diverses at the first—that charming central dome, which we cannot but regret, now that it has been demolished to make way for the gigantic Exhibition of 1900, to which M. Bouvard is the Director of Works.

Among his other works are the building for the Archives de la Seine, and the completion of the Hotel Carnavalet.

DUTERT, CH. L. F., . (b. Douai, 1845).—M. Dutert who carried off the Prix de Rome in 1869, was a pupil of Lebas and Ginain. An artist of bold and original genius, he constructed the Galerie des Machines of the Exhibition of 1889, showing therein what admirable use modern architecture might make of novel materials, ” and how utilitarian iron ” work, honestly confessed without deception or falsehood, ” might possess its role and its own beauty in decoration “. For the whole effect of those great arches was grandiose in the extreme. And M. Dutert’s last work—the New Museum of Natural History, adjoining the Jardin des Plantes, has more than confirmed the reputation he gained in 1889.

In this great red brick and white stone building, M. Dutert has given proof once more and in an even more impressive manner, of his originality, while preserving a proper architectural dignity in the whole conception. It is in the decoration of this great building that M. Dutert has shown his power of dealing with novel elements. ” His ” primordial, essential idea is this ; to give up at all hazards ” those banal, classic, worn-out elements, that arsenal of ” mouldings, profiles, capitals, consoles, and cornices, with ” which our architects’ brains have been so stuffed that they ” come into being beneath their pencil of themselves, so to ” speak, naturally—as the commonplace epithets from the pen ” of a society chronicler, or the ` flowers of rhetoric ‘ from ” that of a bygone latinist.”

M. Dutert has had the courage to return to the methods of the Gothic architects ; and to seek his suggestions for decoration in the natural world. Therefore, as he has built a Museum of Natural History, his capitals are no longer Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian, but formed of gigantic lions and lionesses. The round-headed arcade of the principal door is composed of great palin leaves ; the band above of cockle shells. Along the band of shells in very faint relief which separates the two storeys, huge birds of prey spread their wings at intervals, each the work of sculptors such as M.M. Gardet, Valton, Boutry, Louis Noël, etc. ; and each forms a crown of the arcade of the ground floor. It is one of the best and most striking portions of the building. Saurians and crustaceans are used as consoles to some of the upper windows ; and while they represent rare or extinct species, they are always so interpreted as to lend themselves to the strict architectural necessity of their position. Lines of shells replace the usual dentils beneath the windows. And insects decorate the gutter below the roof. While in the interior the beautiful balusters and balconies of stairs and galleries are composed of iris, ferns, chrysanthemums, and laurels, absolutely true to the nature of each plant, and yet subordinated to the exigencies of architectural harmony.