This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http : //books . google . com/|
1
.El 14-
A HANDBOOK OF MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
A HANDBOOK OF MODERN FRENCH PAINTING
■» a •• • •
Fig. 1.— Portail de la Viergc. (Nfitre Dame de Paris)
:J
A HANDBOOK
OF
MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
BY
D.'tADY EATON, B.A., M.A.
NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD AND COMPANV
1918
CoPrBIORT, 1913, BY
AucE YouNo Eaton
Published, May, 1913
TBS UKIVEBSmr PBEB8, CAMBBIOOE, U.S. A.
NOTE
Thb greater number of the illustratioas used in this book are from photographs by Nennitaa Frires of Paris.
CONTENTS
Paok
Introduction 1
Chapteh
I HmoBtcAL 30
Part I French Medieval Sculpture . . 35
Part II French Renaissance Sculpture . . 41
II From Henry II to Louis XIV 74
III The SifecLE de Louis XIV 105
IV From the Revolution (1787) ro the Second
Empire (1852) 152
V Artists of the Late XIX and XX Cen- turies 196
VI Paris Monuuents and Memorial Statues . 277
Appendix 296
Alphabetical List of ScoLFroRs 345
Additional List of Modern Sculptors .... 348
ILLUSTHATIONS
1 PorUul de la Vierge . immupuet) . 37
2 Head o( King S7
S The Original Virgin 98
i Crowning of the Vii^n 39
S Beau Diet! d'Amicna 40
8 Catlifdiale de Cliaitres 40
7 CatliMrale d'Amiena 40
S Cath^drale dc Rheims 40
9 Sluter Le Puita de Motse 51
10 " Le Puita de Motse 51
11 Sluter and Ckua de
Werve Tomb of Philippe le Hardi ... 54
18 Sluter and Claus de
Werve Tomb of Jean aana Peur .... 54
13 Sluter and Claua de
Werve Pleurants 54
14 Sluter and Claus de
Werve Pleurants 54
15 School of Sluter and
Werve Effigy of Philippe Pot * 55
10 PerrNJ and Colombe Francis II at Nsntca T 56
17 Cotombe EDtonihnient at Solesmes *. . . . 58
18 " Abbsye ot Solesmea 59
19 " Abbaye of Solesmea 59
90 " Scenes from Life uf Virgin ... 39
21 " Soldier in Italian Armor .... 50
22 " Mary Magdelene 60
23 " St. George and the Dragon .60
24 Chun^h of Brou 63
29 Tomh of Marguerite d'Autriche . 04
26 Colombe Madonna of Olivet 65
27 The Juslet Louis XII and Anne de Bretagnc 69
W Tomb of Georges d'Amboise . . 71
29 Bont«np« TJm holding Heart of Ftancia I . 75
ao Jean Goujon Tomb of Loui* de Btiti .... 77
X ILLUSTRATIONS
umnmKHcum
novum TBXT» paok paoi
31 Jean Goujon Fontaine des Innocents .... 81 79
32 " " Fontaine des Innocents .... 81 77 S3 " " Diana, Stag and Dogs .... 83 77
34 " " CaryaUdes 85 82
35 GennainPilon Henry II 87 82
36 " " Three Graces 89 83
37 " " Ren« de Biraguc 91 83
38 Richier Entombment 92 88
39 " Nicodemus 92 88
40 " Angel 92 89
41 Prieur Constable de Montmorency . . 94 89
42 Guillain LouU XIII 97 94
43 " Anne d'Autriche 97 94
44 " Louis XIV 97 95
45 F. Anguier Dukes of Longueville .... 100 95
46 " Dukes of Longueville .... 100 100
47 " Jacques Auguste de Thou ... 101 100
48 M. Anguier Porte Saint-Denis 103 101
49 Gu^rin Louis XIV adolescent terrassant
La Fronde 108 101
50 Girardon V^ Tomb of Richelieu 107 108
51 Robert le Lorain Steeds of Apollo 109 108
52 Coysevox Antoine Coysevox Ill 109
53 " Le Grand Cond6 /^ Ill 109
54 " Le Brun ... Ill 114
55 " Marie-Adelaide de Savofe ... 112 114
56 ** Monument to Mazarin .... 112 115
57 " Cardinal Mazarin v-.< ... 112 115
58 " Winged Horses 115 118
59 Puget Milon de Crotone 117 118
60 ** Pers^d^livrant Androm^e. . 117 119
61 '* Alexandre et Diog^ne .... 120 119
62 G. Coustou Marie Leczinska 124 124
63 " Chevaux de Marly 125 124
64 " Chevaux de Marly 125 125
65 *' Tomb of the Dauphin .... 126 125
66 Bouchardon Bas-reliefs of Seasons .... 120 130
67 " Bas-relief s of Seasons .... 129 130
68 " Bas-relief s of Seasons .... 129 131
69 ** Bas-reliefs of Seasons .... 129 131
70 Allegrain Baigneuse 182 136
71 Pigalle Mercure attachant ses talonni^res 133 136
72 " Maurice deSaxc 134 137
78 " Henri Claude Comte d'Harcourt 185 137
74 Falconet Nympbd deeoendant au bam . 187 142
ILLUSTRATIONS
75 Pajou ■•
76
77 Clodion •
Bl Cutdlier
66 Lemot
BS Chinsnl >
87 Ginud
88 Cortot- ji(9 Predier .
BO 91
103 Joufroy
104 Guillaume
105 Fr^iet-
Mme. du Bury 1
Marie Lecziiiaka 1
N Satyra 1
Rousseau 1
Washington .* 1
Vtdtaire.- 1
MinibeauT 1
Voltaire 1
Louis XVI 1
Arc du CaiTOUsel .... I5S, 1
Henry IV 1
Mme. Rtounier I
A Dog ..... , 1
Apotheosis of Napoleoo ... I
Fontaine Moliii^ Z I
• Strasbourg L
- Tomb of Napoleon 1
-Toilette d'Atalante I
' Neapolitan Finheh Boy .... 1
• U Depart 1
A Boy 1
Napoleon of Pixin 1
Jeanne d'Arc 1
Marshal Ney 1
Philopom^ne 1
Boaapart« 1
Tiger Devouring a Crocodile 1
Centaur and the Lapithie . . . 1
Young Girl and Venus .... I
The Gracchi 1
Faun and Bears %
Marine Hotses %
■ Louis d'Orl^ans t
' Jeanne d'Arc %
Jeanne d'Arc It
St. George transperfant le Dragon %
St. Michel »
Raffet a
Meissonier i>
Duguesclin ii
P«cheur ik U Coquille .... ei
Pavilion de Flore t
> Lb Danse t
' Fountain of the Observatory . 8
Spartacus S
xii ILLUSTRATIONS
|
nauBB |
|
|
120 |
Foyatier |
|
121 |
Cavelier |
|
122 |
Carrier-BeUeuae |
|
123 |
Dubois ^ |
|
124 |
«< |
|
125 |
«< |
|
126 |
(« |
|
127 |
«« |
|
128 |
•• |
|
129 |
«« |
|
ISO |
Falgui^re " |
|
131 |
« |
|
132 |
<( |
|
133 |
« |
|
134 |
Chapu % |
|
135 |
Dalou ^ |
|
136 |
« |
|
137 |
«( |
|
138 |
<( |
|
139 |
Barrias • |
|
140 |
« |
|
141 |
« |
|
142 |
« |
|
143 |
4( |
|
144 |
(1 |
|
145 |
« |
|
146 |
Cain |
|
147 |
« |
|
148 |
Moreau |
|
149 |
Crauk ^ |
|
150 |
(( |
|
151 |
Bartholdi |
|
152 |
Aub^ |
|
153 |
«( |
|
154 |
«« |
|
155 |
Delaplanche ^ |
|
156 |
Boisseau |
|
157 |
Merci6 "* |
|
158 |
•( |
|
159 |
(( |
|
160 |
« |
|
161 |
« |
|
162 1114 |
«« « |
|
164 |
« |
•
BCrOIKNCC IN
TEXT, PAOB PAQB
Jeanne d* Arc 214 211
La M^re des Gracques .... 217 211
H^b^ 218 214
Florentine Singer 218 214
Tomb of General Lamorici^re . 219 215
MiliUry Courage 219 215
Science 219 218
Charity 219 218
Faith 219 219
Jeanne d* Arc 220 219
The Victor of the Cock Fight . 222 222
Tarcissius, Christian Martyr . 222 222
Pierre Comeille 223 223
* ^int Vincent de Paul .... 224 223
Jeanne d* Arc 233 226
Triumph of the Republic ... 238 226
Triumph of the Republic .238 227
Monument to Delacroix . . . 240 227
SUtue of the Republic .... 240 230
Jeune fille de M^gar^ .... 241 230
First Funeral 242 231
Victor Hugo 242 231
Victor Hugo 242 234
Fame 242 234
Nature Disclosing Herself . . . 243 235
Mozart 243 235
Lion and Lioness 246 238
Lion and Rhinoceros 246 238
Pierre Joigneaux 247 239
Coligny 248 289
La Jeunesse et TAmour .... 249 242
Progress 249 242
Democracy 251 243
GambetU 251 243
Boucher 252 246
La Vierge au Lys 252 246
Fleurs du Printemps 253 247
* David 254 247
^ Gloria Victis 254 250
* Quand M6me 255 250
Meissonier 255 251
Louis Philippe and Queen . . . 255 251
Gounod 256 254
Alfred de Musset 256 254
Jeanne d' Arc 257 255
ILLUSTRATIONS
Sunt-Huccaoz *
18S J. L. GMkne.'
Gfoie giurdsnt le tecret de la
Dftudet
Death of Alcestii
Le MoQiuneiit aux MortB . . . MercuTc invente le Cailuc^ . . Au But
Mother and CWld ......
Cupidon
Victor Hii{^
LsPaii
Guy de Maupssaant
Coup de Vent
Watteau
La Siiiiie
Monument to Chariea Perrautt
George Sand .
IJoD Amoureiui
Loup et I'Agneau
Tigrraae et Crocodile
Baccjiante
Char de la Vidoire
Grand Palais
Petit Palais
TooagM
INDEX OF PLACES MENTIONED
Apart from Paris are places all over France worthy of in- spection, where study can be rewarded and taste gratified.
The names of these principal towns will be given in alpha- betical order. (See Handbook of Modem French Painting, by same author, pp. ixii-xxxii.)
Reference is made to the pagea in the body of the book where these places are mentioned.
|
Abbevuxe, 430. |
Cblteau de I'Ue Adam, ISS. |
|
Alentan, 272. |
|
|
Amkna. S6, 40. |
Chitaau de Serrant (near Angera) |
|
Anet,84. |
114. |
|
Angcra, 114, 160, 162, 281. |
Cb&teau de Vaux le Vicomte. 275. |
|
Aaeouleme. 267. |
Citeaui, 305-306. |
|
Avignon. SS. 70. 270. |
Cluny, 31, 305. |
|
Creiuot,237. |
|
|
BALE (Suisse). 250. |
|
|
Baltimore (U. S. A.), 915 (noU). |
Dampikrre. 24S. |
|
Bar-le-duc, 03. |
Dijon, 48-M (Puita de Mobe), 54 |
|
Beaune, 173, 247. |
168, 166, 174. 17a, 197, 233. |
|
Belfcirt.255. |
Dinan, 802. |
|
B«iiera,259. |
Dol, 68, 69. |
|
Bouiboa-LaiU7, 280. |
Domrtmy, 267. |
|
Bourg. SS. |
Dreui, 237, 243. 255. |
|
BoUTges. 45-48. |
|
|
Br«at,272. |
|
|
Brou, 62-65. |
Fdun, 171, 172. |
|
Brugo (Belgium), 45. |
Flavigny (CAte d'Or), 216. |
|
Bruaaela (Bdgiiun), 166. |
FoDtainebleau, 265. |
|
Caen, 73. |
Gahjan, 61. |
|
Calais. 276. |
Geneva (Suisse), 230, 249. |
|
Grenoble. 200. |
|
|
Chamb*ry, 357. |
|
|
ChantiUy, 80, 90, 103, 104, 801, 246, 275. Chartres, 40, 73. |
JnnxT, 100. |
|
Chitcau de la Binamiie (near Ram- |
La Bochelie, 246. |
|
boBfflet). ws-wrr. |
LauBiume (Suisse), 256. |
XVI
INDEX OF PLACES MENTIONED
Lnie, 179, 806, 800, 862, 864. London, 168.
London (Kensington Mtueum), 148. Lyons, 111, 160, 160, 816, 817, 864, 889.
MAcoN, 81, 148.
ManeiUes, 188, 101, 850.
Milan (Italy), 168.
Moisaac, 84.
Mont St. Michel, 801.
Montpellier, 860.
Moulds, 102.
Mount Vernon (U. S. A.), 147.
Mulhoiue, 878.
Nanct, 04, 151, 801, 876. Nantes, 56, 57, 78, 810, 887. Nevers, 102.
New York Haiix>r (U. S. A.), 240. New York Herald Office (U. S. A.),
266. New York, Union Square (U. S. A.),
240.
OrlAanb, 105, 214, 287.
Pabib:
Arc du Carrousel, 155-157, 105.
Arc de TEtoile, 160, 161, 168-170, 176-184.
Avenue de rObservatoire, 174, 108, 200 (Fountain), 212 (Foun- tain), 240.
Bois de Boulogne, 240.
Bourse, 105.
Chamber of Deputies, 160, 280.
Chamber of Peers, 244.
Champ de Mars, 264 (Palais des Arts Lib^raux).
Champs Elys^ 125, 258, 264 (Maison Dufayel, fronton).
Conservatoire de Musique, 201.
Cour des Comptes, 265.
Courbevoie, 248.
Ecole Albert-le-Grand, 216.
Pabib — ConHntud. Eoole des Beaux Arts, 61, 148,
150, 108, 284. Fontaine de la rue de Grenelle St.
Germain, 120. Fontaine des Innocents, 80-82. Fontaine Moli^its, 161, 170. Gare du Nord, 247. Grand Palais, 258, 278, 877, 886-
808. Hdtel Camavalet, 84, 87, 118. HAtel Cluny, 34, 54 (Pleunuita),
61, 141. U6te\ de Ville, 801, 848, 844, 247, 258, 254 (Court), 264, 280. Imprimerie Nationale, 100, 110. Institut Pasteur, 280. Les Invalides, 124, 155, 161
(Crypt), 244 (Napoleon). Louvre, 84, 48, 40, 55, 56 (Tomb of Philippe Pot), 60, 61, 65, 81-87, 80, 04, 05 (Louis XUI), 118, 124, 120, 131- 133, 136, 180, 140, 142, 144- 145, 140-151, 156-161, 167, 168, 170, 187, 100, 104, 105, 107, 108, 201, 205, 218, 214. 215, 217 (GaUery of Apollo). 252 (Jardin), 255 (Jardin). Cour du Louvre, 248. Fronton du Louvre, 156. Guichet du Louvre, 255. Pavilion Central, 217. Pavilion de I'Horioge, 00. Pavilion de Marsan, 217. Salle (Ground Floor), 108. Salle Carpeaux, 207. Salle des Caryatides, 81, 85. Salle des Coustous, 187. Salle Coyzevox, 08, 100-101,
111-112. Salle Jean Goujon, 70, 88, 00-
01. Salle Michel Colombe, 06. Salle des Nouvelles Acquisi-
INDEX OF PLACES MENTIONED
pABis — ConHnutd.
tions (Ground Floor, South Si6e), 43, M. SaUe Puget. VT, 100-102, 117,
leo.
SftUe de la Rotornk, d«a Saiioni,
etc. (Ground Floor). JOS. Salle de Rude, 172. 173.
LuxonbouiK. SI, 165. 1S3. 198- 800. 217. eiS, 222. 230. 232. 240 (Jardin). 241. 243, 243, 246 (Jardin), 247, 240, 252, 257- es0. 261-8«S, 263 (Jardin). 294- fee. 209. 270. 270 (Jardin), 272-275. 288. 200. 202 (Jai^ din), 204.
Magasin du Printemps. 237.
Maine XI Arrond.. 292.
Miniature d'Etat, 246.
Montmartn: (Banlica), 261.
Montmartre (Cunetiire), ITS. 258. 201.
201. NAtre Dame de Paris, 3ft-4]. 114.
124. 135. 216 (Choir). ObMTvatoire, 237, 272. Optra, 199, 211, 213 (West Side).
217 (ApcJlo). 237. 277-286, 315-
341. Oiatoire du Louvre, 248. PaUU de t'Elysie. 253. Palais de I'Inatitut. 135, 141, 149,
238.291. Palais de Justice, 197, 236. Palais Royal, £76 (Jardia), 802-
803 (Janlin). Alais dea Thermes, 290. I^thfon, 90, 187-180, 107. 824,
881, 875. Pare Moncnu, 250. 207-208. Pire-I^haiM!, 187, tOO, 237, 249.
855. 858. 260, 266 (Hospital
Traioo). 272. Petit Palais, 34, 801-802, 247. 840,
PiSm — Continue.
250. 253. 259 (fronton), 881.
270. 277. 286-292. Place de I'AhDB, 276. Place de la Bastille, 105. Place du Carrousel, 805. Place de U Oracorde. il5. 161. Place DenTert-Rochereau. 250. Race de la Madeleine. 272. Place Maleaherbes. 258, Place de la Nation, 238. 844. Place des Pyramides, 201. Hace de la R^ublique, 240. Hace Saint Georges, 272. Place VendAme, 141. 168, 166. Place des Victoires, 167. Race Victor Hugo, 242. Pont Alexandre UI. 868, 271,
202. PoDt Mirobeau, 869. Pont Neuf. 156. Pout de Passy, 266. Porte St. Denis. 103. Rue de Grenelle. 120. Rue Marboeuf (No. 23), 260. Sacr« Coeur, 866. Sainte Chapelle, 45. Ste. Gotilde, 100. Ste. Genevieve, 90. Ste. Madeleine. 171, 179-181, 106,
880 (Doors). St. Augustin. 820, 247. St. Denis (Catbednl). 34, 44, 61,
60-70. 74. St. Etiemie du Mont, 06, 97. St. Eustadie, 98, 114. St. Germain I'Auxerrois. 78. St. Germain des Piia, 243. St. Gervais, 93, 197. St. Martin, 238.
St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. 114. St. Roch, 124. St. Sulpice, 129, 131, 132, 194,
245. Sorbonne, 98, 107-108, 256, 264,
xviu INDEX OF PLACES MENTIONED
Pabib — ConHnued, Square des Arts et M^tien, 248. Square de Grenelle, 280. Square du Lkui de Belfoit, 269. Tfa^tie Francais* 84, 180-181, 188-189, 144-145, 147, 154, 224, 288, 246, 256 (Fnmt), 265. Tour de Nede, 49. Tuileries, 124 (Jardin), 192 (Jar- din), 214 (Jardin). 246 (Jar- din), 247 (Jardin), 255 (Jar- din), 266 (Jardin). Pavilion de Flore, 209. Pavilion Turgot, 199. Trocadero, 34, 82, 91, 246, 255. Philadelphia (U. S. A.), 191. Poissy, 201, 255. Poitiers, 45. Puy-en-Velay, 216.
Rambouillbt, 267.
Rennes, 112.
Rheims, 86, 40, 186. 220, 258, 259.
Richmond, Va. (U. S. A.), 148.
Riom, 45.
Rome (Italy), 138, 143, 160.
Rouen, 71, 72-78 (H6tel Bourgte-
loude), 78, 76-78^ 116^ 141, 191, 243,257. RueiL 155.
Sbnb, 126.
Sokames, 5^-60, 68.
St. Fbrent, 191.
St. Malo, 262.
St. Mihiel, 92.
St. Petersburg (Russia), 187, 145.
St. Quentin, 243, 290.
Strasbourg, 184, 191.
Tarabb, 216. Thourgovie (Suisse), 208. Toulon, 116, 259. Toulouse, 288. Tourcoing, 206. Tours, 68, 274.
VAUBNciENMn, 195, 206, 218.
Versailles, 34, 95, 96, 102, 106 (Bosquet de la Colonnade), 109, 111, 117, 124, 129, 140, 148. 155, 157, 161, 179, 186, 258 (Jeu de Paume). 266, 290. (Grand Trianon), 112.
V^ielay, 81, 82» 34.
A HANDBOOK OF MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
INTRODUCTION
THE history of a particular art should be pre- ceded hy an attempt to explain its nature; that is, its peculiarities, its position among the arts, its comparative excellencies and defects, what may, and may not be expected of it; in other words, its Ksthetics.
Different principles have been applied in classifying works of art. The correct division can only be drawn from the nature of the work of art itself, which in the totality of its species explains the phases and the movements which reside in its own conception. The first thing that seems important in this connection is the point of view that art, inasmuch as its pictures have received the distinction of appearing in material reality, is therefore for the senses^ Thus the pecu- liarity of these senses and the materials which corre- spond to them in which the work of art becomes ob- jective, must form the foundation for the division of the various arts.
During the last fifty years metaphysical studies have not maintained their positions at centers of learn- ing. This is especially true of American colleges where
2 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
the advance of practical sciences has pushed specula- tive studies to the wall. ^Esthetics, as a branch of metaphysics, has never had a substantial footing in the United States. New England metaphysicians, obe- dient to Puritanism, ignored it. That a cliange is coming may be hoped and expected. Wherever the study of the fine arts is admitted as part of the cur- riculum, lesthetical discussions are sure to follow. Harvard is showing the way. Chicago is setting an example for the West. Still nowhere in this country as yet are abstract theories of art set forth in orderly, reliable and authoritative manner. Nor would the student of to-day know where in Europe to look for a safe expounder and master. A century ago every German university had its professor of {esthetics whose lecture-room was crowded, while writers of distinction did not consider their duties to the public performed until they had discussed the testhetical questions of the day. To-day the cry in Germany is: " Es giebt keine Agthetik mehr.^* It may not be amiss, therefore, if initial inquiries about sculpture be addressed to Hegel, the prince of German asstheticists of the last century; and if his treatises be taken as guide and started in preliminary discussion, premising that readers must think for themselves; that the chief object of meta- physical study is to promote thinking; that no two persons can think alike about a matter of art; that after mastering the ideas of another — no easy mat- ter in itself at times — the question of personal assent must be asked and answered; and that art ideas to be valuable and lasting, to be more than ephemeral sentiments, must be founded on wisely directed study
INTRODUCTION 8
and observation, and be nourished by the constant exercise of a well-informed and sober judgment.
GEORGE WILLIAM FREDERICK HEGEL > was
born in Stuttgart on the 27th of August, 1770. At eighteen he entered the University of Tubingen and devoted himself to theological and philosophical studies. In 1798 he was graduated in theology. Until 1800 he devoted himself to private teaching, first in Berne, then in Frankfurt. In 1801 he went to Jena and established himself as an independent (extern) teacher of philos- ophy. In 1806 he was made a professor of philosophy at its university. He soon resigned in order to take charge of a political newspaper published at Bamberg. In 1808 he was made rector of the Gymnasium of Niimberg. In 1816 he was appointed professor of philosophy at Heidelberg. In 1818 he was transferred to Berlin, where be remained until he died on the 14th of November, 1881, in his sixty-second year. After his death, betwceii the years 1882 and 1842, eighteen volumes of his theological and philosophical works were published. His lectures on lesthetics were published in three volumes by H. G. Hotho (1802-1848), one of his pupils. Hotho became professor of the History of the Fine Arts in the University of Berlin in 1820 and in 1880 was made assistant director of the Royal Museum.
Hegel's general philosophy of beauty in art and
nature cannot be discussed in this work. His divisions,
however, of art, and of the various arts, are pertinent
to the subject and stimulating. Hegel, at times, is
> See Appoidiz, p. 290.
