FRENCH ART IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.* " Las productions de

l'esprit humain, comme celles de la nature vivante, ne s'expliquent que par leer milieu." So writes one of the most thoughtful and philosophical of French critics. At the first glance, Art seems of all things to be that which is the least subject to rules, for an artist creates after his own phantasy, and a work of art seems of all human products the most spontaneous ; but neither the artist nor his work can be separated from their milieu. The artists of any given period do not stand out separate from it, but are influenced by its taste and its ideas ; they and the public around them are one. What makes a great artist is that he possesses in the highest degree the faculties, the sentiments of the world and period in which he lives, though he may be still greater if he supple- ments them by possessing gifts and having insight into feelings which are not those predominant in the period in which he lives. "Nous arrivons done a cette regle, que pour

* Art in the Modern State. By Lady Dilke. London: Chapman and Hall. 1888. comprendre une ceuvre d'art, un artiste, un groupe d'artistes, it faut se represen.ter avec exactitude l'etat general de l'esprit

et des rust= du temps anquel ils appartenaient."

Duly aware of this importance of seeking the history of any

given period of Art in the general condition of life and civilisation prevailing at the time, Lady Dilke seeks to show us in the present book that the origin of what she calls " Art in the modern State" must be traced to the changes in the social and political system of the seventeenth century in

France. For not only are administrative problems, social difficulties, industrial needs, all the disturbing complexities of our present economical situation, formulated and constructively dealt with by the rulers of France in the grand siecle, but she considers that we must attribute also the changes in letters and in the arta to the action of these same rulers.

The book is very unequal : parts of it are excellent, clearly reasoned, with meaning and intention well worked out ; the chapter on Richelieu is especially good, where Lady Dilke describes the change that came over the minds of men "weary of combat and ready to barter liberty for order ;" how the love

of order became the passion of the day, and in its name all tyranny was justified, and how the work of establishing this tyranny and of destroying the liberty of France fell to the lot of Richelieu. For Richelieu, all that the Renaissance prized most highly had no value ; but he did not act on mere personal or arbitrary caprice:— "Richelieu was deeply imbued with the importance of truths diametrically opposite to those which were embodied in the move- ment of the Renaissance. For the Renaissance had proclaimed that the most noble fruits of life are produced only when complete scope is allowed to the development of the indi- vidual ; but Richelieu remembered that the individual counts for very little in the development of a people. The affirmation of the supreme rights of the individual having been carried to its extreme, had ended in reaction, and the whole tendency of Richelieu's policy was necessarily governed by the consequences which this reaction had imposed. The day had not yet come for the asking in what way individual liberty might be secured, whilst at the same time there should be created in the mass that unity of purpose which alone ensures collective action and leads to national greatness The welfare of the people, the glory of letters and the arts, the development of trade and industrial resources, are matters for consideration, not in and for them- selves, but only inasmuch as they contributed to the building-up of that fabric of national grandeur which was the supreme object of Richelieu's policy. It was not a selfish policy ; his ambition was not for himself, but for the nation to which he belonged ; it was not a servile policy, he cared naught for Louis and much for France ; but he was utterly indifferent as to whether the people he was called to govern were happy, or enlightened, or prosperous, so long as by their united force the State grew strong. To bring about this result, Richelieu laboured, takinc, no rest, and as he worked, he ruthlessly destroyed all life and liberty the existence of which was incompatible with regular growth. No cruelty was too pitiless, no treachery too base, if required to maintain the pressure necessary to force into even channels all the springs of national energy. The pride of the great nobles was brought to the scaffold ; the pride of the magistracy broken to the task of registering decrees to order; stiff-necked members of Huguenot consistories stooped to accept civilities accorded to them solely as men of learning ; while learning and letters themselves were forced to put on a Royal livery as the price of bare existence."

This part of the subject is treated by Lady Dilke in much detail, for, as she rightly judged, it would not be possible to comprehend the relations between the State and the Arts which were created by Colbert without a thorough knowledge of the previous circumstances. When Richelieu constituted

the Academie Frangaise, his object was to bring even thought under the direction and control of the central authority, and the whole brilliant future of French literature was the flower and outcome of this policy of the Cardinal. It was at his express approval, if not instigation, that the great work of the Dictionnaire de l'Acadgmie was undertaken; the two Academi- cians who undertook it were both in his service. The effect it had on French literature was immeasurable. The greatest importance came to be attached to the use of such words only as had been approved by the official judges of taste, and all those which led to any obscureness of style were forbidden. Though the limit of the French tongue was thus greatly reduced, it became an instrument of remarkable perfection, of which the subsequent literature bore the mark. It was characterised by high intelligence, taste, brilliancy of style, and exquisite finish ; but it lacked the enthusiasm of passion, for the very determination to produce that which was pro- nounced admirable precluded spontaneity of purpose.

