POST-RENASCENCE ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE.* OBITUARY notices of the fine arts
are becoming rather a nuisance. For one thing it is not certain that the Fine Arts are all dead; and supposing that they are, surely the less said about it the better. Supposing for a moment that they are not, the question arises whether their present is not as in- teresting as their past ; whether what has already happened cannot best be studied in the light of what is happening now. Such a method is certainly.more difficult than that .generally adopted, its results less convincing, its deductions more assailable. There is but one argument in its favour, and that is the proved worthlessness of the older plan, the plan of breaking down the bridge from the past to the present and gazing through a telescope across the chasm. The means annihilates the end; if the
bridge be broken down it does not much matter what is on the other side. Perhaps, too, the bridge is not the finite thing it appears ; perhaps it is the continuation of a viaduct that stretches back to the beginnings of civilisation regardless of the frontiers of ages and of races. If that be so we shall not see much through our telescopes, but there is work for us in adding more arches to the endless way.
This doctrine may appear to prescribe a total neglect of art- history on the part of students, a ruthless disregard of arclueological research, a strict limitation of energy to the activities of to-day, and an unquestioning acquiescence in authoritative tradition; and this is precisely what it is intended to do. To students it may be said, "Study master- pieces and never mind how they came about; the laws that produced them are within them and are as active now as ever ; seek the essenKal and reject the accident, the nature of
Art cannot change." The evolution of the Drama, the genesis of the Sonata-form, the dawn of realism in Painting, the origin.
of the Pointed Arch, the points of similarity between the styles of Miss Marie Corelli and the late Mrs. Henry Wood- all these delightful topics are absolutely barren in artistic suggestion. In their place the student needs fine plays, fine symphonies, fine pictures, fine cathedrals, and a fine bonfire.
In no art is the knowledge of history of less practicalvalue, or the study of masterpieces of more sovereign importance, than in architecture. The retrospective method of instruc- tion commonly pursued in England can make of students nothing but pillars of salt. The politician has to make history; let him study history. The architect has to make architecture ; let him study architecture. There is, in the opinion of many, no good architectural teaching in England except at Liverpool, where a praiseworthy attempt is being made to imitate the methods of the gaols) des Beaux-Arts. The rest of our schools are given over to the cultivation of taste without thought, reproduction without assimilation, classical architecture without tears.
But though one who holds the views just set forth cannot recommend such books as Mr. Ward's or Mr. Blomfield's Histories of French Architecture to the practising architect, or to the student who aspires to build, to amateurs and art lovers generally both volumes will give a great deal of pleasure. Of these rival historians it may be said that Mr. Ward is on the whole the more successful. Comparison is difficult, how- ever, since Mr. Blomfield's narrative closes with the death of Francois Mansart, leaving the succeeding century and a half to be treated by Mr. Ward alone. Both books are accurate as to facts and very well illustrated. If Mr. Ward's book
• (1) The Architecture of the Bonatessoce in'IPranco. By W. H. Ward, M.A. 2 vole. London : B. T. Botsford. [LI 10s. net.)—(2) 4 History of French Archi- tecture, 1404.1601. By Reginald Blom:Bold, ALA,, F.S.A. 2 vols. London : G. Bell and tone. ca mi. not.] is the more solid, Mr. Blomfield's book is the better written. The superficial character of most English art criticism places it at the mercy of every fashion, and these fashions fade away with a suddenness almost as disconcerting to their opponents as to their adherents. When Mr. Blomfield, writing of the early Renaissance, attacks an imaginary belief that ornament makes architecture, he is thrusting his sword into thin air. The last apologists for the design of Chambord or of St. Germain have been gone a twelvemonth at least, and the modes for 1912 appear to lean towards the style of Louis XVI. It is uncertain, too, whether Mr. Blomfield does not choose for reprobation the one particular in which Francois Ier ornament is justifiable—its all-pervasiveness. If architectural carving be even enough in character and distribution it may entirely cover a building without causing any loss of sim-
plicity in the total effect ; it becomes no more than an elaborate texture analogous to the tool marks of masonry or the pattern of a brocade hanging. To say that the designers of this early date did not understand the architectural function of sculpture is to imply that that function is to conceal the defects of architecture ; for this is the only respect in which their employment of ornament is inferior to the more recent method of concentration and restraint. Gorgeous attire may accentuate physical deformity ; a beautiful body it will enhance. No building could be simpler in massing and effect than our own Houses of Parliament, and none could be more richly decorated; the misfortune of the Francois Is' style lay, not in superabundance of ornament, but in the inability to grapple with larger problems.
As has been hinted above, Mr. Blomfield does not shrink from dealing with matters in the highest degree con- troversial. It is therefore not surprising to find a chapter devoted to his well-known theory as to the actual author- ship of the Henri IL buildings at the Louvre. On this
theory the credit of the design is transferred to a great extent from Jean Lescot, the reputed architect, to Jean Goujon, the great sculptor, who was employed to collaborate
with him. Mr. Blomfield's reasoning is not, in our opinion, very convincing, but his conclusions have some inherent probability. Mr. Ward does not agree with him at all, how- ever, and expresses the generally accepted view in a clear and logical manner. The intolerant scorn with which Mr. Blomfield's propositions have hitherto been received is greatly to be regretted ; few people can pretend to the special know- ledge that shall entitle them to an opinion on the matter. On the whole it is probable that Mr. Ward will have the larger number of followers.
To the works of Francois Mansart it is natural that both Mr. Blomfield and Mr. Ward should devote a great deal of attention. This fine architect occupies a position in French history akin to that of Sir Christopher Wren in our own. Mr. Blomfield, who is always on the side of picturesqueness rather than that of classical purity, inclines to award to Mansart the premier position among French architects of all periods. Rival claims might be made for Jacques Ange Gabriel, for Souffiot, or for Charles Gamier;
but Mr. Blomfield's preference is quite intelligible. Not at all intelligible, however, to the present writer is his exaltation of Pierre Le Muet, to whose work he devotes an entire chapter. Le Muet has always been considered a thoroughly
second-rate architect, and Mr. Ward's low estimate of his importance appeals both just and adequate. Justness and adequacy are, in fact, the distinguishing qualities of Mr. Ward's judgments generally, and his second volume gives great opportunities for their display. Mr. Blom- field promises to continue his history until the close of the 'eighteenth century. His manner of writing could hardly be improved, and it is certain that all those who read this his latest book will look forward with pleasure to the publication of his next.
Previous page