4 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
difficult to read, sometimes his meaning must be guessed at. He should be studied in the original because at times his ideas are so vague, or so complicated, that they cannot be put into clear English though they can be apprehended in the original. There is always the chance, of course, that Hotho may not have clearly understood his master. When I find Hegel's sentences too long, complicated and confusing I accept Charles Benard's paraphrases.^ HegePs " Asthetik " is divided into three parts. The first part contains his general views of beauty and art : what is beauty ; what is art ; the ideal; its realization; beauty in the abstract and in the concrete, etc., views more interesting to the metaphysician than to the art-student. In the second part he unfolds his general division of art under three heads: symbolic, classic and romantic. These divi- sions are worthy of consideration and should be given in as near an approach to his own language as a translation will permit, though the reader be at once plunged into verbiage that cannot at first be under- stood without effort and which demands close thinking all the while. The first head he defines as follows:^ ^^ In it the idea is still seeking its correct artistic ex- pression because it is still abstract and undefined and therefore has not in itself the conception of corre- sponding expression, but finds itself opposed to natural exterior appearances and to the human happenings con- formable to it.^ Because under the circumstances the
^ Charies B^nard (1807-1808), Professor of Philosophy at the Lyc^es Bonaparte and Charlemagne; autiior of many known works, among them free translation of Hegel's "Asthetik."
« Vol. I, p. S79, ed. of 184«.
* By the word "Idee" which Hegel uses frequently he appareaf]y
INTRODUCTION 5
idea apprehends its own abstractions,' it is apt to injure and falsify the forms it accepts, — for it can onlj grasp them arbitrarily. So that instead of a complete iden- tification there is only a consonance, and only an ab- stract consonance between meaning and form. . . ."
Under the second or classic head, Hegel states as follows : " In the second class, or class of classic art, the art idea is no longer bound to the abstractions and indefiniteness of general conceptions, but becomes a free subjectivity. The spirit as a free subject has life in itself and by itself, and holds within its inde- pendence and within its own conception the idea of the adequate outer form, in which it can mould itself and its corresponding reality. In this unity of form and essence is founded classic art. If classic art could be perfect then the spirit pervading it, so far as it could be turned into a work of art, would no longer be an absolute spirit which could only find its proper existence in inner spirituality, but a spirit limited by particulars and fettered by abstractions. The free subject therefore which classic art sets forth appears as something of a general nature, freed from outer and inner accidentals and particularities, and at the same time filled with a separate and distinct personality. An outer form is necessarily a separate and particular form, and for complete union with its spirit this outer
mcMW Qw fint notion ot sd idea occurring to the humsD mind. By the word "BtgnB" which he uses with eqiu] frequency, be iikmu the fur- ther ptogtea of the idea to the point of becoming a definite conception. In tlJtMtiteDce be means that the art idea is not suffidently developed to rcct^nixe what exterior forms are adapted to it^ manifestation.
~ ' Boda that it U atill tbstrect; or because it would force its
^nlitiea into a ocmcrete exiat«aice.
6 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
form requires a particular and limited spirit. It fol- lows that only a separate and limited spirit can mani- fest itself in outer form and can bind itself to form in an indissoluble unity.
^^ Here art has so far reached its final intent that the art idea when regarded as a spiritual individuality accords in so full a measure with its realization in form, that form is no longer independent of the mean- ing it would convey; and the meaning within shows itself fully and affirmatively in the form prepared for its manifestation.
** In the third place if the idea of the beautiful is regarded as absolute and therefore as spirit, as free spirit existing for itself, it cannot find itself fully realized in the external world, as its true existence can only be within itself, as spirit. It therefore dis- solves the classical union of the inner spirit and the outer form and flees from it back to itself. This lays the foundation for the romantic form of art in which form becomes a matter of indiiference because the es- sence of this form of art, on account of its free spirituality asks more than can be given by outer though lovely representations. Romantic art there- fore leads away from the union of spirit and form on the opposite side from symbolic art.
^* Symbolic art seeks in vain that perfected unity of spirit and form which classic art finds so far as regards the representation of substantial individuality and which Romantic art leaves behind while seeking for the expression of the spiritual." ^
^ To tlie unfolding and explaining of these divisionB Hegel devotes about one-third of his whole work. This third part is not of primary
INTRODUCTION 7
As specimena of symbolic art he cites the arts of India and of Egypt. Greece offers the best specimens of classic art; vhile all the arts which come under the influences of Christianity are in a certain measure to be regarded as romantic arts. The interesting division to the student of sculpture is the second, or classical art. If Greek art he the best example of classic art and Greek sculpture be the best sculpture erer produced, then good sculpture should have the qualities Hegel attributes to classic art; that is, it should only express the qualities which can be ex- pressed in form, should express them fully and clearly, should confine attention to them and should not de- tract it by superfluities or unmeaning ornamentation.
Hegel's divisions of styles proceed from the same fundamental ideas. These divisions occur at the be- ginning of the third part of his work, which is devoted to " The system of the separate arts." ^
Style he divides into three kinds: formal, ideal and graceful. He introduces the subject as follows:
" It is an ordinary impression that art began with the simple and the natural. This may be accepted in a measure, for manifestations of the true spirit of art, the rude and the wild are more natural and more simple than the studied and the conventional. Different, however, are the natural, the lively and the simple of art, as seen in the fine arts. Those beginnings which are simple and natural from the point of view of rude-
mbnst to the artiat, or to Qte atudent of art; because in it the arts are oonridemi ai aubordiiMte to the history and development of reUgions and d moimlities, and therefore a* plajring their parts in Hegel's reli- gious and moral speculations. » Vol. n, p. 24B.
8 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ness have no place in art and beauty. Children, for instance, make simple figures, and with a couple of ill-shaped strokes will indicate a man or a horse. Beauty, on the other hand, needs in its beginning an accomplished technique, many trials and experiences. And simplicity, the simplicity of beauty, the great ideal, is rather a result that is only achieved after many trials in overcoming the manifold, the gay, the erratic, the extravagant, the painful. In this victory equip- ments and preparations must be hidden and blotted out, so that free beauty entirely unhindered seems to flow forth like a stream, as with the behavior of a cultivated man, who in all he does and says is free, easy and simple; but to whom this ease and simplicity are not natural but the result of training and study. Thus from the nature of things, as well as a matter of history, art in its beginning appears artificial and clumsy 9 given to accessories; painfully particular in the ordering of drapery and of surroundings. . . •
** The earliest works of art in all the individual arts show forth the most abstract ideas; simple stories in poetry; confused theogonies, with their abstract thoughts and defective construction; single statues of saints in wood or stone; while the execution remains incomplete, uniform, or confused, stiff, dry. In the plastic arts the expression of the face is stupid in repose, without intellectual expression, but rather with one of animal vacuity; or, on the other hand, its characteristic traits are sharp and overdrawn.
^^ In the same manner the members of the body and their movements are without life. Arms, for instance, are fastened to the trunk; legs are not separated, or
s
INTRODUCTION 0
tbey are badly jointed, angular, and affect stiff move- ments. In other respects, also, figures are misformed. They are either contracted, or else they are immod- eratelj thin and elongated. On the other hand, to the accessories, such as clothes, hair, weapons, etc., much care and attention are given. But the folds of the garments remain wooden and independent. That is, they do not conform to the shape of the body, as is often seen in early statues of the Virgin and of saints. Sometimes folds are laid in regular parallel rows, some- times they are broken up into sharp angles, not flow- ing, but divided into broad spaces.^ In the same way, early poetry is ragged, without unity, monoto- nous; governed by one abstract idea, or sensation; or else wild, passionate, with details badly connected and the whole not bound together into a strong or- ganization. Style, as we here must regard it, began after these preliminaries and with the advent of the fine arts. With them style is at first rude but soon is tempered to what we call the severe style. This severe style is the higher abstraction of beauty which stops short at the essentia] and expresses and repre- sents beauty in its large masses. Grace and loveliness are as yet disdained. The subject itself controls. Little care, or work, is given to accessories. The style adheres to copying and repeating existing models. As to the subject-matter to be expressed and represented, the style adheres to what already exists, to existing religious traditions, for instance. So also in the outer form, the subject must control, and no new invention be admitted. It is content with the grand impression * ttia deteiibw tmu^ tbe •culptun of the Vttoab ''■T™t'~' pcriad
10 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
that the thing exists and that its existence and power appear in its representation. Everything that is ac- cidental is banished from this style, so that the freedom and capriciousness of subjectivity should not appear to intrude. Motives are simple, the represented purposes are few. So it happens that there is little variety in the details of form, muscles, or action.
*^ The second, the ideal, the purely beautiful style, floats in the middle distance between the merely sub- stantial expression of the theme and entire surrender to the intent of pleasing. The character of the style is the highest liveliness combined with a quiet and beautiful grandeur, as it is to be admired in the works of Phidias or Homer. Here liveliness is shed over everything, all points, shapes, turnings, movements, Kmbs. In them there is nothing insignificant; noth* ing without expression, but everything is lively and active. From whatever point the work is seen, it shows energy, the very pulse of life. At the same time this vitality manifests a unity, a single object, individuality of action. Together with this true liveliness we find the breath of grace infused throughout the work. Grace, which the severe style disdains, is a recognition of the hearer, or the observer. Grace in the ideal style appears merely as a recognition or a complaisance; and not as an effort. This can be explained as fol- lows : Conception is concentrated and independent sub- stance. When it presents itself in art and thus, as it were, begins to exist for others, it passes from its simplicity and unity into a sphere of particulars, divi- sions and details. This passage into concrete exist- ence may be regarded as a favor on the part of the
INTRODUCTION II
conception, because the pure conception does not need it but only assumes it for our sake. Such a charm can only maintain itself at such a heij^t vhen the inner substance is self-contained and indifferent to its out- side attraction. That which only blooms on the out- side is a species of overflow. This indifference of the inner consciousness to its outer appearance, this re- pose within itself, is what constitutes the lovely aban- don of grace, which places no value upon its appear- ance. Herein is to be sought the height of the beau- tiful style. Art which is fine and free is indifferent to its outer form so far as it exhibits no particular thought, intent, or object; and would have every ex- pression and motion point back to the idea and the soul of the whole. Only in this way is the ideal of the beautiful style preserved which is neither dry nor severe but which softens itself to the cheerfulness of beauty. No violence is done to any appearance, to any part. Every member appears for itself, rejoices in its own existence, yet is content to be a part of the whole. This alone can give to the depth and distinctness of individuality and character the charm of life. On one side the subject rules alone; but in its manifestation, in the clear and full variety of features which makes the appearance definite, precise, lively and present, the spectator is freed from the preponderance of the sub- ject itself by having before hira its fully developed, concrete life.
** If this tendency towards the emphasizing of the outer appearance is carried still further the ideal style will be developed into the pleasing, or the agreeable style. Here another intention is manifest than that
IS MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
of making the subject matter lively. To please, to make an impression, becomes an intention, an inde- pendent object. The famous ** Apollo Belvedere," for instance, may not be classed with the graceful style but shows the transition. Because in this kind of pleasing the subject itself does not control the whole of the outward appearing ; details, though they proceed from the subject and are necessitated by it, become more and more independent. They appear to be added ornaments, or interwoven episodes. Nevertheless, as they seem to be accidents so far as the subject is con- cerned, and only serve their purpose as they affect spectator or hearer, they apparently aid with flattery the designed impression.^ In this way Virgil and Horace charm with a cultivated style where, amid a division of intentions, is recognized the effort to please. In the architecture, sculpture and painting of the graceful style, grand and simple masses disappear and independent, little, picturesque arrangements appear with ornaments, decorations, dimples, elegant coiffures, smiles, many folded draperies, attractive colors and forms ; striking, difficult, but still unforced, poses, etc. When the so-called Gothic passes into the graceful style, it developes illimitable ornamentation; so that the edifices seem composed of superimposed columns, towers and minarets covered with the most divers or- namentation; without, however, destroying the effect of the mass, or of the general proportions.
^^ As all this branch of art devotes itself to outside representation and to the production of an effect, its
* The idea is that hearer and spectator are flattered by the ornaments which are added to please them.
INTRODUCTION 18
further development might be called the effect style; in which for the purpose of producing an impression, even the unpleasing, the exaggerated, the colossal, (in which the stupendous genius of Michael Angelo so often erred) sharp contrasts, etc., are employed. Effect is a dominating turning toward the public, whereby the work of art ceases to be calm, self-suffi- cient, serene, but seems to leave itself and to summon the spectator to itself so that they may come close together in the representation.^
" Both self-repose and consideration for the spec- tator must exist in every work of art, but in perfect balance. If the work of art, as in the severe style, is entirely self-contained showing no desire to speak to the spectator, it remains cold. If too considerate of the spectator, it pleases him, but not by its worth, not by the value of the subject and its simple con- ception and representation. The tendency if continued degenerates into carelessness. The work of art be- comes a mere accident in which the conception is no longer recognized, nor the form adapted to it and essential to it, but only the poet and the artist with their subjective intentions, their handiwork and their skillful execution are manifest. In this way the public is freed from the necessity of understanding the es- sential idea of the work if it have any, but is brought into communion with the artist's intention to please, and perceives the cunning and skill with which he has carried out his intention. To be brought into this close union with the intent and skill of the artist is the highest flattery and causes the reader, the hearer I An exact deacriptioD of French BcuIptiiK of the pK«eiit day.
14 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
and the beholder to admire all the more the poet, the musician and the plastic artist. Vanity is satisfied by being invited to the tribunal of art and by having submitted to it, as it were, the intentions and points of view of the artist.
^^ In the severe style, on the contrary, no concessions are made to the spectator. The substance of the con- ception in its stem and dry representation repels familiarity. This repulsion is often intentional on the part of the artist who puts a deep meaning into his work without making it clear or attractive. On the contrary he intentionally makes its interpretation diffi- cult. Such a mystification is in itself another affec- tation and equally opposed to the pleasing style."
Hegel then proceeds to consider the different arts. He does not approve of dividing them in accordance with the senses to which they appeal, not only because the senses of touch and taste would have to be ex- cluded but because the division is too material. The division he accepts is based on the amount of spiritual- ity each art contains and exhibits. Architecture he puts first as being the most material and the least spiritual. Then follow in order sculpture, painting, music and poetry. Poetry he regards as the greatest of the arts because it is the most purely spiritual, the one in whose artistic construction matter does not enter. At least half of HegePs work is given to the individual arts. They are regarded from historical and theoretical points of view; studied, criticized and compared in tiresome detail. What he states in a general way about sculpture is as follows : ^
» Vol. n, p. 853.
INTRODUCTION 15
" The spirit is opposed to the inorganic nature of the material of which architecture makes use in its efforts to express the spirit. The spirit would have the work of art express itself and nothing else. The necessity of this advance away from the material lies in the nature of the spiritual in which the subjective essence differs from the objective. Architecture in its appearances shows a little of the spirit but without thoroughly infusing the spirit and making the spirit alone appear. Art therefore withdraws itself from the organic which architecture, bound as it is to the laws of matter, can only endeavor to bring near to spiritual expression. It withdraws back towards its inner con- sciousness, where, unmixed with the organic, it can appear in its higher truth. ^ On its way back, away from mass and matter, its first stop is at sculpture.
" But the first step art takes in this new direction is not a return of the spirit to its inner subjectivity which would permit of only an ideal outer represen- tation, hut the process stops at the point where the spirit can he manifested in bodily form and in bodily form find homogeneous expression. The art which takes for its object this point of spiritual development is called on to present spiritual individuality appearing in matter, and in perfectly appropriate matter. It might be claimed that speech is a manifestation of the spirit in matter, so far as sound may be regarded as matter; though it has no more value as concrete matter than air or motion. All these may be regarded from one point of view as manifestations of the spirit.
16 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
BodOy form, on the other hand, is real matter, such as stone, wood, metal, occupying space with three di- mensions and having ponderosity. The part of sculp- ture is to represent the spirit outwardly by means of solid form fashioned to correspond to its character. Sculpture and architecture have this in common, that they use sensible things as sensible things, matter as matter, occupying space. They differ in so far as sculpture does not use matter as mere matter, to serte as an outer covering for the spirit as a garment, but represents in form the spiritual itself, free and inde- pendent; form interpenetrated by the spirit; and the two, body and spirit, forming one inseparable whole. The sculptured work frees itself from the fate of archi- tecture which condemns matter to serve merely as an outer covering for the spirit; and presents itself aS a free and independent existence. In spite of this independence, the sculptured work remains in essential relations to its surroundings. A statue, a group and, still more so, a relief, cannot be made without consid- ering the places to be occupied. A work of sculpture may not be finished first and placed afterwards ; but it must be conceived in connection with the place for which it is destined, and with the things by which it will be surrounded. Sculpture has enduring connec- tions with architectural spaces. Statues were first made for temples and to be erected within the ceUct^ just as painting furnished the altar pieces for Chris- tian churches and just as Gothic architecture shows the interdependence of the two arts. Statues are not only for temples and churches; but halls, staircases, gardens, parks, triumphal arches, are enlivened, peopled
INTRODUCTION 17
even, by works of sculpture. Still further and apart from its surrounding, each statue demands its ap- propriate pedestal.^
" If sculpture be compared to other arts than archi- tecture, painting and poetry are the two which sceni to invite the companson. Both statues and groups present spiritualized form in full liveliness; man as he is. Sculpture, therefore, seems to possess the method which is truest to nature of representing the spiritual, while painting and poetry seem comparatively unnatu- ral; painting, because instead of using space as the human form and natural objects actually fill it, only makes use of surfaces; while speech makes no use at all of space but only tries to impart its impression by the use of sound. The contrary, however, is the fact. For if the work of sculpture seems outwardly the most natural, this exterior naturalness does not correspond to the nature of the spirit which shows in deeds and speech only its inner self and what it really is. In these particulars sculpture is especially inferior to poetry. The arts of design excel in plastic accuracy because they put the body before our very eyes. But poetry can describe man's outer figure, his hair, his forehead, his cheeks, his stature, his garments, his attitude, etc., if not with the precision and ac- curacy of sculpture, the imagination can supply the deficiency. The imagination does not require such fixed and completed accuracy for its representations. It shows man in action, his motives, the changes of his fortune, with all his feelings, his speeches, his discov-
' Tlw kind of pedesteb Uw Gre^ had for their statues hu not been tuDy Gonnderad.
18 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
eriesy the revelations of his soul and the outer events of his career. These things sculpture cannot do at all, or but very imperfectly, as it can neither repre- sent inner emotions, as can poetry, nor a succession of actions. It can only present the generalities of the individual as they can be expressed by the body, and then only at a given moment of action without cause, or sequence.
^^ In these particulars sculpture is also inferior to painting. For in painting, the color and the lights and shadows imparted to the countenance not only give to spiritual expression a greater material exacti- tude from the point of view of nature, but they create a superior truth and vitality from the point of view of physiognomy and pathology.
" One might suppose, therefore, that sculpture, in order to be more complete, need only add to its ad- vantages in the matter of space, the other advantages which are special to painting. That it was arbitrary on its part to deprive itself of the colors of painting, and to limit itself to one side of actuality, that is the material of form ; ignoring the others, and thus becom- ing a species of makeshift, as outline drawing and engraving may be regarded.^ In true art, however, there is no arbitrariness. Form, as used by sculpture, is only an abstract side of concrete human life. It presents none of the diversities indicated by particular colors and motions. But this is no arbitrary defect, but a limitation of material and of method of expres- sion imposed upon itself by the nature of the art,
^ Another instance of Hegel's inclination to personify the arts by at- tributing to them conscious action.
INTRODUCTION 19
Art is a product of the spirit, of a high seU-conacious spirit. Each kind of art has a distinct purpose and therefore for its object a distinct method of artistic realization. . . .
** Art as a creation of the spirit proceeds by steps and separates things which are separated in thought though not separated in reality. It holds its progres- sive steps sharply apart in order to develop in each its distinct peculiarities. So the space-occupying mat- ter which serves as material for the arts of design, must be distinguished in thought and be kept apart; first, life within limited dimensions and its abstract form, the body; and secondly, its nearer and more lively particularities as revealed by diversity of color. At the first of these steps sculpture stops so far as the human form is concerned, which it only treats as a stereometric body having dimensions in space.
" A work of art that appeals to the senses must have a species of outer existence, and this existence demands, at the start, attention to details. The first art, however, which treats the human form as an ex- pression of the spirit only deals with an outer exist- mce in its simplest manifestation in space, merely as a visible thing existing in light without even such play of shadow as might lead to the suggestion of color. Here stands sculpture in obedience to the imperative divisions of the arts of design which, not having the power of poetry to group all appearances with the single element of representation, must needs keep them apart. . . .
" Sculpture, in order to set forth the spirit, does not make use of means which are only symbolical or
20 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
that only indicate, but uses the human body which is itself the true representation of the spirit. Sculpture is the more satisfied with bodily form the more it repre- sents a subjectivity without sentiment, an unparticu- larized soul in which there is no determined point of subjectivity. This is also the reason why sculpture does not represent the spirit in action, in a succession of movements which have an object and manifest it; does not show it engaged in enterprises and deeds in which character appears, but as resting in quiet sub- jectivity. Sculpture therefore prefers to present the body in a quiet attitude, or when movement and group- ing indicate but a first and gentle beginning of action. Sculpture is careful not to represent the soul torn by inner and outer conflicts, or borne along by a flood of outer perplexities. On the other hand, as sculpture makes prominent the spirit as absorbed in bodily form, it must make the spirit appear in the whole of the form and in every part equally. It therefore must miss the concentrated expression of the soul, the sub- jective point, which appears in a glance of the eye, for instance. On the other hand, as sculpture does not pretend to represent special and isolated individu- ality, it does not need the magic of color as a neces- sity of expression as does painting. Color, by the fineness and variety of its tones, is capable of showing particular traits of character, and can put into the glance of the eye the fullness of the soul and all the sentiments with which it may be agitated. Sculpture must not use materials which are not appropriate to its place in art development. It therefore must limit itself to the material form of the human body and not
INTRODUCTION 21
use its picturesque coloring. The work of sculpture is of a single color, ordinarily of white marble, and not of variegated substances. Metals also are used b; sculpture, because they are uniform and gleam with a light which is independent of the contrasts and harmony of many colors,"
Here must stop the quotations from Hegel. In subsequent chapters he particularizes and expands the points already made. The first chapter in sequence he entitles: "The True Principle of Sculpture," with a subdivision entitled : " Beauty of Form in Sculpture." The next chapter is entitled: "The Ideal of Sculp- ture," with many subdivisions and examples drawn from the history of races and of art periods.
The third and last chapter is devoted to the vari- ous kinds of sculpture: the single statue, the group and the relief. The last division of this chapter is devoted to the history of sculpture from the earliest period to the time when Christianity made use of sculpture for its own special and peculiar purposes. Two present translations, of even select portions, of these chapters would expand this introduction beyond limit. Cnough has been given the reader to inform him of Hegel's methods, to show him where in his scheme of fine art he places sculpture and also to start him in nsthetical inquiries, should he be inclined to pursue them.
Before leaving this part of the work a few words in contrast by a few Frenchmen may be in order. First, Chaignet. Antbelme Edouard Chaignet, bom in Paris in 1819, Dr-is-lettrei 1868, Recteur of the university of Poitiers 1879—1890, author of many re-
22 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
markable works, died in Paris in 1901. He was one of the competitors for the prize offered in 1857 by the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences for the best work on aesthetics.^ Though he was only marked third, his work in some particulars was regarded as the best. It failed in fullness and completion of presentation. His observations about sculpture are interesting. Some of them are as follows:
** If beauty be the sensible form of an ideal and individual force, the essence and character of a moral being, then I think that statuary has a virtue of aes- thetic effects more pure and more profound than has painting. It is not and cannot be dramatic. Com- positions in which many persons are drawn together in lively action are denied to it by its methods of representation. The laws of weight and the necessity of keeping each personage within its center of gravity only permit limited attitudes. How, moreover, can sculpture dispose figures in planes, or put them in perspective? You cannot separate figures without destroying the connection which should unite them so as to make their participation in an action comprehensible. . . .