Colbert called into existence the Academy of Painting and

Sculpture, and the School of Architecture. He was as deficient in the pure pleasures of Art as Richelieu himself ; yet not only did he see the value of Art as a means of enhancing the national glory, but he was the first to appreciate the immense services it might be brought to render to national industry ; and no detail of any branch of those industries which contributed to art and decoration was neglected. After Lady Dilke's very excellent study of Richelieu and his times, it is disappointing to find the study of Colbert sometimes wanting in clearness and often careless in style. What can be said to the style of the following drawn-out passage P-

" But Colbert could not shut his eyes to the teaching of experi- ence, and just as at a later date he found himself unable to ignore the facts which made against the wisdom of his own commercial policy, in spite of his profound conviction that national prosperity must necessarily result from prohibitive tariffs, even so at the close of his career, when the treasury of France was exhausted, and her future revenues burdened by wars which he had vainly opposed, Colbert, taught by the strong representations which had been made by Lamoignon and others against the illegal courses of 1660-64, made choice of different methods, and the measures by which he succeeded for the second time in plachig the national finances on a sound footing, would be recognised to-day as just and regular."

It is curious to see such inequality, so much that is good with so much that is indifferent. When Lady Dilke generalises, what she says is mostly clear and to the point, indeed, some- times masterly; but in the parts compiled from documents the result of much apparent research, the matter is often negligently put together, wanting in clearness, and ill-digested. It is wearisome to follow the lists and accounts of the workers, —how the ceiling of the throne-room was entrusted to De la Fosse, who had as a fellow-worker Blanchard, reputed for being a fine colourist ; how Audran joined Jouvenet and

Houasse in the decoration of the Halls of Peace and War; Tuby, aided by Legros, Masson, Mazeline, and Hutinot, de- \ signed the stucco work of the Queen's apartments ; while Hutinot was also employed in a like manner with Regnauldin and Raon in the King's, and so on. Though there is much here that may be of interest to the student who can study and compare on the spot, it would require more than the patience of an ordinary reader to follow Lady Dilke through her minute researches. These details weary and interfere with the general meaning of the book, which was to work out and show what

were the results of the continued action of the State on Art in the grand siecle. It is immaterial in a history of this kind,

which individual artist produced which ceiling or what carving ; but it is of value to point out the harmony, not to say submission, of the artists' minds to that of the Director of the Academy of Painting, Lebrun. In wading through the mass of details, one is apt from weariness to overlook the points of interest. Lady Dilke brings out Lebrun's character with skill, with a just estimate of his wonderful capa- bilities for the task he had undertaken, which began with war to the death between him and the new Academy of Painting on the one hand, and the Guild of Painters on the other. Lebrun from his earliest days had given proof of adroitness and worldly tact, to which he owed his position as much as to his professional talent. As an artist, he knew more than the others, and knew how to turn his knowledge to account; but he was not only an artist, but an administrator, and his natural force of character gave him a firm hold over other men. He had in a large measure what may be called the faculty of success ; he swam with the tide, and he always happened to draw what people wanted just when they wanted it. He was pushed on by Colbert, and the subservient Academy elected him Chancellor for life ; for it was well understood when it was announced that there would be work for all in the Royal palaces, that it meant under his guidance. He took the command of all the works of decoration, whether sculpture or painting, over the whole palace; his rule was supreme, and the other artists had to accept the position of his assistants. For most of the works, he gave even the sketches and indica- tions. Notwithstanding a certain theatrical grandeur which characterised the whole period of Louis XIV., Lebrun's own work was always dignified, and distinguished by largeness of

conception and composition ; whereas that of Migniard, his successor in the favour of the King, degenerated into all the

mincing graces which are the feature of the eighteenth cen- tury. The sculptors of France were likewise under the dominant rule of Lebrun, or they had no hope of advancement ; they had to do their part in the work of decoration, but they remained true artists. "It cannot be denied that they did all they had to do with unrivalled intelligence and skill." And what is the upshot of all this P Lady Dilke acknowledges that nothing

Can be more joyless than the grand siecle, but contends that it was the inevitable reaction, that after the full heat of the creative energy of the Renaissance, riot and ruin had been the

heritage of France, and out of this and the crumbling ruins of feudalism, the modern State had to be created, with its ad- ministration organised, its commerce developed, and its institutions established. Richelieu and his followers had to rebuild a State; they succeeded, though often by an abuse of power; they created in the nation a spirit of zeal for the grandeur of the State and for the national reputation, which, though not the very noblest spring of energy, is undoubtedly an element of national strength ; and Lady Dilke's conclusion is, that it is in this spirit that the French have found again and again the force necessary to repair the losses brought on them by the follies or crimes of their rulers, and that this spirit was created and called forth in the nation by the very measures which arbitrary rule employed in the seventeenth century to secare its own foundation :—

" Not to her fair skies alone, nor to the wealth of her happy soil, does France owe her rank in Europe, but chiefly to the devoted passion with which she is served by every Frenchman. That zeal for the national honour which enabled her on the morrow of Sedan to begin the work of reconstruction with dauntless ardour, to uphold her commercial credit and to stablish her future, that same zeal it is which sustains the artist in his poverty rather than set his hand to work unworthy one to whom his country has given the highest training which her school can bestow."

Whether erroneously or not, we had gathered from the beginning of the book that Lady Dilke had meant to show that the France of Richelieu and Colbert gave birth to the

modern State, not merely the modern State of France; and that, therefore it was, that a " minute knowledge of the various

conditions of life in France during the grand siècle was indispensable to the student of the modern social system." It seemed as if she meant somewhat more than the formation

of the French nation, with its artistic temperament and the love of France and glory. We expected that "Art in the modern State" had a wide general meaning. But Lady Dilke seems to have overlooked this general view, or to have fallen short of it ; and, in consequence, the book leaves, on the whole, on our mind an impression of incompleteness and failure, notwithstanding its many excellent parts.