** All violent actions, all complicated actions, even all momentary actions, are outside the domain of sculp- ture. To attempt to compose a picture of statues is to disregard the limits of the art. . . .
" Sculpture reveals but one of the sensible impres-
^ L'Acad^mie des Sciences morales et politiques was founded in 17S)5, at the time the Institut was created of which it formed the fifth class. It was suppressed by Napoleon in 1803 and revived by Louis Philippe in 18S2. It has fifty regular members.
/
INTRODUCTION 23
sions; but one kind of the ideas which ve perceive bj sight; form only, color is wanting. But is it a real want? Light is a great divinity, but the light employed by painting, that is color, has too much reality, too much sensuality, to be perfectly ideal. Those colorB which vivify the flesh, which show so clearly the muscles, the nerves, the skin, the blood; which impart to the body the character of real life, yet human and imperfect life, the maladezza that seems one of the objects of modem art, speak too strongly to the senses, express too well the physical body to express the spiritual and ideal essence.
" The flesh, with all its shades, all its livid yellow, blue, imperfections, is a soiled and corrupted garment for the soul and dishonors it by its impure contact. Sculpture also has its light, but it is a light that does not disturb our organs, that has no seduction, does not trouble or hurt tthe sight. The works of sculp- ture are bathed in a Ugiit which is pure, steadfast, incorporeal as it were, a light that idealizes the flesh and spiritualizes the body by making them incor- ruptible. Marble in particular seems to clothe form with that pure white light which contains all the colors and seems the symbol of purity and divinity. Marble is a celestial and virginal substance, admirably adapted to express the supernatural beings who escape the cor- ruption of our nature."
Chaignet quotes Hegel as stating that as statues are without the light of the eye you cannot see down into that interior of the soul which the eye alone can reveal. As statues are without sight they are without the revelation of the spirit. To this Chaignet replies:
24 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
** The eye exists in statues as a complete organ. The only thing wanting is the color of the iris, but this color only results from the decomposition of light as it passes through the crystalline lens of the eye. The iris is only made visible by its color which distinguishes it from the white of the eye and the pupil. If color is not light, but only a decomposition of light, and if celestial flesh is incorruptible, it cannot corrupt the light which traverses it; and, though flooded with light, it preserves its virginal whiteness and its celes- tial purity. In fact statues see. No statue produces the effect of blindness. You can read in their looks. They may not see the colors of this world, for their looks are fixed upon another world. They look with a celestial light which does not disturb the organ of sight and is not decomposed by it, but fills it full with its spotless whiteness. . « •
'^ We are not in the wild world of passions whose looks are shafts of anger. There is no passion, no anger, to be read in those calm and white eyes which do not decompose the colors of the spectrum.
** What are more inconstant than the plays of the looks, the expressions of the eye, the mobility of its movements, the thousand shades of its changing colors.
" This perpetual mobility only expresses life from its human side; that is, life without permanence, per- sistence, or unity. Painting, in fixing a single moment and in giving it permanence, necessarily creates a false ideal. It gives an essential character to something that is accidental and changing.
** The difficulties presented by the fusion of bronze, and by the rebellious hardness of marble, prohibit to
INTRODUCTION 8S
'ture, subjects that are light and frivolous, or id waj vulgar; subjects which both the pencil and irush may tolerate in moments of folly. Every
of sculpture is long and di£Scult. It demands a
and obstinate inspiration. The ideal deposited bellious stone must be grand and worthy of the t it has cost. Sculpture is a chaste and religious It cannot suffer the burlesque, nor even the ly pleasing. Marble cannot laugh.^ 'n sculpture pain is divine, that is to say it is e. Its subjects must not be common; their exe- n must not be ordinary. This art is evidently er to represent divinity, but divinity in such a on as the religion of Greece. It has no power present what is accidental in man ; veins, wrinkles,
rough surfaces and above all else, the colors 1 may indicate morbid peculiarities, even the pas- which disturbs the limpidity of the look. As all
are denied to sculpture, sculpture may be per- d to exaggerate the permanent, essential and e side of humanity if done without violence to :y, as God for Greece was but the ideal of man it sy to understand that it has been stated that k thought accords better with sculpture than with other art; poetry, possibly, excepted." ituron, the second man in the competition, ac- • Hegel's classification of the arts, ranking archi- re as the lowest in respect to spirituality. He proceeds: "Sculpture takes the next step in de- ning the ideal because, to express it, it borrows outer nature the richest and most expressive forms * Diderot, "(Euvrea complitea." torn. Xm. S8T.
26 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
of organic beings. Nevertheless) the materials it uses, and which are substantially the same as those used by architecture, do not permit it to go far in this direc- tion. Sculpture should limit itself to expressing the ideal of the human form, or of that of a few animals, or to give outer manifestation to those sentiments of the soul which are the easiest to grasp and to render. That was all the human mind asked before the advent of Christianity, and that is the reason why sculpture is essentially the art of antiquity. It would be errone- ous to pretend that during the best periods of Greek art sculpture was not in a measure spiritualized. There can be no true art which does not manifest the life of both soul and mind. But it is incontestable that the ancients were not so advanced in this line as are those of more modern times. They had no ideas of infinity nor of absolute perfection. Nor had they the sentiments these ideas produce; Christian melan- choly and fraternity, for instance. From what we know of their painting, sculpture was to them the type of every art. It is different in these modem times. Painting is for us the foremost of the plastic arts; painting is the art which sculpture tries to imitate within the limits prescribed to it. Although there is no line of demarcation clearly drawn between ancient and modem sculpture, it is the modem which offers us the most remarkable examples of expression carried to the highest degree and obtained, sometimes, at the price of exterior beauty.
^' But expression alone is not sufficient in art. Ex- pression is not beauty. There must be added to ex- pression beauty of execution. In this field, sculpture
INTRODUCTION 87
IB much more restricted than painting, for it lacks the beauties of color and cluaro-oscuro with which to off- set the defects of drawing. Correction of drawing is therefore rigorously essential in sculpture.**
Voituron lays down laws to assist sculptors in their work. Some of them are of equal value in criticism. For instance:
" The first rule is that the idea to be expressed must determine the external character of the work. For instance, the subject may exact violent movement, or repose, severity, or playfulness, elegance, grace, sim- plicity, or magnificence. . . . Beauty is never inde- pendent of object and distinction. The subject must control. In it are to be found the unity, the order and the life of a work of art.
" Practically there must be one dominant line which must be a unit of direction and of dimension for all the subordinate lines. These may introduce variety, but must not destroy harmony ; that is, the unity and accord of all the parts in one general efTect. . . . These general principles which apply to single figures apply equally well to groups. Nevertheless, variety ia aa indispensable to beauty as unity, for the two concur in realizing order which is the first element of beauty." Further quotation from Voituron is impos- sible. The reader who is interested is recommended to read all of the fourth section of his eighth chapter.
A few lines from the prize man must terminate this introduction.
L^vSque writes as follows of sculpture: "In spite of the imperious necessity laid on sculpture to reli- giously respect physical beauty; to moderate the ex-
28 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
pression of head and features; to give to the body more importance than it has in painting and to spread all over it, as it were, facial expression; sculpture, nevertheless, is able to interpret to a high degree the beauties of the soul. It is only in so doing that it approaches perfection. It is only in this way that it has achieved its greatest triumphs." L^veque then proceeds to make his point good by references to the great sculptors of antiquity, particularly to Phidias.
Of painting in comparison with sculpture, L^veque writes as follows:
" The beings put before our eyes by both painting and sculpture are dumb and still. Their only language is attitude, gesture and expression, and their action, when once determined, is forever fixed. At first it would seem that painting had the additional disadvan- tage that its personages are only seen from one point of view. In spite of this apparent disadvantage and of their common weaknesses, painting disposes of more numerous, varied, and of greater powers of expression than her sister art sculpture. By the eye and its changes painting expresses not only passion and will, but thought, either applied to a particular object, or plunged into the depths of the infinite. By means of color, painting increases the expression of certain features without exaggerating it; diminishes that of certain others without effacing it. By color, painting increases the splendor of beauty and hides in a meas- ure forms that are not pleasant. By means of color, painting may even make use of things that are ugly, a use utterly prohibited to sculpture. By the play of light, painting takes possession of air and space
INTRODUCTION 89
and fills them with her creations. Bj means of per- spective, painting multiplies distances and aspects, ex- tends the field of vision and places within limited bound- aries the limitless forms of life and nature. Finally, not being encumbered by the weight of marble, bronze, or stone, painting at will lifts her personages from the earth where sculpture chains them and audaciously launches them into the upper air." ^
All that L^veque writes about painting is interest- ing though not of the nature of a comparison with sculpture.
This introductory chapter is only for the purpose of putting the reader in a sculpturesque state of mind. It may be omitted by those who only care for the his- torical presentation of the subject.
' Foi puipoiei ot compBiiaoa. — Ed.
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL
BY French sculpture is meant sculpture that is distinctly French; practiced by Frenchmen, within the limits of France or where foreign influences did not disturb French talent. Both France and Frenchmen are at times vague and varying terms.
Since 1871 the inhabitants of Alsace and Lorraine have ceased to be Frenchmen and have become Grer- mans; while since 1860 the inhabitants of Nice and Savoy have ceased to be Italians and have become Frenchmen. Political changes are followed by changes in habits, disposition and character. Though along boundaries changes may be slight and slow, back of them, and perpetually working, are racial differences which are strong, permanent and uncompromising. Every decade Paris, London and Berlin grow further apart in spirit. The original home of the ancestors of the French was bounded on the west by the Atlantic, on the northwest by the English Channel, on the north- east and east by the Rhine and the Alps, and on the south by the Pyrenees and the Mediterranean.
After the disruptions that followed the death of Charlemagne, it was over a hundred and seventy years before Hugues Capet appeared and modern France was started. It was two hundred years more before Philip
HISTORICAL 81
Augustus had so strengthened and enlarged royal au- thority that the kingdom of France had solid founda- tioQ and recognized boundaries. During the time, how- ever, that France was weak politically, the French church was strong and united. Particularly strong were the monasteries. They were centers of financial and political, as well as of ecclesiastical, power. They were the sources of the literary, commercial and artistic activities of the day. The most powerful of them all was Cluny,' near Macon, founded in 909 by William the Pious, Duke of Aquitaine. It had uninterrupted growth until the middle of the twelfth century when, under Peter the Venerable (1122-1166), it ruled over more than two thousand monasteries and was of more importance than any crowned head of Europe. Its abbots often declined the papacy because they could exercise more power from Cluny than from Rome. The early church of Cluny served as a model for churches built to the south of it as far as the Pyrenees, and to the west of it as far as the Atlantic; and artists from Cluny were everywhere busy as builders, illumi- nators and sculptors. In 1087 the old church, being no longer adequate, was pulled down and a new one was started. The new church which, next to St. Peter's of Rome, was the largest church in Christendom, was not consecrated until 1131. It was in the pure Romanesque, or round arch, style. It had seven towers, five aisles and double transepts. It did not survive the Revolution. Now there are but a few bits of it left standing. Cluny was a Benedictine monastery. About a hundred miles northwest of Cluny was V^zelay. Here > See Appendk, p. 3M.
82 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
in the tenth century was established a Cistercian monas- tery which at one time was Cluny's rival but which subsequently had to accept her rule. The church at Vezelay escaped destruction; was restored in 1868 by VioUet-le-Duc and is now a most excellent specimen of the architecture and sculpture practiced in France be- fore the advent of Gothic.
The unity of French thought and sentiment, and particularly of French art, was maintained during the whole of the Middle Ages, by French monasteries. They gave way before the growth of cities, and the determina- tion of the inhabitants of cities and of their bishops, to be free from monastic rule.
The history of French sculpture is divided into three grand periods : medieval, renaissance and modem ; and each of these may be subdivided from different points of view.
Medieval sculpture is easily divided into Grothic and pre-Gothic, and pre-Gothic may be divided as it shows prominence of Byzantine, Roman, Arabic, Norman and Scandinavian sources and influences. Gothic French sculpture being indigenous may be divided into as many parts as there were local schools with local peculiarities. To understand these peculiarities would require more time and attention than the ordinary traveler has to spare and might not increase his enjoyment.
French renaissance sculpture is still a field for in- vestigation and is becoming a battle-ground for critics. Forty years ago it was supposed that during the Hun- dred Years' War, or, in round numbers, from 1880 untfl 1450, French art was dead; that French artists were driven out of the country or were forced to support
HISTORICAL 88
thenuelves in ways that were not artistic. Many were driven out, but they carried with them the knowledge of French art; and of the many who stayed) some still found employment and have left behind them monu- ments of their skill. The devastating English did most of their devastating in the north of France. They did not devastate Normandy because they held it, nor about Bordeaux, for they held that too. The dukes of Bur- gundy, though Frenchmen, were the allies of the Eng- lish, while the valleys of the Rhone and of the lower Loire seem to have been too far away for the reach of the conquerors. Another supposition of forty years ago was that there was no French renaissance; that French art remained dead until long after the close of the Hundred Years* War, until the Italian renais- sance was escorted over the Alps by the returning Charles VIII, and that all works of art in France from Charles VIII to Henry II or even later, were planned if not executed by Ittdian artists. This theory has been found incorrect, but how far so, is still a subject of inquiry; also when and how it was that Italian art completely captured public taste ; and was the capture complete? There are also difficult questions connected with modem sculpture. What is modern sculpture? Where are its lines of demarcation? What are its peculiarities ; how is it to be distinguished by time, or by characteristics, etc.?
It is evident that a handbook, intended for the use of travelers, cannot go deeply into any of these ques- tions and must ignore many of them. French sculpture in all its phases and in all stages of its development, can be satisfactorily studied in Paris. The Mus^c de
84 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Sculpture Compar6e in the Trocadero already contains plaster cast reproductions of the best specimens of medieval and renaissance art. Its halls are so wide and so lofty that entire church portals are reproduced and exhibited. Surroundings and the impress of the originals are wanting, but ordinary curiosity is pleased and the technical student is satisfied. To visit Vezelay and Moissac are hard journeys. The majority will be satisfied with the view of their reproductions and will bless a government that fosters art so generously. Apart from the Trocadero are the Louvre and the church of St. Denis. The Louvre contains specimens of sculpture from the eleventh century to the last cen- tury, and additions are being continually made to its store. Since the secularization of St. Denis, it has be- come the one great museum of funereal sculpture. It claims to have specimens from the time of Dagobert to the time of Henry IV. The collections at the Hotel Cluny and at the Petit Palais, those of the Com^die Fran9aise and of the Hotel Carnavalet, are small, and most interesting. There is hardly a church in Paris that has not works to offer of some one of the centuries since it was built. In the streets and squares of Paris, from one end of the city to the other are, in increasing numbers, the very best specimens of the peculiar monu- mental sculpture of the day, while at the Luxembourg are always to be seen equally fine specimens of sculp- ture which, for the purpose of distinction, may be called interior sculpture. Moreover, Versailles is so near Paris as to be reckoned a part of it. Its sculpture, both in number and quality, is far inferior to its painting, but nowhere, save within its walls and within the reach of
Fig. 3.— Heail of King. (Notre Dame de Pari.s)
Fig. S. — The Original Virgin. (N6tre Dame de Paris)
Fig. 4. — Crowning of the Virgin. (Nfltre Dame <!e Paris)
Fig. 5.— Dean Dipii d'Amiens. (Cathetlrale d'Amit'(iM)
HISTORICAL Si
its gardens can the sumptuous sculpture of Louis XIV and his times be appreciated and enjoyed.
French Medieval Sculpture
Two peculiarities distinguish it from both ancient and modem sculpture. It is distinctly religious and as distinctly connected with architecture and with ex- ternal architecture. Specimens not found ornamenting the exterior of churches are rare.
For this reason and because limitations are impera- tive, it may be satisfactory to survey the period from the point of view of Christian iconography. The theme is generic and in its study fundamental principles have already been established. Sculpture that is purely ornamental, as it appears in the capitals of columns for instance, should be treated separately.
France is literally covered with specimens of Roman- esque and Gothic church architecture. There is not a town and hardly a village that has not a church with a date between eleven and fifteen hundred. Their study is the delist of modem French archeologists and is making more and more clear and rich the principles of the greatest religious architectural development the world has ever seen. To those interested in the pend- ing discussions the " Revue Monumentale ** is recom- mended. The greatest cathedrals have already been sufficiently studied to be well understood.
Premising that the student has always within reach ViolIet-le-Duc*s works, the following completed works
36 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
are recommended. For Amiens, George Durand's monu- mental and exhaustive work, published by the ** Society des Antiquaires de Picardie, 1901." For Rheims, " Ch. Cerf Notre Dame de Rheims," 2 vols. " Histoire et Description," 1861, a second edition in 1908 (?). For Paris, " Description de Notre Dame, Cathedrale de Paris," par M. de Gjuilhermy et VioUet-le-Duc, Paris, 1865, and " La Cathedrale Notre Dame de Paris," par Marcel Aubert, Paris, 1909.
A large number of the statues on the exterior of Notre Dame de Paris are modem restorations executed under the superintendence of Viollet-le-Duc during the early fifties of the last century. Of all the grand cathe- drals of France, the Paris one suffered the most at the hands of the revolutionists ; the Amiens church suffered the least.
The reliefs in the tympana of the several portals at Paris did not suffer so much. The relief in the tympanum of the portal of the Virgin or the northern portal of the west front is one of the most remarkable works of Gothic art.
" The sculpture of the Port ail de la Vierge (Fig. 1) is of a high order. It is not so fully developed as the sculpture of Amiens and Rheims, but shows admirably the extraordinary qualities of French art of the thir- teenth century. Where French stone-cutters of the period got their schooling is one of the great mysteries of art history, for the art seems to have been indigenous, independent and original. It could not have been bom of classic art, for a knowledge of classic art did not reach France until the sixteenth century. It could not have been the offspring of Byzantine art, for it was
HISTORICAL «7
opposed to Byzantine art in every particular. Byzan- tine art was based on rules and precedents. Gothic sculpture looked nature directly in the face and ac- cepted her guidance implicitly. French stone-cutters may have learned from Byzantine masters how to hold a chisel and how to strike it with a hammer, as Giotto may have learned from Byzantine .masters how to pre- pare pigments and how to wield a brush. But then came the parting of the ways. Giottesgue art kept within hail of the Byzantine. French art turned ahruptly away.
" In order to show clearly the character of the sculp- ture of the PortaU de la Yierge, Violiet-ie-Duc caused to be executed a few drawings, which can be better and more easily understood than photographs. They are exact in line and expression and arc free from the obscurities with which time has veiled the original stone.
** This is the head of one of the kings of this portal (Fig. 2). Those who have studied Greek art will recog- nize at once that there is nothing here of the Greek type. The forehead is high and broad, showing pre- dominance of the intellect; the nose is long and fine; the mouth is straight and close; there is not a trace of even refined sensuality. The expression is grave, solemn to the verge of sadness ; a refined face, — a face of Christian experience and faith. The face is indi- vidual yet typical. So many just such faces grace Gothic doorways that the face must be in a measure an accepted type. Yet the features are so human, so individual, that they must have been modeled on those of life. The long waving hair, the cJose-cut beard and the very slight moustache, must have been of the fashion
38 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
of the day. How admirably and artistically they go with the type. In this head are faithfully observed the rules of all the best art periods. Details are sup- pressed. The modeling is large and broad. The con- ception is simple ; its manifestation clear. The artistic beauty of the work is readily perceived and easily ap- preciated. He who has studied Greek sculpture and Italian painting and has profited by the study, will find in Grothic sculpture a new source of enjoyment. He will find the same principles exercised, and the same happy results when the same principles control.
^^ The original Virgin (Fig. S) on the dividing column is a different but equally interesting type. She is de- cidedly aristocratic, of fine intelligence and of quick sensibilities, not a bit ascetic. Her large fat cheeks show that she enjoys the good things of this life and enjoys them heartily. Her mouth is small and is about to break into a smile or a pout. She wears her crown comfortably and her veil falls easily and gracefully. The artist undoubtedly got the type from an inspection of the beauties of the courts of Louis VI and of Louis VII, and his models enjoyed in prospect the honor of the admiration of subsequent ages. You notice in this figure, and you must have noticed in the preceding figure, that the eyes are slightly oblique. This is a peculiarity of the sculpture of the first part of the thirteenth century, when artists were still under the influence of their predecessors, had not entirely freed themselves from Byzantine influence, and still thought that eyes must slant a little to be beautiful.
" Grouping is rare in Gothic sculpture. The archi- tecture furnished few spaces for its exercise. There
1 r
HISTORICAL 39
were no such large spaces as were offered b; Greek pediments. No such continuous lines for friezes as the waJIs of Greek cella. Spaces within Gothic vout- turea were small, triangular, and badly adapted for grouping and action. With larger spaces to fill and with better opportunities, it cannot be doubted that the artists of the Grotliic period would have developed the ability to group satisfactorily and successively ; for in their early ventures they show an excellent ap- prehension of the relation of figures to one another, of their relations to space, and of the proper filiing of spaces. The group of the crowning of the Virgin on this portal is a good example.
" The date cannot be later than 1225 and may be ten or even twenty years earlier. Here the two prin- cipal figures are admirably connected in pose and ges- ture. The Virgin gently bows her head to receive her crown (Fig. 4). The space above her is filled by the crowning angel. In this sketch but one of the two angels is given who fill out the comers of the compo- sition. It would be hard to suggest any alteration to better fill the restricted and angular space. You notice the resemblance between the head of the Saviour and the king's head, shown a moment ago. This shows that the face is typical rather than individual. Do not fail to notice the simple beauty of the draperies." '
Of the upper part, the crowning of the Virgin, Emilc Male writes as follows: * " There is nothing more chaste or more solemn in all the art of the Middle Ages than the crowning of the Virgin in the north portal of Notre
> D. Cady Eaton, "LectUK an NAtre Dune."
t Eoule BUle, "L'wt idigieux du Xm< nide en Fnncc"
40 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Dame de Paris. The Virgin^ seated by the side of her son, turns to him her pure face contemplating him with clasped hands while an angel places a crown on her brow. Jesus resplendent with a divine beauty blesses her and gives her a scepter which breaks forth in flowers. This group was originally gilded and Mary appeared, like the queen of the Psalmist, robed with a cloak of gold. The setting sun in summer gives back to her her pristine dress. All about her in the voussures are angels, kings, prophets, saints, forming the court of the queen of Heaven."
The admirable balance of the whole composition should be studied. The lowest row of six seated figures makes an excellent horizontal support for the central scene, where the smaller standing figures are more numerous and are closer together. The upper group fits well into the space it fills, while the triangular space of the tympanum seems logically divided and admirably surrounded.
At Rheims there are specimens of livelier and more realistic sculpture than at Amiens as this scene of the Visitation shows. The Beau Dieu de Rheims^ however, can hardly be distinguished from the Beau Dieu d* Amiens (Fig. 5) and is nearly if not quite its equal in dignity and grandeur. They are both admirable specimens of Hegel's ** classic " art and of his " severe '* style. Most of the exterior sculpture of Chartres (Fig. 6) is rougher, ruder and less interesting than that of Amiens (Fig. 7), Paris, or Rheims (Fig. 8). On both the north and south sides of the church there are triple advancing portals erected for the reception and display of sculpture. These portals are of later date than
Fig. 6.— CstliMrale de Chartres.
Fig. 8— Cathedrale <le Rlicim
Fig. 9.— Sluter. Lc Piiils de MoLsp. (Dijoti)
HISTORICAL 41
the walls of the church to which they are attached and do not seem to be inherent parts of the edifice, but rather appear as distinct buildings of the nature of museums.
All the larger churches of France have already been studied and monographs describing them have been written. The traveler is recommended to study some one church thoroughly. To the ordinary traveler Notre Dame de Paris is the easiest of access. Let him take Aubert's work with him to the cathedral and follow it through carefully comparing descriptions with the objects described.
paet n
French Ranmiaance Sculpture
French art underwent a great change about the be- ginning of the fourteenth century. Religious zeal gave way to secular and personal sentiment. Church-building on the grand scale of the thirteenth century stopped. The portrait was started, magnificent palaces were built, chapels were introduced into cathedrals and were orna- mented with the statues of their founders and of the reigning sovereign. Realism, with all the term implies, became the dominant factor in art. Then quickly came the Hundred Years' War which, if it did not stop art endeavors, destroyed trace of them. French investi- gators are trying to relind the trace and to build up the art history of these troubled periods. They are making good progress. But until ^ogreps be further advanced and better assured, it were wise only to look at a few of the art things that have been certified, with-
48 MODERN FBENCH SCULPTURE
out attempting to form schools or to trace the origin of styles.
Charles V of France was bom iHj887. At the battle of Poitiers in 1866 from which he ran away as fast as his nineteen-year-old legs would carry him, his father Jean le Bon was made a prisoner hy the En^ish and he became regent of the kingdom. In 1868 Etienne Marcel, the Pr^vot des Marchands de Paris, at the head of an armed mobi broke into Charles' palace and before his eyes slew two of bis principal counselors, the Mar4chauz of Champagne and of Normandy. Charles, after that, fearing to stay in Paris, determined to live outside its walls. He purchased a number of places just outside the walls to the northeast, altered and connected them, and formed them into a magnificent palace which he called H6tel de St. Paul from a neigh- boring church. Nearby he established a Cistercian monastery. In its church he proposed to be buried. Before he died in 1880 the church had become one of the richest in the kingdom. On the outside of the church portal were three statues, the center one on the trtimeav. of Pope C^lestin V. On his left, and to the right of the spectator, was Charles, and on the other side, Jeanne de Bourbon, his wife. The church and monastery were destroyed during the Revolution. Ac- cording to one authority the portal with its statues were standing in 1849. At all events the statues of the King and his Queen found their way to St, Denis where they were known as " St. Louis and his Queen " and were regarded as mortuary. Their true names and character do not seem to have been ascertained and established
HISTORICAL 4S
unta 1904. Since then they have been in the Louvre, in the room called ** Salle dea nouvelles acquisitionB," on the ground floor of the south side of the Cour du Louvre. No more interesting monuments exist of the age in which the; were produced. M. Henri Bouchot writes of them as follows : *' The ' Charles V ' in the reality of its physiognomy and in its general attractive- ness, has a grace and a spirit which are essentially French. The simple and logical style of the drapery is admirable and recalls the drapery of the few authentic French paintings of the day ; notably of the ' Parement de Narhorme' " * The queen Jeanne, full of a familiar good nature, has a most attractive individuality and is a type of a delightful race. As the church was dedi- cated in 1870, the statues may have been executed about that time, or later. Probably later, as Charles appears to be of middle age, if not already an old man. His face is benign but betrays the weakness of age, if not of senility. There is so much of individuality in the features that the likeness must be exact. He stands erect, is crowded, bears the scepter in his right hand; while in his left rests a model of the church. The pose
> ILe Paremeid it Narhonne is a, satin elUr doth about nine feet Vfog and otaAj three feet high. Od it are most exquisite designs of Tarious tccnei from the life of our Lord. The center scene is the cruci- fixica). On each aide of it are narrow panels divided into two vertical p*rta. Id the top parts are, on one aide, the New Testament; on the other, the Old. In the iowo' parts are Charles V and his Queen pray- ing oa their knees. The resemblanoe to the statues is striking. It is suppoaed to have been executed about 1370 by Jean d'Orieana, j)tinlTe du roi, aaaol Ginkid d'Orleans, wbo was peaiire du roi to Jean le Boo. See "Notice dea Desnns. etc.. du Louvre." also, Buchot's cata- logue (d the "EzporitioD des IMmttifs Fran^iis." etc., of 1904, p. 8. Fonneriy in tbe catbedml of Narbonne. it is now one of the treasures of the IiOUTi*.
44 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
of the figure, the turn of the head and the fall of the garments, are worthy and bear the stamp of the best sculpture of the thirteenth century. The Queen is of inferior workmanship. The statues are life size and show traces of having been colored. They prove that there must have existed in France, during the latter half of the fourteenth century, a high school of sculp- ture. That these statues are not by Andre Beauneveu de Valenciennes is evident by comparing them with the mortuary statues in St. Denis which are by Beauneveu. The St. Denis statues were ordered by Charles V in 1864, and were for the tombs of himself, his wife, his father Jean II, and his grandfather Philippe VI, the first of the Valois. The workmanship of the St. Denis statues is coarser and shows little artistic merit. The face of Charles V is interesting as it is undoubtedly a rough likeness of him as he was at about thirty.
When Charles V died he left a son, aged twelve, and three brothers: Louis, due d'Anjou; Jean, due de Berry and Philippe, due de Bourgogne. The due d' Anjou, having been made heir to Jeanne, Queen of Naples, took little interest in French affairs. He de- voted himself to raising troops and money for an ex- pedition into Italy; entered Italy in 1882 and died there in 1384 without having taken possession of his kingdom.
MM. de Champeaux and Gauchery ^ state that after the death of Charles V, the ateliers royaux of Paris were closed and the king's artists took service with the dues
* '*Le9 travaux d'art ex^cut^ pour Jean de Franoe, due de Berry, avec une ^tude biographique sur les artistes employes par ce prinoe." A. de Champeaux — P. Grauchery. Paris, 1804.
HISTORICAL 43
de Berry and Bourgogne. Among these artists are men- tioned the sculptors Jean de Li^ge and Andr^ Beaune- veu de Valenciennes.* Beauneveu, who has already been mentioned, after the death of Charles V returned to Flanders and executed tombs for Louis de Male, Comte de Flandre. After the death of the count in 1884, Beauneveu entered the service of the due de Berry and remained with him until his own death in 1400. He became celebrated as a painter as well as a sculptor, and there are to-day at both Bruges and Poitiers works which are attributed to his hand.
After the building of the Sainte Chapelle in Paris by St. Louis it became the fashion for French kings and royal princes to attach chapels to their palaces and to build them in imitation of the chapel at Paris. The due de Berry erected such chapels in connection with his palaces at Bourges, Poitiers and Riom, in the Auvergne.
To be entitled to be called a Sainte Chapelle, the chapel must contain a relic. The chapel at Bourges had statues within and without of the duke and of Jeanne de Boulogne, his consort, presumably by Beauneveu or his pupils. The chapel was destroyed by a hurricane in 1766- Rescued fragments were placed in the cathe- dral. Here they wore again visited by the destructive hurricane of the Revolution. Of the surviving frag- ments some are still in the cathedral and some in the city museum. A figure of the duke from the exterior of the chapel is in the crypt of the cathedral and is still in a fair state of preservation. The figure is plump,
■ "There are few Dames greater in the history of our art." Tnuis. fn>m GoDse.
46 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Is kneeling on a cushion in the attitude of prayer, and is clothed in a long embroidered robe. That the statue was colored is still evident. The head is round; the face is square; the forehead is low and broad; the eyes are wide apart and narrow; the nose is wide at the base and common; so is the mouth. The chin is broad. The expression is good-natured and rather sensual. There is a total absence of majesty, dignity or even aristocracy. One would say a good-natured, rather sharp, store or hotel keeper. Back of the high altar in the chapel was another altar and back and above it a group of the Madonna seated in a high armed chair covered with a rich cloth and holding the infant Saviour on her knees. On each side of the chair were two small standing angels in high relief. On each side of the altar and on a lower level were kneeling statues of the duke and his wife. All of these statues were greatly injured during the Revolution. What is left of them is in the absidal chapel of the cathedral. There are in existence from these works most interesting sketches of the statues of the duke and of his wife. These sketches are in the Museum of Bale in Switzer- land and are attributed to Holbein, though when Hol- bein was at Bourges is not known, nor how he came to be there. These sketches are admirably done and are full of life and character. The head of the duchess is particularly excellent. The contrast between her fine and aristocratic features and the coarse and common features of the duke is striking. If the statues were the work of Beauneveu, Beauneveu had become an artist of superior ability.
The tomb of the duke was another typical work of
lO.-^SIuter. Le Piiits dp Motsc. (I)ij„„)
s o
c s
a
o
>
CD
sS
73
S
3 C/5
^^sm
^^
n
HISTORICAL 47
the day. In accordance with the custom supposed to have been established bj Louis IX for his children, it was to consist of a long elevated pedestal supporting the sarcophagus on which was the recumbent image of the deceased. The sarcophagus was surrounded by niches in which were figures called " Pleurants " or mourners. These figures were supposed to represent some of the personages who took part in the funeral procession. The real " Pleurants " on whose statues the sculptors of the fourteenth century exercised their skill were hired monkish mourners who by sound and gesture added active mourning to the funeral services. The duke's tomb was designed by an artist named Jean de Cambray, one of Beauneveu's pupils. He was bom at Rupuy, a little town in Picardy, not far from Saint Quentin and was first known as Jean de Rupuy but after he moved to Cambray he was known as Jean de Cambray. After working for Louis, Comte de Flandre, he was transferred to the service of the due de Berry. He died in 1488, having completed the effigy of the duke. Owing to the troubles of the times the tomb itself was not finished until long after the duke's death and by artists whose names suggest Flemish origin.
When completed, about 1467, it stood in the center of the choir of the Sainte Chapelle. When the Sainte Chapelle was destroyed in 1767, it was transported to the crypt of the Cathedral. At the time a detailed de- scription of it was written which may be found on the forty-third page of de Champeaux and Gauchery's most interesting work. During the Revolution the tomb was broken to pieces and its fragments scattered.
The effigy of the duke has been re-created in the
48 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
crypt of the cathedral and some of the ** Pleurants '* are in the Museum. The effigy is of admirable work- manship. Jean de Cambray must be regarded as the best of Beauneveu's pupils, as even superior to his mas- ter in delicacy and finish of execution. Especially fine is the disposal of the drapery. The " Pleurants '* in the Museum are capital specimens of this kind of sculp- ture and show how admirably the professional mourners of the day earned their wages.
The limits of this book will not allow further notice of the magnificence of the due de Berry. To all who read French and to whom the duke is an interesting character, the work to which reference htw already been made is earnestly recommended.
The fourth son of King John was Philippe, surnamed le Hardi on account of the valor he displayed at the battle of Poitiers where, though but fifteen, he fought at his father's side until wounded and a prisoner. He was his father's favorite son. In 1863 his father made him Duke of Burgundy, which had been but a short time before reunited to the French Crown. Philippe took possession of the duchy in 1864 when twenty-two. In 1369 he married the heiress of Flanders and from that time until his death in 1404, at the age of sixty- two, he was one of the richest, wisest and most sumptu- ous sovereigns of Europe. He shared his family's love for the fine arts, and his capital, Dijon, was the rendez- vous of the best architects, painters and sculptors of the day. Here they could work in safety because Dijon was outside the devastations of the Hundred Years' War. Some writers maintain that the fine arts of the court of Burgundy were distinctly Flemish and not
HISTORICAL 49
French; that the chief artisU of the duke and of h)s successors were from Flanders and that their works have no place in a history of French art. Other writers assert that until the death of Charles V, Paris con- tained the only established art school in the north of Europe, where French, Flemings and Dutch were drilled in the same principles and practices, and that differences between them were personal and superficial. The truth will be clearer as investigations progress. The question is interesting to the archeologist. Of far more interest to the art student is it to study and enjoy those works of art of the period which still exist.
In 1879 Philippe found time to consider his religious interests. He determined to found a Cistercian monas- tery at Cbampanol close to the gates of Dijon, and to build a Sainte Chapelle in connection with it, where he and his successors could be sumptuously buried. The buildings were finished and dedicated in 1888. Drouet de Dammartin was the duke's maittre general de te* ceuvrei de mofonnerie pour toug set pais. Drouet was French and bad already worked on the Louvre for Charles V, and on the Tour de Nesle in Paris for the due de Berry; As his principal imagier Drouet em- ployed Jean de Marville, who had also been employed by Charles V, but who is not so well known as Claus Sluter who was at first employed as de Marville's assist- ant but who after de Marville's death in 1889 was pro- moted to the first place. At all events many of the works still in existence at Dijon are attributed to Sluter and his pupils. Sluter, as his name implies, was from the Netherlands. Little as yet is known of his history.
The Duke's Sainte Chapelle was built, as were other
50 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Saintes Chapelles, in imitation of the original one of St. Louis in Paris. About the entrance were several statues. In the center, the Virgin and the infant Saviour; on the left of the spectator the duke on his knees presented to the Virgin by John the Baptist; and on the right, the duchess, on her knees, presented by Ste. Catherine. During the Revolution the chapel was destroyed, with the exception of these figures and the portal to which they were attached, and which to- day is the portal of the church of the lunatic asylum, which covers the site of the monastery.
Of these figures Gonse writes as follows in his ^* Art Gothique," page 442 : " In the presence of these spirited images, released from stone by an imperial mastery and overflowing with life, expression and character, you are apt to forget that you are yet in touch with the four^ teenth century and that a hundred years must pass be- fore Michael Angelo can appear. Two of these figures, especially those of the duke and of Ste. Catherine, are incomparable for grandeur, force and boldness. In them has the innovating genius of Sluter had its most radiant flight. The face of the duke is an iconic of the first order. To find its equal you must reach to the highest summits of art, to the CoUeone of Verocchio; to the Voltaire of Houdon, or to the Ney of Franfois Rude."
A work of still greater interest and of which the most interesting parts have been preserved was a CcHvaire erected in the center of the cloisters of the monastery. It occupied the center of a large cistern. On the top of an ample support which reached above the surface of the water, was a six-sided structure, bearing on each
HISTORICAL 01
side a life-size figure of one of the six great prophets who predicted the coming of Christ: Moses, David, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and Isaiah, Eacti prophet is on a bracket. Between each two is a column on which is a winged angel crouching beneath a large hexagonal cornice which served as a basis for the platform which supported the Calvaire, At about the height of the heads of the prophets is another, and much smaller hexagonal cornice, surmounting archatures which give background to the statues. The Calvaire disappeared before the time of the Revolution, probably through neglect and exposure. Only two recognizable pieces are left. These are in the Dijon Museum and are: the torso of Christ and an arm of the Magdalene. The figures of the prophets, in a measure under cover, escaped damage, nor did the revolutionists hurt them; only trifling details needed restoration. The work is sup- posed to have been ordered about 189S and the Calvaire to have been finished in 1899. The same year Sluter commenced the angels and the prophets which were all finished before 1406. Sinter's principal assistant was his nephew, Claus de Werve, whom he had called to his assistance in 1896. Called at first the Well of the Prophets, the work has come to be called the Well of Moses, Le Puitt de Moue (Figs. 9 and 10), because the figure of Moses is the most striking of the six. Gonse thus writes of the composition: *' For those who have not seen this moving and profoundly individualized conception ; these tragic angels ; these grand prophets, the large and free execution, the flavored singularity of style, phrases would be in vain. . . . Each one of the prophets is a veritable portrait, a dramatized portrait,
52 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
after the fashion of Rembrandt's biblical personages. The heads have an accent of nature which no master has ever surpassed, an inflexible sincerity which does not in the least interfere — let it be well observed — with the elevation of the thought, or the intensity of the sentiment. All these figures are worthy of the most concentrated attention. . . • The author of le Putts de MdUe should be classed with the great geniuses of the northern races, between the Van Eycks and the painter of the Syndics.**
Alfonse Grermain is more detailed in his description: " The figures of this monument assure for ever the glory of their author. They constitute an event in the history of art and are a source of instruction. The angels while playing their parts as supports add to the emotional effect of the whole by manifesting their com- passion. As to the prophets, they are speaking images of marvelous naturalness and of admirable individ- uality. Moses has the haughty air of energy and re- solve becoming to the leader of a primitive people. His face is the face of an inflexible volunteer with an upright spirit ; of a leader with clear visions. His pose is that of a chief, sure of himself, whom no fear can stop. He is as firm as an immovable rock. His extreme tenacity is shown in the profile of his forehead, in the lines of his chin which show through his beard, and even in the long joints of his thumb. His eyebrows, his nose, and his mouth show us that he is jealous of his rights and will not suffer his orders to be neglected. Everything about him shows forth authority, uprightness and moral force. He is bom to organize men and to manipulate them. He imposes with his leonine head as a heroic
Fig. 17. — Colombf. Entombment. (Solcsmes)
HISTORICAL 5S
patriarch. Bj the side of such a chief, David, in spite of his crown, appears like a subaltern functionary, a most ordinary personage. Jeremiah attracts sympathy by his air of a wise old man with a fine and indulgent smile. Zechariah has the face of an upright merchant who has grown gray hehind his counter. He holds his phylactery as if offering it for sale. Daniel holds his with a firm grasp as if it were a tahle of the law, and with a dominating finger seems to be ordering some- one to read it. His profile is like that of an angry eagle. His countenance and his manner reveal a stem authority, inclined to anger and uncompromising. Isaiah offers, on the other hand, a type of kind hu- manity. With his bald head, his luxuriant beard and his meditative expression, he suggests an old anchorite who, having overcome the vanities of this world is ready to console every unfortunate."
In anatomy and proportions the figures are not cor- rect nor are they posed well within their centers of gravity. But the general effect is so strong that these defects, and defects in the arrangement of the draperies, do not attract attention. The dresses are supposed to be those worn by actors in the " mysteries " of the day. The whole composition was colored, and colored by skilled artists whose names are unknown. As late as 1882 the colors were sufficiently distinct to be detected and to enable the original color scheme to be understood. The great drawback to a visit to the work is its situa- tion in the middle of the court of a lunatic asylum, where the visitor is assailed by demoniac howls which make a long stay impossible and any stay at all im- possible to the sensitive.
54 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Another great work in which Sluter had a part, was the tomb of Philippe le Hardi (Fig. 11), erected within the chapel of the monastery. The tomb was ordered of Jean de Marville who drew the general plan, but had done but little more than erect the masonry before his death in 1389. After his death nothing seems to have been done for about three years, as Sluter was occupied with the p/ophets and with other orders he had received from the duke. When the duke died in 1404, the tomb was far from finished. Two years after, Sluter died. Then Glaus de Werve took up the work which was finished about 1410. In the meantime Jean sans Peur, Philippe's son and successor, had ordered of Glaus a tomb for himself and his duchess. Marguerite de Baviere (Fig. 12). This second tomb was not fin- ished until about 1470 and after the death of Philippe le Bon who died in 1467. The two tombs stood side by side in the chapel of the Chartreuse until the Revo- lution. Then they were broken up, the contents de- stroyed, and the pieces scattered. In 1827 the tombs were restored. They are now in the Museum of Dijon. The "Pleurants" (Figs. 18 and 14) which constituted the distinguishing feature of the tombs were not all recovered and the restorers did not know their proper order. As a result some of the " Pleurants *' are copies, and some belonging to one tomb are on the other. Four " Pleurants " from the tomb of Philippe le Hardi are in the Hotel Gluny in Paris and show forth admirably the wonderful art of Claus Sluter and Glaus de Werve. Both tombs at Dijon are within gratings which prevent close inspection. They are oblong, rectangular, ele- vated structures of about the same length and height.
HISTORICAL 55
The tomb of Philippe le Hardi is odI; about half the width of the one of his son and his son's duchess. The main body of each tomb rests on a wide-stepped black marble plinth and is surmounted by an overhanging black marble pediment for the support of the figures. Around each tomb are delicate Crothic arcades in ala- baster containing " Pleurants " also in alabaster. The figures on the tombs are in no way remarkable. The " Pleurants," on the contrary are among the finest specimens of the realistic sculpture of the century. Every one is worthy of particular attention ; for every one is true to life and is rendered with a rare appre- hension of character. At first, on account of their mourning cloaks, it was supposed that all the ** Pleu- rants " were monks as professional mourners, but now it has been recognized that beneath the cloaks are hid- den officials of the court and other civilians, as well as monks; specimens of all those who may have com- posed the dukes* funeral processions.
Prom a critical point of view the " Pleurants " of the first tomb are superior to those of the second tomb, while the figures of the second tomb, supposed to be by an artist from Avignon named Antoine Ic Moiturier, are superior to the image on the first tomb. While the " Pleurants *' may display a Flanders or Dutch spirit, the images are decidedly French.
The very remarkable effigy of Philippe Pot in the Louvre (Fig- 15) must be of the sdiool of Sluter and Werve. Philippe Pot was grand seneschal of Bur- gundy under Philippe le Bon. He was bom in 1448, died in 1494, and was buried in the monastery of Cer- vauz, about fifteen miles south of Dijon. The effigy
56 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
was removed to Paris during the Revolution. The fig- ure fully armed lies on its back on a heavy slab of marble which is supported on the shoulders of eight " Pleurants." Over their heavy robes they bear shields on which are the armorial bearings of their lord and of his family connections. Cowls hide their faces. Look under them and see the expressions. These fig- ures seem as much depressed by their grief as by the weight they are bearing. Their attitude and their arrangement show fine artistic apprehension. As M. Germain states : " From their rigid garments with their well composed folds there emanates an immense sadness."
Next to Sluter and his school come MICHEL COLOMBE and his school. Colombe is supposed to have been bom about 1480 somewhere in Brittany. When a young man he visited Dijon and studied long and well the works of his predecessors. This is denied by some of his historians. When his study years were over he settled in Tours. He lived to a great age and was active at eighty. Of definite information about him there is little. The years of his activity were after the Hundred Years* War, but during the turbulent reigns of Charles VIII and Louis XII.
Francis II, last duke of Brittany, died in 1488 leav- ing a daughter Anne, who was married to Charles VIII of France in 1491 when she was fifteen. After her marriage she determined to erect at Nantes a tomb to her mother and father (Fig. 16). The work, how- ever, was not commenced until 1502. She employed Jean Perreal as general designer and architect and he
HISTORICAL
tS^
employed Colombe for the principal figures. It was the custom of the times for large undertakings always to have a designer, an architect, or an all-around artist at the head of the work ; associated with him a sculptor and sometimes a third party as decorator. Jean Fer- r^al had charge of the artistic activities of Charles VIII and was in high favor with both Louis XII and Francis I up to the time of his death about 1628. He was bom in Lyons about 1470. He accompanied both Charles VIII and Louis XII, on their Italian expedi- tions and returned each time to France more filled with the spirit of Italian art. The tomb escaped the Revolution and is now in the cathedral of Nantes, a monument of the art of the times and of Colombe's phantasy. It is a large altar tomb of marble; the figures in white marble and the surroundings in black. Upon it are the recumbent figures of the duke and his consort. Their heads rest on cushions supported by angels ; their feet rest against a lion and a greyhound. At the comers of the tomb are standing allegorical statues: Justice with sword and scales, said to be a portrait of Queen Anne, Power, strangling a dragon which crawls from a tower; the dragoit representing heresy. Prudence, bearing a mirror and a compass. She has two faces; the one at the back of her heaa is that of an old man, with it she observes the past. With the compass she defines her position, with" the mirror she sees it. Temperance holds a lantern and carries a horse's bit. She would see where she is going and would restrain her steps. Along each side of the monument are small niches containing statues of the twelve apostles, and beneath the niches, small ovals con-
58 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
taining " Pleurants.'* At the head in the niches are St. Louis and Charlemagne; at the foot, St. Francis and St. Margaret.
Of the comer statues Gronse writes as follows : ^* The invention is of the rarest ingeniousness and of an alle- gorical subtlety which does not detract from their no* bility. With the exception of a slight breath of human- ism which accords with the sentiment of the period, the manner is still quite Gothic. The two most remarkable statues without dispute, are Force and Prudence. They are delicious. Force wears on her head a helmet spi- rated like the shell of a snail and on her breast a mag- nificent piece of armor covered with arabesques carved with the minutest care. From a minute donjon she holds in her left hand, she draws with her right a small resisting dragon. Prudence, like Janus, is double- faced. One face represents a lovely young woman ; the other, an old man with a long beard.*'
Apart from their symbolism, the four statues are not interesting. They are stiff and have no expression. The drapery is well ordered and graceful and the statues play their parts well in their respective corners. The tomb was originally erected in a Carmelite monas- tery in the outskirts of the city. During the Revolu- tion the monastery was suppressed, the tomb broken open and its contents destroyed. It is now said to contain the remains of an earlier duke of Brittany, of the time of Charles VII.
Another remarkable work is attributed to Colombe by two famous French critics, Gonse and L^on Palustre, but not on evidence that seems conclusive; that is the "Entombment" at Solesmes (Fig. 17). Solesmes is
:^^^yrs
Fig. 21.— Colomln-. Soulier in Itulian Armor. (Solt-snics)
HISTORICAL 59
a little town on the river Sarthe about twenty miles from Angers, where the Sarthe flows into the Loire. At Solesmes was a monastery as far back as the eleventh century. The ecclesiastical buildings there now were almost entirely rebuilt between 1860 and 1898 in the purest style of the thirteenth century. The existing church (Figs. 18 and 19) is of the thii^ teenth century with additions and changes of the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries. The sculpture, which is the great ornament of the church is at the end of the transepts. At the south end, attributed to Colombe, or his pupils, is the interment of Christ; at the north end, and evidently at least fifty years later, are scenes from the life of the Virgin (Fig. 20).
The work at the end of the south transept is di- vided into two vertical parts. The lower part seems like a vast chimney-piece. Beneath a late Crothic depressed arch, eight life-sized figures are performing the en- tombment of our Lord. At each side of the arch and separated from the central group, stands a soldier in Italian armor (Fig. 21). The arch is closed by two pilasters profusely decorated with Italian renaissance designs. Above the arch are broad bands of very late Gothic decorations. The part above is a fanciful repre- sentation of the crucifixion. In the center, within a sanctuary, is a small angel holding a large wooden cross five tiroes his height. On each side are larger spaces within elliptoid arches surmounted by high og£e en accolade arches. Within these spaces are David and Isaiah — half length — with rolls bearing prophecies. Outside these spaces are two more angels with instru- ments of our Lord's passion, standing in front of very
60 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
tall crosses on which hang the thieves. On a level with the thieves, and on each side the central cross, stand two more small angels bearing other instruments of the passion. This part of the work is of very late Gothic, but shows no trace of Italian renaissance ornamenta- tion. The entombment itself is the portion of the work which is supposed to have been designed and par- tially executed by Colombe. It consists of eight figures. The body of our Lord, held in a sheet, is being lowered into his sepulchre by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arima- thea. Joseph of Arimathea, on the right, is a majestic figure and is said to be a portrait of King Rene of Provence. He is dressed in a costume of the time of Louis XI, and has about his neck a collar of some order of chivalry. The figures standing back of the body of our Saviour are of inferior design and work- manship. They are the Virgin with St. John and an- other disciple on her right, and the two Marys on her left. In front of the tomb, sitting by herself, is Mary Magdalene (Fig. 22), a figure so different and so su- perior to all the others, that it seems as if it must have had a different origin. Its pedestal and the pedestals of the two soldiers are similar. The soldiers have been so damaged that judgment cannot be passed on their merits. They and the Magdalene may be later and Italian additions. The complicated questions connected with the Solesmes sculpture are fully treated by Paul Vitry in his " Michel Colombe et la Sculpture Fran9aise de son temps,*' t. VIII, p. 278. A work undoubtedly by Colombe is a bas-relief in the Louvre, representing St. George and the Dragon (Fig. 28). It was ordered for the high altar of the chapel of the Chateau de
1
HISTORICAL 61
Gaillon b; the Cardinal Georges d'Amboise and was executed at Tours in 1508.
Gaillon is a little town near the river Seine and about twentj-five miles above Rouen. It occupies a magiu6cent site, commanding extensive views. Here during the Middle Ages was a fortress belonging to the archbishops of Rouen. During the fifteenth century when fortresses were passing out of fashion, the fortress was succeeded by a chateau. The Cardinal Georges d*Amboise, prime minister under Louis XII, and one of the best and greatest men of his generation, determined that Gaillon should be second to no chateau in France. The improvements he planned and did not live to com- plete were carried out by his nephew and successor, un- til Gaillon was truly without a rival. The foremost architects, sculptors and painters of France and Italy were invited to compete. Existing documents give some of their names, and names the works to which they were assigned. The magnificence of the building was sus- tained until the Revolution. In 1798 every work of art, every bit of marble, or stone, that would bring a price, was sold. In 1818 the materials of the cb&teau were partially used in building an enormous jail which now crowns the eminence where once the chateau stood. Many bits from Gaillon have found their way into the museums of Rouen and Paris. The Ecole des Beaux Arts has a number; so has the Louvre, Cluny and St. Denis. Their identification is a study. A further study is to distinguish the French from the Italian. Colombe's " Relief " has been fully identified. Its his- tory has been established beyond dispute. It must be accepted as the best existing manifestation of his
62 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
style. Leon Palustre thus writes of it : " One would say that the great sculptor wished to measure himself with painting and that he did not hesitate to use its diversity of planes, nor its effects of perspective. But this defect which must be noticed from the point of view of the strict rules of art, is compensated by beauties of the first order. Nothing is more admirable than the saint in his warlike accoutrements intrepidly charging the dragon, who lifts himself on his hind legs to take the offensive. As to the young girl who prays apart for the victory of her champion, she is as remarkable for the elegance of her deportment as for the suavity of her physiognomy.*'
To the ordinary observer the composition will ap- pear more toylike than tragic. The horse is a play horse; the dragon excites pity; while the dear little lady in the background on one knee and with her par- tially outstretched hands, is expressing a mild and gentle surprise.
The last work of importance with which the name of Colombe is associated, is the church of Brou in Savoy. Marguerite d'Autriche, daughter of the Em- peror Maximilian, was born in Brussels in 1480, and died in Malines, near t)y, in 1530. When she was two, she was betrothed t^ the future Charles VIII of France and sent to Paris to be educated in accordance with French ideas. When she was thirteen, Charles repu- diated her and sent her home. When seventeen, she was married to John, Infant of Spain. Within a year she lost her husband and child, and once more returned home. When twenty-one, she was married to Philibert II, le Beau, due de Savoie, who died three years after-
HISTORICAL 63
ward. The church of Brou (Fig. 24), close to the citj of Bourg, was erected as the resting-place of her last mother-in-law, her husband and herself.
It is known that Perreal and Colombe were the first artists engaged by Marguerite. It is also known that she quarreled with and discharged them, and filled their places with artists from the Netherlands. The time and cause of the quarrel are not known, nor how far the original plans were preserved. Critics claim to he able to distinguish between French work and Flemish and to assign to each set of artists their part. The idea of the church and its accompanying monastery originated with Marguerite de Bourbon, wife of Philippe II and mother of Philibert II, or le Beau. In 1480 Philippe was severely wounded while hunting and his wife vowed a monastery to St. Nicholas of Tolen- tino should he be restored to health. He was restored. The wife died when she had hardly commenced the accomplishment of the vow; and the husband forth- with remarried. This is probably the reason why his tomb does not appear with the others. Neither the exterior nor the interior architecture of the church is remarkable. The charm is in the unsurpassed richness of the very late Gothic and early renaissance sculpture and ornamentation of the three tombs in the choir, of the rood screen and of the tabernacle of the Virgin.
In the center of the choir and not far from the altar steps, stands Philibert's tomb. Under the first arches of the choir are, on the right, the tomb of his mother and on the left the tomb of his wife. The feet of all three are towards the altar. In accordance with the growing fashion, Philibert is represented twice;
64 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
once dead and naked within the arcades of the tomb, and once alive, but prone, on top of the tomb. The tomb itself consists of double arcades of most rich, elaborate and intricate carving. At each comer are two niches; two more in the middle of each side. In each niche is a small clothed figure representing a sibyl. Some are apparently of French, others apparently of Flemish, workmanship. The other figure represents Philibert in armor and regal cloak, on his back, with his head on a cushion and his feet reposing against a lion. He turns his eyes towards his wife, but his joined hands towards his mother. Six lovely cupids stand about him; two at his head, two at his feet, and one on each side of him, holding pieces of his armor. A more admirably designed and more superbly exe- cuted tomb does not exist.
The tomb of his wife, Marguerite d'Autriche (Fig. 25), is equally lavish in decoration. She too is repre- sented twice. Below she is shown dead and in a shroud, with long, streaming and curly hair. Above she is in the robes of her rank, with coronet. She lies on her back with her head resting on a cushion. Her eyes are open and gaze upwards. Two cupids are at her feet, two at her head. Over the tomb rises a superb quadrangular arcade, profusely decorated with niches, little statues and every imaginable very late Grothic and very early French renaissance carving. Here and there appears her motto : Fortune^ infortune, fort une^ which may be translated : " In fortune and misfortune, there is one who remains strong.*'
The third tomb is only a little less sumptuous in comparison and because some of its ornamental carving
Fis. 21.— Church of Broil.
Fig. 25. — Tomb of Marguerite d'Autriche. (Brou)
HISTORICAL 65
has been broken. The tomb is within an arcade. The duchess in her robes and wearing her coronet, lies on her back with her open eyes turned towards her son. There is no gitant; but beneath the slab on which the duchess rests are nine niches ; in four are *' Pleurants " and in five, cupids holding square armorial shields. Four more larger cupids, also with armorial shields, are within the arcade. The arcade itself is of the richest flamboyant Gothic. Superb columns are on either side; on each, three pedestals with statues of saints beneath canopies of the richest carving. These three tombs with the Ritable of the Virgin in a nearby chapel, are as fine specimens as exist of the rich ornamentation that preceded the introduction into France of the Italian renaissance. The figures of Philibert and of his mother are worthy of the chisel of Colombe. The head of the duchess is noble and lovely- The hand of Netherland artists is easily detected in the RStable and in the stall-carvings of the choir.
There is in the Louvre a group of the Madonna and Child which roust be the work of a great artist; for it has many of the qualities of a fine work of art, grace, dignity, self-contained and impressive beauty. It is called the Madonna of Olivet (Fig, 26) from the name of a chateau near Orleans where it was found. It has so many details of style in common with works attributed to Colombe that it must be of his school and may be by his hand. If by his hand then he was more of an artist and a better master of anatomy than his other works would indicate. Gonse is so enthusi- astic in his admiration that he proclaims it Co1ombe*s chef d'auvre. M. de Montaiglon was the first to call
66 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
attention to the work.^ The following extracts are freely translated from his description. ** The plinth on which the statue rests ascends slightly from the front, indicating that the statue must have been placed above the level of the eyes. Weather marks on the lower part of the statue show that it was placed out of doors and that only the upper part was well pro- tected. It probably stood on the trumeau of a church entrance. Traces of color may still be seen on the hair and on the garments.* The veil, brought together in front, is held by a large buckle on which may be made out the letters O. A. M. R. I. and A. which may have formed part of an invocation beginning * O Maria ! '
** The divine child whose hair curls tightly is fat and smiling. The upper part of his body is naked; the under part is draped with a cloth of which he holds the ends. He also holds a bit of the veil which hangs from the buckle. The face has little expression and the feet are carelessly executed. The artist gave his best attention to the Virgin whose face is beautiful and whose garments are arranged with wonderful dig- nity, simplicity, truth and effect. The artist has not sought for aristocratic refinement. The hands are well shaped, but large and strong, adapted to work. The face is large and full, with a high, rounded fore- head and eyes wide apart. The same type is seen in one of the Virtues of the tomb at Nantes and is seen
> Anatole de Gourde de MontAiglon (1824-1895), French erudite, bibliographer and compiler. The description occurs in an article by him entitled "Les Justes en Italic et en France." "Gazette des Beaux Arts," 2d periode, t. XII et suivants.
' About disappeared, Ed. 1911.
HISTORICAL 67
to-day in the girls along the river Loire, who wear just such shoes with just such thick soles. The sculptor has only added the expression of respect which should characterize the solemn love of the God child. He has further and in a very charming manner indicated this sentiment of respect. The hands of the Virgin do not touch the flesh of the child, but only the cloth which surrounds the lower part of its body, and that part of her cloak with which she has made a cushion for its feet.
" Another remarkable peculiarity of the group is that the child is held on the Virgin's riglit arm instead of on her left. It is just as easy to carry a child on one arm as on the other. The left is generally selected in order to keep the right free for action, or defense. Here the contrary must have been selected either for picturesquencss, or to give the child additional honor. Whether by Michel Colombe, or not, the work is the work of a master. If not by him it must have been inspired by him, it comes from his school, it was bom beneath his eyes and the pupil who produced it was worthy of the master."
Of all works of its day there is no one in which the dignified reserve of the Gothic of the thirteenth cen- tury is more admirably blended with the realism of the following art epoch.
In the opinion of to-day's critics the majority of the Italian artists who forsook their country for France during the reigns of Charles VIII and Louis XII were actuated by the same motives which generally actuate emigrants. That is, they desired to better
68 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
their condition. They were, therefore, not among the great artists who always find plenty of remunerative occupation at home, but among the younger and the immature practitioners and artificers. Exceptions there were and notable ones, especially after 1500. Among the very first to leave Italy was Greronimo of Fiesole, near Florence, who came to Tours, entered Colombe's studio and assisted him in many of his works. His Italian art is evident in the decorations of the Tomb of Francis of Burgundy, the Entombment of Solesmes and the Tomb of the children of Charles VIII at Tours.^ Jerome was followed by artists of the name of di Giusto Betti, who settled in Tours, became eminent and established a dynasty of sculp- tors. That they were attracted to Tours by the popu- larity of the school established by Colombe, may be assumed. That they were active in it, has not been established. The eldest Antonio di Giusto Betti, was born in 1479 in San Martino, near Florence. He is supposed to have left Italy for France before 1600 and to have brought with him a young brother named Giovanni. In France they were called " Juste," An- toine and Jean Juste. Antoine died in 1519, leaving a son Antoine who was born in 1505 and lived until 1558. Jean also had children. The Justes continued to be known during the greater part of the sixteenth century. The first work on which the Justes were employed was the tomb of Thomas James, bishop of Dol, a small town in the northeast comer of Brittany, near the bay of St. Michel. Gonse supposes that An- toine made the plan and that Jean did the work. The
^ Tliis 18 at the church of St. Gatien^ and should be seen.
HISTOEICAL 69
tomb was executed betwecB the years 1605 and 1507. Though damaged and shabbily restored it still is a striking moniunent. It stands in the transept of the cathedra] of Dol and is purely Italian in design and construction. Another and a great work on which the Justes were employed was the tomb of Louis XII and Anne de Bretagne (Fig. 27), ordered by Francis I, in 1516, the year after Louis* death and the beginning of bis own reign. It was not finished until 1532, six- teen years after it was planned. The tomb still stands in its original position in the cathedral of St. Denis, and is one of the most important works of art of the first half of the sixteenth century. It is a rectangular structure, about twice as long as it is broad, composed of high arcades headed by round arches. There are four openings on the sides and two at the ends. The structure rests on a wide plinth, supported by broad steps and carries tablemont, projecting cornice and platform. On top are the kneeling figures of Louis and Anne. Stylobates fill the openings high enough up from the plinth to constitute seats. On the plat- form are figures of Louis and Anne dressed as for a court ceremony and kneeling before small altars. The kneeling attitude on a tomb is said to have been in- troduced into France by Guido Mazzoni ^ of Modena, in his tomb of Charles VIII. Within the arcades is a sarcophagus. Stretched out on it are the nude and
* Mww"' was bom in ModeiiK in lUO. He BccompaDi«d Clurlefl VUl back to Prance in 14M, and stayed in France twenty years, ac- qniriug wealth and honor. He then returned to Modena where he died in 1618, If the Solemies «culptiire« were not eiecuted until otter 1494 Mazioiu may have had a hand in them; for it was in woriu of the Idnd that be made bii It»liaa reputation.
70 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
dead figures of Louis and Anne, gisants as they are called. Thp origin of gisants is obscure. They re- sulted from the unpleasant ideas of death entertained during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One of the earliest was on the tomb of Cardinal de Lagrange, who died at Avignon in 1404. Lagrange was at one time bishop of Amiens and treasurer of Charles V. He incurred the hostility of Charles VI by attempting to curb his extravagance when dauphin. After the death of Charles V, he took refuge at the papal court in Avignon. Seated on the stylobates, within the arches, and partially hiding the giscmts^ are small statues of the twelve apostles. Seated on the corners of the plinth, are large figures of the virtues. Force, Pru- dence, Justice and Temperance. On the sides of the plinth, in low relief, are representations of the king's valiant deeds: his entry into Milan in 1500; the con- quest of Genoa in 1507; the battle of Agnadel in 1509, and the surrender of the Venetian general after the battle.
It is evident that several hands worked on the tomb. The kneeling figures are excellent, particularly the figure of the king. The apostles are without style or char- acter; the virtues are without grace or beauty. They may be a subsequent addition, as in some early draw- ings of the tomb they do not appear. The bas-reliefs and the arabesques on the arcades are in the best Italian style. The kneeling figures are so excellent and so thoroughly French in composition and treatment that they may have come from Colombe's studio. The work is assigned to Jean Juste and to his descendants. It is to be hoped that soon, definite dates and names may
Kig. 26.— Colonibf. Madonna of Olivet. (Louvre)
Fig. 28. — Tomh of Georges d'Amboise. (Rouen)
!9. — Boutemps, Um holding Heart of Francis I. (St. Denis)
HISTORICAL 71
be found for this period of French art history, which grows in interest as it is better known.
Another monument of this period, about which there is equal uncertainty of authorship, is the tomb of George d'Amboise (Fig. 28) and his nephew in the cathedral of Rouen. George, the elder, died in 1610 — George, his nephew, who succeeded to his dignities, lived until 1560. The tomb was commenced during the lifetime of the elder and intended for him alone. His statue was to be the only one to occupy the center of the structure and to have an angel on each side of it. The nephew pushed it along to the left so as to make room for a statue of the same size of himself. In 1546 the nephew was created a cardinal and in his will, exe- cuted but a short time before his death, he gave direc- tions that his statue should be replaced by a new one in cardinal's robes. This was done after his death. Both statues are on their knees, are turned to the left of the spectator, and are under a magnificent carved stone dais that curves out over their heads. Gonse, in his " La Sculpture Fran^aise," writes as follows of the monument: "Erected to the memory of the cardi- nals of Amboise, it is one of the most splendid works of the Renaissance. It adorns the south side of the chapel of the Virgin of the cathedral of Rouen and faces the tombs of the Br^s. No work in France, in Italy, or in Spain surpasses it in profusion of details, or in magnificence of workmanship. For the proprie- tors of Gaillon nothing was too beautiful, nothing too ostentatious. It is therefore natural to suppose that the most eminent artiste were invited to compete in the enterprise. It undoubtedly occupied the attention of
72 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
the great cardinal during his lifetime (his will is in proof) and portions may have been executed under his inspection."
Gonse calls attention to the fact that the lower por- tion of the structure, the part beneath the statues, is of different material and of evidently earlier workman- ship than the part above the statues, and to the re- semblances between the statues of virtues in the lower part and the statues at the comers of the tomb at Nantes. Gronse regards the statue of the elder cardi- nal as one of the most remarkable of portrait statues : ^^ Of magistral amplitude ; of a sincerity and force of naturalism that indicates that the portrait was taken direct from nature and with immediate study of the model." Gonse suggests that this figure and the smaller figures of the virtues may be from Colombe's studio.
During the reign of Francis I (1616-1547) sculp7 ture did not flourish as a distinct and independent art. After Colombe, le Juste, and their schools, there seems to have been a hiatus imtil the reign of Henry II (1647-1659). Francis I was a great builder and his very rich subjects followed in his footsteps. Many new chateaux were erected; many old ones were rebuilt or received renaissance additions. Sculptors were em- ployed in decorating. Under Francis I, Gothic ele- ments almost entirely disappeared from decoration which became more and more classic and Italian. There is a vastness, an elaboration of decoration never seen before or since. At times it would seem as if archi- tecture were but a scaffolding for the display of or- namentation. The Hotel Bourgteroude, still standing
HISTORICAL 78
in Rouen, is a good specimen. In the interior of the court are bas-reliefs representing scenes from the famous meeting of Francis I and Henry VIII of Eng- land, caUed the Champ du Drap d'Or. Other scenes are derived from the Triumphs of Petrarque, Accord- ing to some authorities, these scenes were copied from tapestries which had been displayed at the Champ du Drap d'Or. The city of Rouen contains many speci- mens of the art of the first part of the sixteenth cen- tury. The Palais de Justice and the City Clock should be studied.
Though the period was not a period of great church building, many lovely additions were made to both the ■ inside and the outside of church buildings. L'abtide of the church of St, Pierre at Caen and the Cloture du Chceur of Chartres cathedral, are two of the best and most accessible specimens.
CHAPTER II
FSOM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV
THE history of French sculpture as understood to-day may be said to begin with the reign of Henry II, for then it was that sculpture began to be practiced as a separate and independent art and that sculptors began to be known in connection with their works.
There is still one grand work to be mentioned which . was planned and executed in the old way: that is by a master designer in charge, under whom were stone- cutters, decorators and sculptors employed to carry out his ideas. It took time to eradicate the notion that sculptors were mere artisans and incapable of originating or planning. The work in question is the tomb of Francis I in St. Denis; the largest of all the royal tombs within the Abbey Church. In fact it seems too large for the place it occupies in the south transept. It is planned after those Roman triumphal arches which have a large passage in the center and smaller and lower passages on either side: except that in the tomb the central passage is blocked by a high stylo- bate and the side passages are so much shorter than the central one that the ground plan of the edifice has the outline of a Greek cross. Beneath the large and central arch are two sarcophagi on which are the gisants of the king and queen. On the platform, supported
\
FROM HENEY II TO LOUIS XIV 75
by the three arches are the fully clothed figures of the king and queen kneeling before small pries-dieu. Back of them are the kneeling and clothed figures of the three children who died before their father: the dauphin, Francis due de Bretagne, vho died in 1536 at the age of eighteen; the young princess, Charlotte de France, who died in 1324 at the age of four; and the second son, Charles due d'Orl^ans, who died in 1545, two years before his father, at the age of twenty- three. About the large central stylobate and also about the small stylobates of the outside arches, arc baa- reliefsi fifty-four in number, setting forth the heroic deeds of the king in Italy. These reliefs are executed with great skill and care, and are worthy of a great artist.
The genera] impression of the tomb is not satisfac- tory. The style of architecture is better adapted to out-of-doors. The kneeling figures on top are small and insignificant and the reliefs are so low down that you must get down on your knees to appreciate them. The work was entrusted to the great architect Phili- bert Delorme (1516-1570) who enjoyed the confidence of Francis I, Henry II, and of Catherine de Medicis. He employed under him, among others, the sculptors Germain Pilon and Pierre Bontemps. To Pierre Bon- temps is attributed the reliefs because they arc of the same style as the vase he made to contain the heart of Francis. This vase is also at St. Denis (Fig. 29), having been moved from the Abbayc de Haute Bruyere which was not far from Rambouillet where Francis died in 1447. The vase stands near the tomb and is a lovely combination of French and Italian styles.
76 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Nothing is known of Bontemps, except that his name appears in the archives of the reign of Henry H as having received certain sums for certain commissions^ and that he was living in 1666.
The great artist to introduce the new era of sculp- ture during the reign of Henry II was JEAN GrOUJON. Nothing is known of his early life. He was probably bom somewhere in Normandy not far from Rouen and about 1510. In 1540 he was in Rouen exercising the twin arts of architecture and sculpture. Many things to-day in Rouen are attributed to him, but without authority. His name occurs in preserved fragments of the accounts of the cathedral and of the church of St. Maclou. At the cathedral, he was paid for ** les pourtraits [plans] du portail et de la fontaine '* — what portal and what fountain are unknown. At St. Maclou he was paid on the 22d of May, 1641, " 67 sols and 6 deniers for le portrait d'une colonne et d'un piedestal pour servir aux orgues." That the two Co- rinthian columns which still support the organ were by Goujon is a fair supposition. The 67 sols and 6 deniers he received in May were for the plans. In the following August he received for the execution of the work 78 livres and 16 sols. What these sums would represent in to-day's money is difficult to ascertain. The sol or sou was the twentieth part of a livre or pound, the modem franc. Money in the time of Francis I and Henry II must have been worth at least twenty times what it is worth to-day.
There are other mentions of Groujon's name in the accounts of St. Maclou, but not in connection with any-
Fig. 30. — Jean Goujqn. Tomb of Louis de Breze. (Roueii)
Fifi- 31.— Jean Goujon. Fontaine dps Innocenta. (Paris)
J
FROM HENRY H TO LOUIS XIV 77
thing in existence. In the cathedral records under date of AprU 6, 1641, it is also stated that Jean Goujon is engaged to " faire la tete du priant et sculpture de Monseigneur " and " parfaire et assoir icelle en la place on elle doibt demeurer." The reference is to the image of the second Cardinal Amboise which he had removed when he was created cardinal and replaced by one in cardinal's robes. The Suisse who shows jou about the cathedral assures you that the head of Goujon's statue was preserved and is the head of the statue which is now on the monument. The Suisse will also tell you that Goujon was the author of the very elaborate tomb of Louis de Brezt, seneschal of Normandy and husband of the celebrated Diane de Poitiers, De Br^z^ died in 1531. Documents show that in 1586 Diane was in cor- respondence with the church authorities in reference to the tomb. But there is nothing in existence to show that Goujon had any part in it.
The tomb itself is a magnificent specimen of early renaissance work. It is unfortunately placed next to the tomb of an earlier member of the Brez^ family which is in very late Gothic. The two are so close that they seem like one incongruous structure. The tomb of Louis de Brezi (Fig. 30) is an elaborate affair of two principal stories. On the first story is a sar- cophagus on which is stretched out on its back the lifeless and nude body of the deceased. Gonse is filled with admiration for the beauty of this gUani. His argument is that only the greatest sculptor of the day could have produced anything so excellent; and as Goujon was the greatest sculptor of the day it must he by him. The beauty of a gUant is hard to detect
78 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
under any circumstances as its merit consists in the actual representation of a dead body. This particular gisant is no more vivid than those of St. Denis and is only four and a half feet long. At the head and foot of the gisant are four advancing Corinthian columns of black marble with white alabaster capitals. The close resemblance of these columns to those at St. Maclou is a stronger argument for the authorship of Jean Goujon than the gisant. Behind the columns and at the head of the gisant is a kneeling figure of Diane de Poitiers of inferior workmanship. Opposite it stands a Virgin and Child; also of inferior workmanship. These figures could not have been executed by the artist of the gisant. In the story above and directly over the gisant is the equestrian statue of de Br6ze; he and his steed, clad in full armor. On each side of it are %wo large caryatides, twice the size of the horseman. They are draped, crowned with flowers and carry im- plements which indicate that the two on the right represent Prudence and Glory; those on the left. Victory and Faith. Even Gonse cannot admire these figures. Above the cornice is a niche, in which is a third allegorical and smaller seated figure, equally unattractive, representing Force, Justice, Prudence or anything you please. On each side of the niche are goats holding shields on which are de Breze coat of arms. The monument is a mixture of good things and bad things inharmoniously put together, interest- ing as showing the changing styles and tastes of the day.
In 1548 Goujon was in Paris working on the rood loft of the Church of St. Germain PAuxerrois for
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 79
Pierre Lcscot,' the architect in charge. Goujon exe- cuted for the jvbi five bas-reljafs : an Entombment and the four Evangelists seated t^Tclouds. Goujon*s work was condemned as in bad taste and about the middle of the eighteenth century was taken down and scat- tered. The pieces have been recovered and are now in the Salle Jean Goujon of the Louvre. They show the beginning of the gentle and delicate grace which distinguishes Goujon's subsequent works. The differ- ence between Goujon's Entombment and all preceding entombments is striking. He has given the Marys charming ^ces. The kneeling Mary Magdalene is a lovely figure. Goujon has used the scene for the dis- play of French grace. The Evangelists floating on clouds, though robust and strong, might have been de- signed by Correggio.
When Goujon was employed by Anne de Montmor- ency is another puzzle. Was it before or after his work at St. Germain I'Auxorrois? The only known date on the subject is that Jean Martin in the preface to his translation of Vitruvius published in 1547, and partially illustrated by Goujon, speaks of him as for- merly the architect of M. le Conn^table; that is of Anne de Montmorency. In 1540 Montmorency in- curred the displeasure of Francis I, was exiled from court and retired to Ecouen, There, until the death of Francis in 154<7, he devoted his wealth and energies
> Kerre Leacot was born in Paris in 1510; died in 1571. He was at ftn Italian family of the name of Alissi, or Alessi, His plans tor the new Loavre were accepted by Serlio, the architect of Francis I, as better than his own. Lescot subsequently became chief architn^t under Francis I. and continued to bold a aimiUr position under Henry H, Charles IX and Henry III. How he came to know Goujon is unknown.
80 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
to making his chfiteau the most magnificent chateau in Europe. It has even been reported that it was through jealousy that Francis Warted the new Louvre. The Chateau d'Ecouen was ravaged by the revolutionists. Parts of it were destroyed. Its decorations that had value and could be removed were sold and scattered. Some of them which have the Goujon stamp have found their way to Chantilly. That Goujon could have ac- cepted service with an enemy of the king after having served the king under Lescot and could, after a short interval, have been permitted to reenter the king's ser- vice, are points that need explanation. If dates will permit, it would be easier to suppose that he served Montmorency after leaving Rouen and before he was called to Paris by Lescot.
Of the works at Chantilly from Ecouen which are attributed to Goujon, two are conspicuous. One is a chimney-piece and the other an altar. The altar which belonged to the chapel at Ecouen was rescued during the Revolution by Lenior and was transferred to Chan- tilly during the last century. The altar is classic as are all designs and plans attributed to Groujon. It consists of two stories. On the projecting center of the lower story, the altar proper, are, within two me- dallions, bas-reliefs of two of the Evangelists in the same style as the Evangelists of those from St. Grer- main I'Auxerrois. Between, and at each side of the Apostles, are two pilasters far enough apart to admit reliefs of virtues. A similar arrangement appears upon the retreating ends of this story. The allegorical fig- ures show, partially developed, the beauty which shines in its completion on the Fontaine des Innocents. At
FEOM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 81
each side of the upper story of the altat are the same Cormthian black marble columns which seem a Goujon characteristic. Between them is a large bas-relief of the sacrilicc of Abraham which is probably bj the hand of another artist. Critics differ.
The three works by which Goujon is best known ttnlay and upon which rests his fame are the reliefs of the Fonttune de$ Innocents (Figs. 81 and 82), his statue of " Diana and Stag," from the Chateau d'Anet, now in the Louvre, and the Caryatides of the Louvre. Wher« is now the Place des Innocents was formerly the March^ des Innocents which occupied a part of the space covered by the Cimeti^re des Innocents, which from very early times was the chief cemetery of Paris. It took its name from its church which was supposed to have been named by Louis VII le Gros. Philippe Auguste extended and walled in the cemetery which occupied marshy ground along the road leading out to St. Denis and the North. During the eighteenth century all this part of Paris had been thickly built up and the cemetery had become a great nuisance. In 1785 it was suppressed and inhumation was trans- ferred to the cemetery of Montmartre. At the comer of the rue St. Denis and the old rue aux Fers which formed the north boundary of the cemetery, was one of the three great fountains of Paris called Fontaine des Innocents after Jhe cemetery. Here after the death of Francis I in 1547 Lescot was ordered to build a species of balcony from which the grand entrance of Henry 11 into Paris might be viewed. All processions, royal and princely, triumphant and mortuary, of the times, passed throu^ the Route St. Denis. The build-
82 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ing erected by Lescot was limited by the restricted space. It had three arches; two on the rue aux Fers and one on the rue St. Denis. The arches opened upon a gal- lery built over the fountain and this was large enough to accommodate a number of spectators or it may have been used as a frame for exhibiting one of the show pieces of beautiful girls in which the age delighted and which decorated royal entries. Goujon was employed to decorate the building and in doing so displayed in the highest degree the peculiar grace of which he had shown the beginning in his former works. He covered the exterior with bas-reliefs appropriate to the build- ing; nymphs, sea deities of all kinds, cupids, etc. On the narrow pilasters between the arches he put nymphs ; below the arches he unfolded sea scenes; above them are sea sprites sailing on sea-shells.
When the cemetery was suppressed and the space it occupied turned into a market, the fountain was deflected from the corner to the center, Lescot*s build- ing was altered into a square, and a high basement erected over the fountain for ji^support. The change was effected by breaking the side on the rue aux Fers into two, which gave three sides and by the construc- tion of a new fourth side. The sculpture of the fourth side was entrusted to a sculptor named Pajou who copied Goujon as faithfully as he could. For aquatic reasons the reliefs under the original arches could not be accommodated to the new building and are now in the Louvre. The building itself is perched up so high that the nymphs may be better studied from their plaster casts in the Trocadero. They show a singular combination of classic grace and French spriteliness.
»vJiPj'waiL^^i<
Fig. 3,5.— Germain Pilon. Henry II. (St. Denis)
Fig. 36.— Germain Piloii, Thre^ Graces. (I^iivre)
^1
K
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 88
an extraordinarj management of form and drapery, a delightful ease and elegance of action within restricted limits. The work is thoroughly French yet based upon a classic foundation which could only have been the result of excellent study of well-chosen models. Where, when and under whose instruction Goujon made these studies has not yet been ascertained. Lechevalier- chevignard in his " Les Styles Franfais " writes of Goujon :
" No one has equalled him, of his times or of ours, in the art of disposing figures of low relief within architectural lines ; whether those of soffits, of pedi- ments or of narrow spaces between pilasters. His manner has remained synonymous with proud grace and supreme elegance. Understanding thoroughly feminine structure he causes the undulations of virginal form to shine through the abundant and fluid folds of drapery with which he clothes his nymphs and his muses. In spite of motions which may seem exagger- ated to modem eyes and which were either caused by the impetuosity of his chisel or imposed by the taste of the day, he always shows that he is a sincere lover of Nature to whom he ceaselessly appeals. Many of his figures attain to the purity of antique cameos."
Equally uncertain are the dates of Goujon's activi- ties at Anet, and how far its decorations are to be attributed to his hands. The group of " Diana, Stag and Dogs" (Fig. 38) which stands in the center of the Salle Goujon of the Louvre has been attributed to him by the unbroken tradition of centuries, though there is not an atom of written testimony in favor of his authorship and all his known works are in bas-relief.
84 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
The Chateau d'Anet ^ was commenced for Diane de Poitiers by Henry II about 1548. The architect was Philibert Delorme and he employed Goujon as sculptor and decorator. The building of the chateau, its ex- tensions and its decoration continued until the death of Henry II in 1559. The Diana of the Louvre ornamented a very high fountain in the left court of the chateau. During the Revolution the group and its immediate support were rescued by Lenoir and are now in the Louvre on a pedestal which seems inadequate for their support and too low for their proper exhi- bition. The immediate support is an irregular con- struction that looks something like an inverted sarcoph- agus to which narrow and upward rolling ends had been added. The platform it sustains and which sup- ports the group extends in all directions beyond it.
The group consists of Diana, entirely nude, and gracefully seated. She passes her right arm around the neck of a recumbent stag with towering antlers who seems proud of the attentions of the goddess. In her left hand she holds a very long bow. Her body is turned to the right: her legs to the left. Between them reposes a hound; while behind her stands a shaggy and growling dog. Diana is coiffee in the style of the day. The crescent she wore has disappeared. Three things are evident: 1st, that the composition was suggested by Benvenuto Cellini's La Nymphe de Fontainebleau ; 2d, that Diana's face could not have been intended as a likeness of Diane de Poitiers; and
* Anet 18 about fifteen miles west of Paris; a few miles north of Dreux* near a little town called E^-Anet. Only about half of the original chAteau is in existence.
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 85
8d, the poor modeling of the torso. The grouping is bold and not without splendor and grace, but does not give equal satisfaction from bU points of vieT, The shaggy dog seems like an afterthought to com- plete a defective composition. Paul Vitr; says of it:
*' It is certain that the composition does not yet present, and from all its sides, that perfect harmony realized by some works of classical sculpture of the following century. But this grand nude is a bold undertaking magnificently posed in the round and a singular success; for which there is no model in pre- ceding French art nor in any antique work as yet brought from Italy. The artist must indeed have been inspired by Cellini's Nj/mphe. But that was in relief. And what progress in the balancing of masses and in the monumental quality of the work ! From a technical point of view the piece is of great flavor. The model- ing is large and delicate; the forms are of studied purity. The aspect of the figure is of incomparable pride and elegance. The naturalism of the study has been over praised. A seeking for style and even a certain stiiTness seems to take the place of the living grace and flexibility of the Nymphes dcs Innocents. This seems a reason to place it late ^ in Goujon's ac- tivities,— between 1556 and 1659."
Of all the decorations of the Louvre by G^ujon the limitations of this work will permit mention of the Caryatides (Fig. 84) only. They are in a large hall called after them on the ground floor in the northwest comer of the inner court of the Louvre. Built by Francis I it is supposed to occupy the site of a large ' It teems * better reuMi tor attribaUiig it to some one else.
86 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
hall of the old Louvre of former kings. It was first called Salle des Gardes and then Salle des Cent Suisses. The Caryatides are four in number ; they stand at the west end of the hall, are nearly ten feet high and support the musicians' gallery. No works of art have been more diversely criticized. Most French critics still regard them as marvels of grace and beauty, while writers of other nations are not profuse in praises, especially in comparing them with the Caryatides of the Erechtheum, with which Goujon could not possibly have been acquainted. He is entitled to originality in his conception and in his method of carrying it out. The oddest feature of his Caryatides is that he has given them but stumps of arms. His admirers say that this was for the purpose of increasing their architec- tural character. They are clothed with long garments reaching to their feet. On their heads they have thick veils of which the ends hang down on their shoulders. About their loins are shawls tied in front in large bunches. On two, the shawls hang from the right hip; on the other two, from the left. The faces of each pair differ slightly and apparently look upwards as if appealing to a higher power for relief. It would take up too much space to cite the various criticisms. When garlanded for a night's festivity and illumined by torches they may have been more attractive than they are now by the glare of the noonday sun and in a room which contains gems of Greek sculpture with which the modem traveler cannot help comparing them. Jean Goujon occupies such an important position in French art that those interested in its history should read not only what Gronse has written but the follow-
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 87
ing : Articles by Mootaiglon in the " Gazette des Beaui: Arts " for 1884 and 1885 ; " Jean Goujon par Henry Jouin " in the series of Lei Artittet CeUbrei, Paris Librarie de I'Art and especially " Jean Goujon par Paul Vitry," Henri Laurens, Editeur. In the series of Lei grand* artittet Jouin and Vitry are two of the best known French art writers and critics. Henry Auguste Jouin was bom at Angers in 1841. His " David d* Angers, sa vie son teuvre ses ecrits et ses con t«mpo rains " published in 1878, made him celebrated. Paul Vitry Is a younger, but no less distinguished man. He is or was a Contervateur adjoint au Mutie du Louvre.
It has been ascertained that Goujon escaped St. Bartholomew, fled to Italy and died in Bologna about 1568.
The traveler raust not fail to esamine his other decorations of the Louvre and those of the Musee Camavalet, in his time the Hotel dc Ligneris.
Bontemps, Goujon and Pllon are the three illustrious sculptors of the last of the Valois. GERMAIN PILON was bom in Paris in 158S and died there about 1590. He participated in the tomb of Francis I, as already stated. When Henry II (Fig. S5) died Catherine de Medicis proposed publishing her grief by the erection of a tomb to his memory that should rival the tombs of Francis I and of Louis XII. Primatice drew the plan and Pilon contributed the sculpture after the death of several other artists who at first were asso- ciated with him. These were Jerome dclla Robbia to whom had been assigned the gitante of the queen, Domi- nique Florentin who was to do the priant of the king
88 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
and Laurent Regnaulden who was engaged to execute the bas-reliefs. These three died in 1566 before, it is supposed, they had contributed anything more than sketches which Pilon may or may not have accepted. A fourth artist Ponce Jacquis lived until 1570 and is probably the artist who executed one or two if not all the four Virtues at the corners of the tomb.
The tomb itself is a quadrangular structure with projecting comers on which stand the statues of the four principal Virtues: Temperance, Prudence, Force and Justice. Within are extended the gisants of the king and queen. The upper part of the structure is supported by four ^ large pilastered corners and twelve columns with Corinthian capitals. The gisants are further hidden by windowed screens at their head and feet. On top of the structure are kneeling figures of the king and queen in their coronation robes. All de- tails are strictly classical. The kneeling figures are of bronze ; so are the Virtues. The gisants are of marble. The small reliefs in the stylnba:^ represent Faith, Hope, Charity and Pity. The stylobate is further ornamented with masques in a reddish marble.
In its narrow position in the church it is difficult to judge of ihe beauties of the work. The priant of the king and the gisante of the queen have been par- ticularly praised. Paul Vitry writes of them:
** The statue of the king, by the elegance of its pose, the striking portraiture of its head, the full and grand flow of the drapery, is one of the chefs d^aeuvre of French renaissance sculpture. . . . The gisante of the queen represents her asleep in her youth and beauty, just as she was when her husband died. Pilon has
Fig. 39.— Richier. Nicodemus. (St. Mihiei)
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 89
modeled her channing person with a bold and singular realism, but with exquisite delicacy."
Henry II's heart was given to the church of the C41estins, To Filon was given the charge of executing a support for the urn wherein the heart was to rest and Catherine de Medicis determined that the support should represent the three "Graces" (Fig, 86). Pilon's task was therefore to put just so much clothing on his Graces as would secure their admission to a church and not spoil their character. The urn and its con- tents disappeared during the Revolution: the Graces were rescued b; Lenoir and are now in the Louvre. They are grouped back to back and carry the urn on their heads. Palustre writes of them:
" The triangular arrangement which seemed obliga- tory caused certain difficulties. The risk of monotony and rigidity could only be avoided by making each side different. In this the young master was more success- ful than could have been expected. The figures are not placed at equal distances. Sometimes the hands hardly touch, sometimes arms are interlocked, shoulders turn in, and then turn out, garments interfold or fall in straight and isolated lines. On account of the light- ness of the burden to be carried the forms instead of stiffening and showing effort and tension, balance each other elegantly and convey the idea of beginning a waltz movement. There is nothing of the caryatid; nothing of the canephore; but a new apprehension of the rfile of sculpture."
The claim of the monks of the C^lestins that the three figures represented the three chief theological vir- tues. Faith, Hope and Charity, is dissipated by an in-
90 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
scription on the monument, stating that the Graces are holding up a heart that was once their home.
The support for the heart of Henry II undoubtedly suggested the support for the relics of Sainte Genevieve, ordered for the church of Sainte Grenevi^ve which stood where now stands the Panthton. The first church of Sainte Geneviive is said to have been built by Clovis and to have been destroyed by the Normans. The second church lasted until the reign of Louis XV, when the present edifice was constructed. Pilon's support consisted of four draped female figures, representing the chief virtues standing back to back. Their uplifted arms helped to support the shrine which was partly held on their heads. The figures were of oak covered with thin gilded plaster. During the Revolution the shrine was destroyed : so were the uplifted arms, which were separate pieces. The gilding and plaster also were removed. The base figures, as they now exist, were rescued by Lenoir;^ were at first in the Musee des Monuments Fran9ais and are now in the Salle Jean Goujon of the Louvre. In spite of their mutilations, and of being despoiled of their splendor^ their charm- ing grace is still evident and unpressive. Throughout the whole period of Italian impression and domination there never was a time when, in sculpture at least, a
^ Marie Alexandre Lenoir (1761-18S9), a patriotic, learned and in- fluential Parisian, devoted to the fine arts. During the Revolution he rescued as many works as possible from destruction and gathered them together at the former convent des Petits-Augustins, where is now the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Later he here established a Mus6e des Monuments Francis of which he published a catalogue which to this day is valuable for reference. On the complete restoration of order to France many of these monuments were restored to their original positions.
FEOM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 91
distiDct and ^aceful French style was not manifest. Italian art is grand, impressive, correct, satisfactory and beautiful. But never, except a bit at Venice, and through French reaction, is her more modern art pretty, graceful, human, sympathetic or loving.
In portraiture, the most appealing of arts. Pi Ion showed the same excellencies which always have been and still are the peculiar attributes of French artists. His busts of Henry II and Henry III in the Louvre are wonderful portraits of vivid historic accuracy. His kneeling bronze of Rene de BoTaffue (Fig. 87), Chancellor of France (* 1683) in robes of state is placed in merit by the side of the kneeling statue of Henry II on his tomb in St, Denis. Barague's statue and fragments of that of his wife, Valentine Babbiani are also in the Salle Jean Goujon.
Pilon was a man of great variety of ability. He was as much at home in religious, as in secular, sub- jects. He shared Goujon's lovely grace, though differ- ing from him in his management of drapery. His draperies fall in larger and more natural folds and show a thicker and more real material. Many of his works, mentioned by contemporary writers, have dis- appeared. He was prominent apart from his art. Under Charles IX he was Controleur General des Monnaiei, that is. Master of the Mint.
LIGIER RICHIER (1IS00(?)-1667). Richter is another sculptor about whose life very little is known and about whose works very few knew anything, until plaster casts of them appeared a few years ago in the Trocadero. Now records are being searched to fill out
92 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
his story. He was bom at a little town called St. Mihiel, about one hundred and seventy-five miles nearly due east of Paris and a little south of Verdun. It is off the main routes and is not visited by the ordinary traveler. As at the time Richier was bom St. Mihiel belonged to Lorraine^ and the Dukes of Lorraine were independent of France and owed nominal allegiance to Grermany, Richier was not by birth a Frenchman. But the Dukes of Lorraine were of a French family. French manners prevailed at their court and their people were French in habits, customs and in a measure, in tongue. So Richier may be considered as a French artist.
His chief work is in the church of St. Etienne of St. Mihiel and consists of an ^^ Entombment " (Fig. 88). The principal figures which are larger than life are posed with great effect. " Nicodemus " (Fig. 89), " Joseph of Arimathea," the body of our Lord and Mary Magdalene kneeling and kissing His feet, form a group of remarkable dramatic force, admirable group- ing and strong impression, which seems to throw back into secondary importance the Virgin and her sup- porters. The standing Mary on the right, contemplat- ing the cross, is an awkward, badly proportioned figure having no relation to the central action and put in only to fill space. The balancing figure of a serving maid preparing the tomb is commonplace and unsatis- factory. The " Angel " (Fig. 40) with the implements of the Passion fills space and aids the composition. The drinking and gambling soldiers in the background on the right are far-fetched and only used for filling space. But nothing can detract from the magnificent impression of the central group. The sixteenth cen-
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 93
tury shows nothing superior. Bringing Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea closer together than in other en- tombments was a touch of genius.
Twenty odd miles southwest of St. Mihiel is Bar le Due where once the Dukes of Bar ruled in inde- pendent state. About the same distance southwest of Bar le Due, but a little more south, is St. Didier. St. Didier in 1544 with a few thousand men with stout hearts withstood for a while Charles V with an army of one hundred thousand. Among those who fought against the Emperor and were killed was Ren4 de Chalons, Prince of Orange, who, dying without children, left the principality to his cousin, William the Silent. Rene*s widow was a princess of Lorraine. She charged Richier to erect for her husband a magnificent tomb in the church of St. Peter at Bar le Due. What is left of it stands to this day badly mutilated by the revolu- tionists. There is a black sarcophagus betwceen two black columns and on it stands a horrid figure, dead and BO far gone in corruption that in places its flesh falls from its hones leaving its skeleton bare. In its uplifted right hand it bore a vase in which reposed the heart of Prince Ren^. Writes Gonse:
" Managed with modesty and discretion the macabre style has produced cheft d'wuvre worthy of admira- tion, as the ' Dance of Death ' by Holbein. But when treated realistically it instantly becomes repugnant. This statue is in proof. This corpse invaded by rot- tenness may be a clever trick of sculpture, but as a work of art it is absolutely condemnable."
Another Frenchman writes that : " Its marvelous ex- ecution causes the horrible subject to be forgotten."
94 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Richier was very active. There are works by him in Nancy and from Nancy west. He became a Protes- tant, had to flee for his life and died in Greneva. His sons and grandson continued his work as well as they could during the religious wars of the later half of the century.
The official successor of Grermain Pilon was BAR- THELEMY PRIEUR. He was bom in Paris between 1540 and 1550 and died in Paris in 1611, a year after the assassination of Henry IV. According to accounts his most celebrated work was on the tomb of the Constable de Montmorency (Fig. 41), designed by BuUant and ordered by the Constable's widow, Made- leine de Louvois in 1567 the year after the Constable died. The tomb was destroyed during the Revolution. The only parts recovered are the recumbent statues of the Constable and of his wife. These are in the Louvre and do not attract particular attention.
There are also in the Louvre portions of a monu- ment by Prieur erected in the church des Celestins in 1578 to hold Montmorency's heart. The monument consisted of a twisted column supporting an urn in which reposed the heart. About the base of the coliunn were bronze statues of Peace, Justice and Abundance. The statues, part of the column and some of the bas- reliefs on the stylobate have been recovered. They show that Prieur was a skillful and easy worker, but not a man of large ideas, or of graceful conceptions.
From the death of Henry II until the beginning of the personal reign of Louis XIV, from 1559 to 1661, art in France showed little national character and little
Fig. 42.— Guillain. Louis XIII. (Louvrt)
FU. 43.— G.iillain. Anne (lAntrKl..-. Cl,t>iivro)
FiR. «.— Guilluin. Louis XIV. (Louvre)
Fig. 4.J, — F. Anguier. Dukes of I»ngiievillc. {Linivr<-)
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 95
national vigor. The wars of religion continued well into the reign of Louis XIII. La Rochelle was not captured until 1629. Louis XIV was saluted by the Joumee des Barricades in 1648, and had La Fronde to subdue in 1640. His authority was not firmly es- tablished before 1660. During the religious wars the Protestants (nearly equal to the Romanists in num- bers) and their religion, were opposed to art in any form. Still, there was building at the Louvre, painting at Fontainebleau, and sculptors, if they did nothing dse, always had tombs to build, palaces and churches to decorate and busts to execute.
First to be mentioned among the sculptors of the period is GUILLAUME DUPRfi. He married the daughter of Barth^lemy Prieur, acceded to his posi- tions and lived until 1647. There are said to be busts by him somewhere in the Louvre. He excelled as a medalist. He executed a wax figure of Henry IV the day after bis assassination.
Dupr^'s most celebrated pupil was JEAN WARIN from Liige. He was bom in 1604 and lived until 1672. There are by him a bronze bust of Louis XIII in the Louvre, and at Versailles both a marble statue and a marble bust of the youthful Louis XIV. The Louvre bronze of Louis XIII is in the first room devoted to middle age and renaissance sculpture. Louis Courajod thus describes it : ** It has the swollen lips of a sick man who is suffering from disease of the heart: the mouth of a stammerer which has diflSculty in containing its tongue. The expression is that of a used-up per-
96 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
son. The eyes are large and shapeless. The lower eyelids are cracked and have become too large to hold in even a dull and wanderingMook. The costume is strictly natural. Not a detail is forgotten, or simpli- fied ; a rufF with a thousand folds which seem as heavy as the bronze of which they are made, the orders of Saint Michel and of the Saint Esprit, not merely indi- cated, but so prominently and independently chiseled that you could detach them from the mass and use them as ornaments. These are the salient properties of a portrait, as portraiture was understood by a school starting from the Van Eycks and terminating in Van Dyck and Philippe de Champagne." Gonse would ap- ply similar criticism to Warin's works at Versailles which nevertheless have an undeniable and impressive pomposity.
There were two BRIARDS, father and son; both named Pierre. The first, who held the title of scutp- teur du rot, was bom in Paris in 1559 and died in Paris in 1609: the second was bom about 1690 and died in 1661. There are two works in existence by the elder Briard: nothing that with certainty can be as- signed to the younger. By the elder is the jubS of the church of Saint-Etienne du Mont and a fat and ex- tremely naturalistic bronze of Fame in the Salle Michel Colombe of the Louvre. The Fame is winged, nude; stands on one foot, is blowing a trumpet, holds a bit in the fingers of its outstretched right hand and seems about taking its flight. It looks as if made for a cafi chantant of the day. Instead it adorned the tomb of a princess. The princess was Marguerite de Foix, wife
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 97
of Louis de Nogaret due d'Eperon a favorite of Henri III. She died in 1696, was buried at Cadillac near Bor- deaux and Briard was instructed to build over her remains as sumptuous a tomb as art could produce. The reTolutionists destroyed it with the exception of the statue of Fame, saved it was reported, on account of its beautj. If the traveler with this statue in mind will inspect the jtibe of Saiot-Etienne he will certainly wonder that the two could be by the same artist.
Guillain, Sarrazin and the Anguier brothers must be mentioned. SIMON GUILLAIN (1581(?)-1658) was perhaps the most distinguished. The old wooden Pont au Change with its jewelry and money shops was con- sumed by fire in 1621. It was rebuilt in stone between 1689 and 1647. In 1647 Guillain was commissioned to execute for the ornament of the bridge a monument to the glory of Louis XIII and Anne d'Autriche. The monument was destroyed in 1787 at the beginning of the Revolution, A bit of bas-relief, and the three bronze figures of Louis XIII (Fig. 42), Anne d'Au- triche (Fig. 48), and of Louis XIV (Fig. 44) when a boy, have been preserved and are now in the Salle Puget of the Louvre. The bas-relief is an incoherent mixture of classic and Italian ideas, a hodgepodge of incomprehensible notions. The bronze figures which seem small for an imposing monument are good speci- mens of the official, adulatory art which reached its highest manifestation under Louis XIV. The statue of the queen is hi^ily praised by Gonse. He writes: " L'Anne d'Autriche is by a true master. Guillain has expressed the pride of the race with all the ex-
98 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
panslon of life. The queen is both queen and woman. Her peculiar traits are not concealed. The exactitude of the costume must also be praised, indicated by the bare neck and wrists. To be admired is the firm and full expression of the face and the fine modeling of the hands. Guillain in the presence of nature, knew how to see and to render it, with a rigorous observation, a large and easy execution."
The same qualities of portraiture may be seen in a kneeling statue of Charlotte-Catherine de la Tremoille princess de Conde (Salle Coyzevox) who died in 1629. Her tomb which stood in the church belong- ing to the followers of Sainte-Claire was destroyed during the Revolution. Her statue was rescued by Lenoir.
Other works by Guillain were statues on the out- ride of the church of Saint Gervais back of the Hotel de Ville ; at Saint-Eustache, the screen of the high altar with six large figures; also at the church of the Sor- bonne at least a dozen statues, both inside and outside. Some of these are still in place.
JACQUES SARRAZIN, Guillain's friend and rival, was born at Noyon in 1588 and died in Paris in 1660. Of Sarrazin there are in the Louvre, Salle Coyzevox, four large marble medals rescued from the monument erected by Anne d'Autriche in 1648 in the church of Saint Paul-Saint Louis to contain the heart of Louis XIII. They represent the four chief virtues, Force, Prudence, Justice and Temperance. In the same room are two statuettes of St. Peter and Ste. Madeleine. None of these will attract particular attention as works
FROM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV £,9
of art. They are interesting as showing the style of sculpture which prevailed at the time,
Sarrazin designed, if he did not execute, the four large Caryatides of the Pavilion de I'Horloge of the Louvre and the ornamentation which accompanies tiiem. The best example of his ornate and pompous style is the tomb of Henri de Cond^ formerly in the church Saint Paul-Saint Louis, now at Chantilly. Guillet de Saint Georges thus describes it in its ori^nal position: " You sec four large bronze figures represent- ing Religion, Justice, Piety and Force or Valor. Bach figure is distinguished by its particular attributes. At the entrance of the chapel and on top of the balustrade which limits it are the bronze figures of two yoimg chil- dren as genii of grief, one holding the arms of the prince, the other his epitaph. The foot of the balus- trade is enriched by a row of bas-reliefs where, accord- ing to the ideas of Petrarque, Sarrazin has represented the triumphs of Death, Fame, Time and Eternity." Lemonnier, from whose work " L*art Franfais au temps de Richelieu et de Mazarin," the extract is taken, adds: " It is a composition which, without presenting great originality, is far from the ordinary symbolism of the period and from the mythology which insinuates itself into the symbolism. There is nothing that re- sembles a strong expression of an individual and truly human sentiment. The figures are only brilliant com- mon grounds of moral rhetoric : nor do they show any true beauty of form in its sincerity. But they show nobility in its highest degree. They are truly the orna- ment appropriate to the illustrious dead. Art as well as literature should have its funereal orations."
100 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
About twenty miles northeast of Paris is the vener- able coUege of Juilly. In its chapel is a bust of the Cardinal de Berulle attributed to Sarrazin. The cardi- nal is represented preaching. In his eloquent emphasis he raises his joined hands to his right, while his head bends over to the left. The motion is so strong and so natural as with difficulty to be associated with Sarra- zin's style. On the pedestal which serves as a pulpit IS a bas-relief of the whale very energetically debarrass- ing itself of Jonah. The whole composition is so full of French liveliness that its author could not have been a slave of Italian classicality.
The brothers, FRANQOIS (1604(?)-1669) and MICHEL (1612-1686) ANGUIER were born in the little town of £u in Normandy, died in Paris and were buried in the church of Saint-Roch. Little is known of them until they appear in Guillain's studio as his pupils and assistants. They both traveled to Rome, returned imbued with Italianisms, both became sctdp- teurs ordinaires du rot and both enjoyed the king's patronage and favor. Their works are difficult to be distinguished. Fran9ois may have greater invention and style: Michel greater dexterity and variety. Fran9ois was almost entirely employed on tombs and funereal monuments. Michel's commissions were more various. In the Salles Coyzevox and Puget are specimens of the work of both these artists. Fran9ois is well repre- sented by a funereal monument of the Dukes of Longue- yille (Figs. 46 and 46), originally erected in the V: bhapelle d'Orleans aux C^lestins de Paris. The part : rescued epxisists of a lofty, four-cornered, tapering
Pig. 4(i. — F. AiiguiiT. Dukes of Longut-ville. (Ijouvre)
Fifi. 47. — F. AiiKiik-r. JacquL's Aiigiiste de Tho«. (I>oiivri')
f-'^i'z.vK^K'fvaA^'^^^^yi'wr.^-'fi^yitss-'^^^'
Kig. 48.— M. AtiKuier. PorU- Saitit-Detiw. (I'uris)
Fig. 49. — GuiTin. Loiii>i XIV adolesoent terrassant La yronde. i, , . (Chantilly)
FROM HENEY II TO LOUIS XIV 101
pyrsmid, covered with trophies and resting on a high double plinth. Standing on the lower plinth and at the comers of the pyramid are attractive figures of the four virtues Force, Prudence, Justice and Temperance. Prudence is particularly attractive. She holds up a snake in her right hand; a mirror is in her left and rests OD her hip; into it she gazes with a smile of youthful beauty and innocence. Anguier must have had a charming model and have fully appreciated her charms. Anguier b equally well represented by the re- mains of the funereal monument of Jacques Auguate de Thou (Fig. 47), president of the Paris Parliament, who died in 1617. The de Thous were rich, prominent and learned magistrates and historians during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As far back as the four- teenth century the family had large possessions near the city of Orleans. This particular de Thou distin- guished himself by writing a history of his times in Latin. His history which had reached one hundred and thirty-eight chapters at the time of his death was con- demned by Rome, protected by Henry IV and most bi^y prized by the English. It has been translated into French and now exists in twenty-sis volumes. He also kept memoirs from 1658 to 1601 which were printed and are also highly esteemed. He had two wives. The first one, Marie de Barban9on died without issue in 1601. The second one, Gasparde de la Chastre, who died a short time before he died, had sis children, three sons and three daughters. When de Thou died he was buried with great pomp in the church of Saint Andr£ des Arts and Francois Anguier was commis- sioned to erect a magnificent tomb over the grave of
102 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
himself and his wives. During the Revolution the church was razed and the tomb shared the fate of other tombs. The statues of de Thou and his wives were rescued by Lenoir and are now in the Salle Puget of the Louvre.
The statues have been set up awkwardly. On the monument they were on a pediment upheld over the sarcophagus by Ionic columns: de Thou with a wife on either side. The statue of Gasparde de la Chastre is lovely and so far superior to the statue of the other wife that the two cannot be by the same artist: the other is assigned to Barthelemy Prieur.
In the chapel of the Lycee Banville in the city of Moulins, capital of the old Duchy of Bourbon, there is a tomb by Fran9ois Anguier which escaped the rav- ages of the Revolution. It was erected to Henri II due de Montmorency by the Princess des Ursins, his widow, and is the best preserved tomb of the style and of the period. The duke was decapitated for high treason at Toulouse in 1682. His estates were confiscated and the title was terminated. The tomb consists of a huge Corinthian portico divided into two stories. On the lower is the sarcophagus and two figures, one of Alex- ander and the other of Hercules. On the upper story is the duke in Roman costume stretched out dead. His wife kneels by his side while two standing figures, hard to make out, are, one on each side of the group. There is no attempt at portraiture. The figures are unreal and without sentiment. The duchess is fine, there is a plaster cast of her figure at Versailles. The tomb of itself 18 not worth the journey to Moulins (five hours from Paris). But Moulins and Nevers (four hours
FEOM HENRY II TO LOUIS XIV 103
from Paris) are interesting cities, in an interesting country and on the way to Vichy.
Michel Anguier was more celebrated than his brother. He had a longer career, as he lived until 1686 when the reign of Louis XIV was more than half over. He passed ten years in Rome studying the antique. On his return he assisted his brother oo the tomb of the due de Montmorency. He then seems to have been employed by Anne d'Autriche in decorating rooms in the Louvre. These rooms are on the ground floor and are now known as the Salles de la Rotonde de M^6ne» des Saisons, de la Paix, de Severe, and des Antonins. The Borghete Mart or AchiUet is in the Salle de la Rotonde, and the other rooms leading off to the south are filled with statues of the Roman period. The decorations of these rooms should not be over- looked. Some of Anguier's figures are of rare and graceful flexibility. Their attitudes are bold, but taken with ease, while they carry the platforms without apparent effort. The best known of Michel's works are the figures and bas-reliefs which decorate the Porte Saint-Denis (Fig. 48) erected by the city of Paris in 1671 to commemorate the victories of Louis XIV in Germany.
One more artist who belonged to this intermediate period must be mentioned, GH-LES GUERIN (1606- 1678) whose group of Louit XIV adoletcent terratiant La Fronde (Fig. 49), now at Chantilly, was regarded at the time it was produced as one of the finest works of art ever executed. A more awkward and ridiculous composition can hardly be imagined : Louis with classic
106 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
He was certainly the only person in France who could exercise his taste to the extent of his desires. Le Brun was the man selected by the king to administer to his taste. All painters, sculptors, architects, designers and decorators must receive their orders from Le Brun and obey them.
Among the hundreds of artists who served the king, especially in building and decorating the palace of Ver- sailles and in adorning its park, a few sculptors were more prominent than their fellow workers and must be mentioned; though the Revolution dealt so harshly with their works that there is little left by which to appreciate contemporary encomiums. First in order of birth comes Fran9ois Girardon (162&-1715) who was followed by his pupil, Robert Le Lorain (1666-1748). Then comes Antoine Coysevox (pronounced Ko^zvoo) (1640-1720) followed by his nephews Nicolas Coustou (1658-1788) and Guillaume Coustou (1677-1746).
Pierre Puget (1622-1694) by many regarded as the greatest artist of the century was so independent, in his life, his works and his notions, of the power and tastes of the court, that he must be considered by him- self. Neither Louis XIV nor his art representative, Le Brun, influenced Puget in any particular.
It is a mistake to assert that at any time French art was entirely dependent on foreign influences. There never has been a period in its history when the peculiari- ties of the race were not manifested in its art. It accepted prevailing fashions and necessarily bowed to the taste of the day. But even under Louis XIV when Italian taste was imperiously imposed, a work by a French artist is easily recognized and readily
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV 107
distinguished from the works of those vho flattered themselves that the French were their copyists. The experience of Bernini in France is to the point.
GIBARDON was bom in Troyes where during the Grothic period a school of sculpture of distinguishing characteristics had been established. How he came to Paris and how be became one of Fran9oi8 Anguier's pupils is unknown. Equally unknown is it how he was able to go to Italy and pass two years in the study of the antique. In 1652 he was back in Paris on intimate terms with Le Brun who preferred him to others for carrying out hia sculpturesque designs. Not long afterwards he was again in Italy, this time charged with making purchases for royalty. From the time of his second return until his death he enjoyed the highest royal favor. Of his works still existing, spared by the revolutionists, the tomb of Richelieu (Fig. €0) in the church of the Sorbonne is the best known and the most highly esteemed. It was erected in 1694, fifty-two years after Richelieu's death.
Robert de Sorbon, St. Louis' confessor, in 1258 erected a collegiate building where a limited number of students of theology and their instructors could be housed at small expense. From this modest beginning has grown the Sorbonne of to-day, the seat of the University of Paris, and where over ten thousand stu- dents receive Instruction. The original buildings lasted until the beginning of the seventeenth century when they were torn down, replaced and enlarged by Riche- lieu. The present buildings date from 1885. Of Richelieu's buildings the church is the only one that
108 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
remains. In it is the cardinal's tomb which fortunately escaped the revolutionists. It is supposed to have been designed by Le Brun, which may account for its picturesqueness.
On top of a sarcophagus, covered with a doth with a wide and rich border, is a bed on which Richelieu in his cardinal robes is dying. He is held up in a sit- ting position by a figure representing Religion. On the bed to his right is a weeping cupid and his cardinal's hat. At the foot of the sarcophagus, and on a much lower level, is an extension on which is a seated figure representing Science bending over the sarcophagus in tears. The grouping is strong and impressive if the- atrical. The position of the monument, alone in one of the transepts of the church, adds to the effect. The faces are without expression or character. The figure of Science is a fine work of art. A difficult pose is well managed : grief is easily and gracefully expressed. No finer figure was produced by the school to which Girardon belonged.
Among the hundreds of statues that people the park of Versailles few attract attention. An exception must be made for Girardon's group of UEnUvemeni de Proserpine in the Bosquet de la Colonnade, also said to have been designed by Le Brun, a heroic piece of ver- tical composition evidently suggested by John of Bologna. It is suffering from the weather and should be removed to the Louvre. Some of Girardon's bas- reliefs at Versailles are lovely, particularly the Nymphes au Bain,
The work on which Girardon depended for post- humous fame was his colossal bronze of Louis XTV on
}
<u
o
o Si
a
o
H
o
o
j
Fin. J3.— Ci.ysfvox. I,e Granil CmhU: (Umvn-)
THE SlfeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 109
horseback, which stood in the ceoter of the Place Louis le Grand, now the Place Vendome. It was torn down during the Revolution and the metal used in making cannon. One of the king's feet has been preserved and is in the Louvre: also a small model said to be of the work, but not large enough or distinct enough, to give any idea of the character or style of the original. According to accounts it was simple, im- pressive, severely classical and worthy of a great artist.
As already stated Girardon's best pupil was ROBERT LE LORAIN. His principal activities were devoted to the palace at Saveme which had passed into the possession of the Rohan-Sonbise family. The palace and its contents, as before mentioned, were destroyed in 1780. Lorain was employed with many others in decorating the chapel at Versailles where ornamentation is so profuse and of such elaborate sameness that, apart from the pictures, critics have as yet made hut tittle progress in distinguishing the work of one artist from that of another.
Lorain has, however, left one work which puts him in the foremost rank of sculptors of all times and races. VlmprimeTie Rationale (the French government's print- ing-office) on the rue Vieille du Temple is in the old so-called Hotel -de-Strasbourg, the former residence of the dues de Rohan. In the inner court, over the en- trance to the former stables, is Lorain's bas-relief called the "Steeds of Apollo" (Fig. 51). Clouds, li^tning, four horses and two youths compose the scene. In the center one of the youths holds a large
110 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
shell from which a magnificent steed, partially hidden by clouds, is drinking. High above the youth emerges from clouds the fore part of another and rearing steed ; back of him, cloud girt, is the turned head and bent knee of a third steed; while on the right, the second youth holds the mane of the fourth steed whose neigh- ing head is upright above him. The magnificent action of the horses, the beauty of the youths, the admirable balance of the composition and the background of clouds and lightning, fprm an inspiring work of the highest genius with which it would be difficult to find anything to compare. There is a cast in the Trocadero, but every visitor to Paris is urged to see the original. Lorain was admitted to the Academy in 1701, was made professor in 1717 and rector in 1787.
ANTOINE COYSEVOX was bom in Lyons and died in Paris. When eighteen, he went to Paris and entered the studio of a sculptor named Lerambert who had been a pupil of Guillain. He first, preceding Lorain, dis- tinguished himself in the service of Cardinal Fursten- berg, bishop of Strasbourg, who was erecting a mag- nificent palace at Saveme, a little town about twenty miles northeast of Strasbourg. This was in 1667 when he was twenty-seven. The palace was entirely destroyed by fire in 1780. In 1671 Coysevox was back in Paris and was being patronized by Le Brun. In 1676 he was admitted to the Acad^mie and sent as his morceau de ricepiion a bust of Le Brun. This shows that the relations between the two artists were intimate. In 1676 he was in Lyons. In 1677 Le Brun persuaded him to return to Paris. It is supposed that it was during
THE SlfeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 111
this short sojourn in Lyons that he married for the second time and that he executed the statue of the Virgin now standing in the right transept of the Church of Saint Nizier. It was intended to stand at a street comer and therefore does not seem quite at home in a church.
From 1677 until 1685 he was employed at Versailles. His work and Le Brun's are so much alike that it is difficult to distinguish them. Gionse calls attention to the magnificent bas-relief in stucco in the Salon de la Guerre of Louis XIV a Cheval fotdant aiix pteda set ennemu vainctu as being entirely by Coysevox and as being unsurpassed in the realm of decorative art. " Yet," he adds, " how many tourists from the four quarters of the globe who visit these famous galleries with their Baedekers and their lorgnettes, how many Frenchmen even, know the name of Coysevoz ! "
Coysevox's ener^es were unboimded, his activities incessant. He was equally at home in all departments of his art.
Two of his play pieces, they might be called, are at the Louvre, the Nymphe d la coquiUe and the V£nua pudique. Two more dainty adaptations from the an- tique cannot be found. They were executed for the gardens of Versailles about 1686-1688. The Louvre also contains some of his busts which have rarely been equaled, and have never been surpassed in the whole history of portrait sculpture. His own bust (Fig. 52) and those of Le Grand Condi (Fig. 68) and of Le Bran (Fig. 54) are unsurpassed works of art. Though most of his representations of Louis XIV and of the various members of his family disappeared during the
112 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Revolution there are a few left at Versailles. The bronze of Louis XIV erected in the court of the Hotd de Ville in 1689 partially escaped the revolutionists and is now in the court of the Hotel Camavalet. The equestrian statue of Louis XIV ordered by Brittany in 1685 and not erected at Rennes until 1726, eleven years after Louis' death and six years after the artist's death, and which he regarded as his very greatest work, was melted for cannon during the Revolution. Two bas-reliefs from the pedestal were saved and are in the Musee of Rennes.
There is in the Louvre by Coysevox a lovely statue of Marie- Adelaide de Savoie (Fig. 65), duchess of Bur- gundy, mother of Louis XV, executed in 1710 and for- merly in the Grand Trianon at Versailles. It is life- size and represents her with the attributes of Diana. Gonse writes of it : "A lively and roguish grace, the carriage of a goddess, delicate action, exquisite tech- nique and above everything else a sentiment of truth of rare fineness, are quite enough to give this statue the highest rank in our Museum. Without losing anything of his habitual strength Coysevox shows himself in this statue both amiable and feminine. As Racine, he knows how to belong to his own time, I mean how to remain both modern and human with a subtle flavor of antiquity."
During the latter part of his life, Coysevox was principally employed in the construction of elaborate funereal monuments. Of these the monument to Maza- rin (Figs. 56 and 57) is the best known and the most accessible. It was originally erected in the chapel of the College des Quatre-Nations as it was called, founded
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 113
hy Mazarin, and now the home of the Institut. De- stroyed during the Revolution, most of its pieces were rescued b; Leooir and have been reerected in the Louvre, though the original appearance of the monu- ment ma; not have been preserved.
The figure of Mazarin in white marble kneels to the left upon a sarcophagus of black marble. He is in full cardinal robes of which the folds are treated with ad- mirable artistic mastery. His head is turned to the front. His left hand is on his heart. His right hand is held out in a gesture of resignation to the divine will. Back of him is a small winged cupid holding the Roman sign of magistracy (fascet) which the cardinal may no longer use. Back of the cupid are the cardinal's hat and cloak. Below and about the sarcophagus are three seated bronze figures. In front is Peace crowned with laurel. She holds in her left hand the horn of plenty, while with her right she seems to be extinguish- ing an upturned torch of war against a buckler which lies at her feet. On her right and at right angles seated outwards is Prudence with her right foot on the globe and having as symbols a rudder and a mirror about which is entwined a serpent. The corresponding figure to the left is Fidelity with the arms of France and a crown. Partially hidden within her drapery is a dog. High up against the wall above the cardinal's head are two smaller seated marble figures supporting his coat- of-arms. On the left of the spectator, heavily veiled, is Religion holding on her knees the model of a church. She lifts her eyes to heaven. Back of her is a stork, emblem of Constancy. The other figure represents Charity, She holds a burning heart in her right hand,
114 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
while her left is about a poor naked child who seems appealing for help.
Of the work Jouin writes : ^^ The pen is unable to render the aspect and the character of the Tomb of Mazarin.^ The balance of the lines and the surfaces, the cadence of the grand masses, the just opposition of marble and bronze, the alternation of nude and drapery, the skillful modeling, now diffusely elegant, now contracted and severe; all the resources of the plastic art in the hands of a master are here exposed with the measure, the energy and the taste which mark genius."
The tomb of Mazarin of 1692 was followed by that of Colbert, still standing in the Church of Saint Eustache. Then came the tomb of Le Brun in the Church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet near the Ecole Polytechnique. These two are so far inferior to the tomb of Mazarin that they must be the works of pupils.
Quite equal to the tomb of Mazarin is the tomb pf the Marquis de Vaubnm, lieutenant-general of the king's forces, erected in 1705 in the chapel of the Chateau de Serrant, near the Loire and about ten miles southwest of Angers. Of this same period is the kneeling figure of Louis XIV which forms part of the group back of the high altar of Notre Dame of Paris called Le voeu de Louis XIIL The group is so placed that it cannot be seen well and photographs of it cannot be taken.
Some of Coysevox's finest works were in the Chateau de Marly. When the chateau was destroyed during
* A sketch of the tomb in its original condition is given by Kganibl de la Foice, "Description de Paris," Tome VIII, p. 22S.
Fig. .54.— Coysovox. Le Brim. (Louvre)
Fig. 5.1.— Coyspvox. Mark-Adt-laMe de Savoic (I^in-re)
Fig. .M.— Ciiysevox. Monument to iMazariTi. (Uiiivrc-)
THE Sl£:CLE DE LOUIS XIV 115
the Revolution many of these works were destroyed, a few were preserved.
No one who has visited Paris has failed to see the winged horses at the Place de la Concorde (Fig. 58) entrance to the gardens of the Tuileries. One bears a figure of Famei the other. Mercury. These are from Marly and are by Coysevox. They are fine, spirited compositions and show another side of his many-sided talent.
PIERRE PUGET (1622-1694) was bom In Mar- seilles and died there after having experienced favor at Genoa from the Italians, injustice at Paris from the court, and scant recognition from his own city.^ When quite young he was employed at Toulon in carving figure heads for vessels. When about seventeen he went to Italy. Some of his biographers state that he went on foot, others that he shipped to Leghorn. For a while he worked at Florence; then at Rome, where he became attached to Pietro di Cortona, who was then at the height of his fame. Figures in Cortona, works in the Barberini and Pitti palaces are pointed out as being by Fuget. In 1648 he was back in Marseilles, appar- ently decided to devote himself to painting. Pictures painted at this period are in the Museum of Marseilles. Before long, however, he was back in Italy making drawings for Anne d'Autriche of antique monuments, temples, tombs, triumphal arches, etc This occu- pation turned his attention from painting to archi- tecture. In 1653 he was once more in Marseilles de- termined to devote himself to architecture. .> Bm "FScne Fuget," pw Uoo Lagnnge.
116 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
The first order of importance he received was on the Hotel de Ville of Toulon, for which he planned and built the present entrance which is celebrated for the Caryatides which support the balcony over the door- way. The reputation made by these Caryatides, reach- ing Paris, he visited the capital and received flattering orders. It was during this stay in France that he is supposed to have executed for Girardon, Fouquet's as- sociate, the colossal Hercules, now in the Museum of Rouen. It was intended for the palace Girardon was erecting at Vaudreuil, not far from Rouen, and was but a short time ago found in pieces amid the ruins of the palace. Subsequently Fouquet employed him and sent him to Italy to obtain suitable marble for the statues with which his Chateau de Vaux le Vicomte was to be embellished. While he was in Italy, Fouquet was dis- graced (1661), cold Puget without resources settled in Genoa, where he remained eight years, highly honored and profitably employed.
Of the many works he executed for public and pri- vate buildings, the two statues in the church of Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano are the most highly es- teemed. The church is square with an imposing dome supported by four massive pillars. On each pillar is a statue twelve feet high. Of the two by Puget, the one representing St. Christopher is regarded as one of his finest works.
In 1669 he was offered by Colbert the position of director of naval ornamentation at Toulon. He ac- cepted the position and while discharging its duties found time for many works of architecture in Mar- seilles and for the execution of the three works of sculp-
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 117
hire by which he is best known: MUon de Crotone (Fig. 59), " Persee d^livrant Androm^e " and the bas- relief of "Alexandre et Diogfene"; works which are now together in the Salle de Puget of the Louvre. Fuget was ambitious, as was every artist, to be employed by the king and to have his works displayed at Versailles. About 1670 he succeeded in obtaining from Colbert an order for two works. In 1671 he forwarded sketches for the " Milon de Crotone " and for the " Alexandre et Diog^ne.*' The sketches were accepted and he set about the work without, unfortunately, stipulating the price. In 1682 the Milon was finished. The next year it was shipped from Marseilles to Le Havre and was set up in the gardens of Versailles. All Fuget received was six thousand francs; one half the cost of transporta- tion. When Louis saw it he was so pleased that he demanded a pendant. Thereupon Puget completed the Pertie delivrant Andromdde (Fig. 60). It was finished and shipped from Marseilles in 1684 and was erected at Versailles the following year. These dates are dif- ferently given by different biographers. Those given by Lagrange are the more generally accepted. The " Alexandre et Diog^ne " was not finished until 1687 and was not shipped to Paris until 1694. It was not forwarded to Versailles. These were troubled times: arms, not art, engaged Louis* attention: France was fighting nearly the whole of Kurope. It was not until 1697 that the treaty of Ryswick restored a short-lived peace.
As on these three works rests Fuget's reputation they must be carefully examined. First the " Milon de Crotone." Milo w*s a celebrated athlete who lived about
118 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
500 B. c. He was crowned six times at the Olympic games and only ceased to present himself because no one presumed to compete with him. Tearing lions and bears to pieces with his hands was an amusement. When he was old, seeing men laboring with wedges to split the trunk of a tree, he offered to complete the work with his hands. He succeeded in wrenching the sides so far apart that the wedges fell out. Then his strength gave out and the returning parts imprisoned his hands. The laborers, laughing him to scorn, left him to his fate. Soon the beasts of the forest had their full revenge. Puget selected the last scene of the tragedy. Milo has released one of his hands ; the other is still held fast. A lion has him by the flank and his fate is sealed. Clarac thus writes of it : ^
" In this group, one of the chefs d*ceuvre of modem sculpture, and which, if it had the nobility of forms and proportions of antiquity, would rival its most beautiful works in energy of expression and in the life which animates it, Puget has seized the moment when the lion precipitates itself on Milo, to whom defense has become impossible; clings to him; overcomes him with his weight, overpowers him, and devours him. Pain is at its last stage. Nothing can save the unhappy athlete from the horror of his fate. While he is consumed in useless efforts to free his hand and while in the con- vulsions of his sufferings he vainly turns his despair- ing glance to Heaven, which he invokes in vain with his cries, the ferocious animal rages for his prey and rends it. In a few moments Milo, six times conqueror in the Olympian games and six times in the Pythian, will have
^ *'Miu^ de Sculpture Antique et Modeme»'* vol. 5, p. 818.
IJ. ^^-^
Fig. 58.— Coysevox. Wingi.l Horses. (Paris)
Fig. ,■>!».— Piiset. Milon lie Crotoiic. (I^rnvn-)
Fig. eO.— Pugpl. IVrM'c <!elivraiit AiulronH-dc. (I^mvrc)
Fig. 61. — Puget. Alexandre et Diogene, (Louvre)
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 119
succumbed in a struggle where it is evident that he would have been victorious had he been able to utilize his strength.*'
Gonse's criticism is better informed and in accord with more modem taste:
" There has been much discussion about this cele- brated statue where the athlete of Crotona is repre- sented as making a supreme effort to release his left hand from the tree which holds it, while trying with his right to release his thigh from the jaws of the lion. The intentions of the artist are so evident, his style is BO distinct, his execution is so triumphantly a mastery, that it is easy to separate the merits and the faults which make it admirable while exposing it to criticism. The faults are the result of Puget's Italian education ; also, in a measure, of his provincial temperament heated by the atmosphere of the South. The germs of these defects are seen in Michael Angelo, abundantly multi- plied in the emphatic works of Bernini. The excel- lencies are easily apparent; an incomparable science of movement, a deep knowledge of muscular action, a lively sense of the picturesque and an extraordinary facility wiUi the chisel. The Milo belongs to the family of the Laocoon. It is a fruit of the doctrines dear to Winckehnann and to Lesslng. The modern critic who reverts to the pure sources of the vital periods of art must condemn th^ false principles which inspired Puget while wondering at the impetuous audacity which the artist developed."
The visitor of to-day observes that Milo is only held by the tips of his fingers and that the lion is a diminu- tive creature in comparison with his victim. The con-
120 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
elusion must be that the incident and the action were chosen by the artist for the display of his mastery of muscular anatomy and not at all for the purpose of exciting sympathy for the antique hero, or of symbol- izing the weakness of human endeavor. Nor can it be regarded as picturing forces accumulating for the Revolution, for as yet the Revolution was too far away.
In the companion piece of ** Perseus and Andromeda/' Puget shows rescue from a fate as cruel and appar- ently as inevitable as that of Milo. This group was not successful. Perseus is too large and too old. An- dromeda too small, with legs entirely too large for her diminutive body. Her attitude is graceful and the little cupid tugging at the chain is a charming accessory.
The Alexandre et Diogine (Fig. 61) is a bas-relief in the fashion of the day, but larger and more com- plicated than usual. It did not reach Versailles, nor is it known for what purpose or place it was intended. It is supposed to represent that incident in the life of the cynic when he requests Alexander to move on with his shadow and not to interrupt the sunlight. Dio- genes, seated on the right at the mouth of his tub, is not in keeping with the idea of the incident, as he is represented as a pitiable old man extending his right hand for pity or alms ; while Alexander, who is mounted and fills the left of the composition, laughs at him, holding his right hand to his heart in mockery. Alex- ander and those of his followers who are mounted are on horses which are also too small for them. A burly follower on foot holds a small dog by a chain big
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 121
enough for a ship's anchor. Another one leans over Diogenes* tub holding a huge sword. In the back- ground are flags floating from spears; while the com- position is shut in by temples and other buildings m attempted perspective. The work has been variously appreciated. Delacroix, the great painter, wrote of it:
** If the great Puget had had as much of common sense as he had of the intensity and science which fill this work, he would have perceived before beginning that his subject was the strangest sculpture could choose. He forgot that in the mass of men, weapons, horses and even edifices, he could not introduce the most essential actor; that is the sun's ray intercepted by Alexander; without which the composition has no sense."
Gonse is very laudatory:
" I do not hesitate to proclaim the bas-relief of ' Alexandre et Diog^ne * one of the most striking crea- tions of modem sculpture. Everything that is most rare and most difficult in the art of sculpture are there united as by a miracle: concentrated plastic effect, play of lights and shadows, selections of planes, ease of modeling; nervous, fine, lively and iridescent execu- tion. What more can be saidP There is not a secondary detail that is not treated with a marvelous assurance."
Gonse writes more than can be quoted and in still more enraptured language.
In ability to mould marble to his thoughts and sen- timents, Puget has few equals in the history of sculp- ture. In the Diogenes he is supposed to have typified the obstacles that were continually preventing his en-
122 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
joying the favor of Le Roi Soleil. His life in Paris was not happy. He was not appreciated and he was badly paid for his works. He returned to Marseilles, where in 1694 he died. His last work, another bas- relief, representing the plague at Milan, is at Marseilles in the large hall of a building on the old harbor called Le Consigne, where are housed the quarantine and other health officers.
His best critics regard as his best productions the " Cfifryatides of Toulon " and his " Saint S^bastien of Genoa."
Coysevox's nephews and pupils, the COUSTOUS, succeeded to his position, his emoluments and his activities.
NICOLAS, nearly twenty years older than his brother, was bom in Lyons in 1658, took the Prir de Rome in 1681 when twenty-three, was admitted to the Academy in 1698 and was its chancellor when he died in 1788.
GUILLAUME followed after his brother by taking the Prto: de Rome in 1697 and by entering the Academy in 1704 when only twenty-seven. He lived until 1746, surviving his brother but thirteen years.
The changes in the style of living following the death of Louis XIV; and in art notions following the death of Le Brun had less effect in statuary than in painting or even in architecture. Where sculptors were employed in interior or exterior decoration they were governed by the fashion of the day which was intoler- ant of straight lines and of angles, particularly of right angles. But in the productions of statues and groups
THE Sl£CL£ DE LOUIS XIV 123
there was but little change in technic and no abrupt change in style. There can be but little change in an art that is limited by the physical laws which govern heavy materials. Technical changes must be super- 6cial> limited to the treatment of drapery and surfaces. Statues may also be more or less draped, more or less burdened with accessories, more or less true in anatomy and muscular and epidermic details. Within these limits, however, there is ample space for all the shad- ing between dignity and license, chaste reserve and vulgar show. It must also be remembered that after the fourteenth century art ceased to be national, the expression of national faith and aspirations, and be- came more and more the luxury of the rich. During the reigns of Louis XIV and XV and until the Revolu- tion, the French people were so poor and so oppressed that their energies were consumed in keeping them- selves alive. There were no national characteristics or aspirations to be expressed in art. Art was for the rich and wag controlled by their desires. The court decreed the style ; the rich accepted it ; the people had nothing to do with it. Louis XV was a sensualist; the art of his reign, when it had the opportunity, was as sensual as a public art can be. Boucher in paint- ing and Clodion in sculpture reached the extreme. Not an offensive extreme unless you choose to he offended. Their nudes are too simple, youthful, unreal, to do harm. In portraiture art must be faithful ; in funereal monuments it must be reverent. The Coustous are not sensual. They remained true to the correct, if pomp- ous, and decorative art which pleased the old age of Louis XIV. Though the Revolution destroyed many
124 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
of their works there are still enough left to show that they were most excellent and admirable artists.
Of Nicolas' works, his statue of ** Julius Caesar/' now in the Louvre, executed for Marly ; his " Descent from the Cross,*' over the high altar of Notre Dame of Paris; and above all, his most excellent group of the " Rhone and the Saone," now in the Garden of the Tuileries near the west entrance, are as highly es- teemed to-day as they were by contemporaries. The group of the ** Rhone and the Saone " is so far supe- rior to every kindred work of the century that it re- mains a model of composition. Let the visitor walk around it and examine it from every point of view. He will find that from every point it presents an equally satisfactory and lovely picture.
By Guillaume, the younger brother, there are many things in existence to show his skill. In the Louvre are: his statue of Marie Leczinska (Fig. 62), his statuette of the " Death of Hercules," the plaster cast for his famous ** Venus," executed for Frederic the Great, now at Potsdam, and other minor things. In the church of St. Roch is his tomb of Cardinal Dubois — hard to see in the darkness of the church — thought by many to be the equal of Coysevox's tomb of Mazarin. At the Hotel des Invalides are many decorations about the principal entrance; particularly a heroic eques- trian statue of Louis XIV which fills the tympanum. At Versailles, in the vestibule of the chapel, is his bas- relief of the passage of the Rhine by Louis XIV, a superb piece of pompous flattery; and put away in a comer, his bust of his brother, one of the best busts of the eighteenth century.
Fig. C2.— G. Coustoii. Mario Lefziriska. (Louvre)
Fi({. 6;t.— G. Coiistoii. Clifvaiix .!<■ Marly. (Paris)
Fig. 04.— G. Coustou. Clievaux de Marl.v. (Par
Fis. G.;.—G. Coii^Um. Tmnh of tlit- Daupliiu. (St-iis)
J
THE SINGLE DE LOUIS XIV 183
But above all else his reputation rests on the Ckevaux de Marly (Figs. 68 and 61) which guard the sides of the entrance to the Champs Elys4e8. The brothers Menard thus write of them : *
** The two groups known under the name of the * Chevaux de Marly ' which decorate the entrance to the Champs Elys^es are regarded, and justly, as Coustou's ch£f» d'ceuvre, and as one of the most remarkable monu- ments of French sculpture. The talent displayed in these works is of a nature to be understood by every- body, but artists alone can appreciate the immense diiGculty which has been overcome. ' To make a horse rearing with his groom; and as a pendant another horse rearing with his groom ; to make them very dif- ferent, yet perfectly symmetrical; to seek in each man and in each animal the most violent and the most ex- treme action ; to combine the optical balance of the two groups with such accuracy that from a distance they seem the two sides of a single group; to mark in the action the most fugitive and intangible expression; to observe at the same time the first of the laws of monumental sculpture, that is unity of outline; finally to give to an ordinary action twice repeated the char- acter of an epic twice invented, certainly shows grand talent if not genius."
Guillaume had a son GUILLAUME (1716-1777) who remained faithful to the family teaching. He is
' "De la Sculpture Antique et Modeme," par MM. Louis et ReiiA Mfnanl. Paris, 1868. The two btothera Louu-NichoUs, I8M-1801, and Ren^oseph, lf)3T-lBST, wen: famous Parisian critka on many subjects. They wrote conjointly and separately. The elder may have been more at home in history; the younger, in art. They both indulged in painting. A son of the younger became a well-known paint«r.
126 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
best known by the " Tomb of the Dauphin '* (Fig. 66), (only son of Louis XV) who died in I7569 and of ** Marie Josephe de Saxe " his wife. The tomb stands in the cathedral of Sens. Figures are grouped about a pedestal supporting a funereal urn. A draped female representing Religion holds up to the urn a small wreath of stars in her right hand and a cross in her left. Other figures are supposed to represent Science, Time and Immortality. Two cupids are in the scene: one is weeping over a globe; the other holds up a broken chain of flowers. There is also a very modem tombstone with names and titles of the deceased. The effect is more theatrical than emotional or pathetic. Far more impressive were the tombs of the Middle Ages where the idea of death was expressed so strongly and yet so simply and so sacredly.
"What is included in the term of Art du XVII P Siicle — architecture, sculpture, painting and decora- tion— commences with the Regency in 1716 and ends with the approach of the Revolution. With the Re- gency appears a new art, original and charming, which seems the revenge of France against the spirit of the Renaissance. As during the thirteenth century, the Mode Franfaise once more conquers Europe, architec- ture unbinds the vigor imposed upon it by the Grand Steele. Private building is humanised; becomes inti- mate : from being pompous, it condescends to be famil- iar and practical. Forms unbend so as better to adapt themselves to the wants of living and to the exigencies of comfort. Facades yield to elegant curves and are graced with balconies bulging with fat and opulent iron work. Stories are lower and staircases, with softened
THE SINGLE DE LOUIS XIV 127
balustrades, are more mviting. Sculpture frees itself from classic pedantism, and if it still retains a residue of Italian mannerism, it is to transform it, after its fashion, into a particular style which is thoroughly French where movement and living forms control. The art of portraiture receives a marvelous impulse. It redeems the weak conventionalities of religious art, and studies to appear simple, natural, delicate. The eigh- teenth century is preeminently the century of busts. Flesh palpitates in marble and in bronze. Tcchnic develops an infinite dash. To render the epidermis, the ultimate object of sculpture, the marvelous attainment, so far, of but few of its chiefs, becomes the current money of the profession. On its side, painting leaves the height of Olympus for terrestrial realities. A ray of gayety lights it and animates it. The finger of a Nattier, a Latour, a Chardin, illumines portraiture with the magic smile of grace. And lastly, decoration — admirable, hearty, vigorous and thoroughly French, though fakely and injuriously called rococo — estab- lishes new Ksthetical laws, abundant, capricious, pic- turesque; conformable to their object, abundant in their results.
" The evolution of taste, necessitated by the evolu- tion of manners, follows in the same path. Everything fiourishes together in a strong and beautiful unity.
" To resume. Not since the Middle Ages has France had a glory that was more personal to it than the art of the eighteenth century. Never did she strike a vein more rich in new ideas. If we must deplore that at the outbreak of the Renaissance, she abandoned na- tional paths, we must recognize that she could not have
128 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
drawn a better and more brilliant part from a cause which seemed lost. Let it be added that in this magnifi- cent impetus sculpture may occupy the first place." ^
Of the many sculptors whose principal occupation was administering to the taste of Louis XV and his court, the reputation of a number has been transmitted, and of a few some works are still in existence to attest to their reputations.
Three of them were bom about the same time, — Bouchardon in 1698, Lemoyne in 1704 and Michel Slodtz in 1706. Then come AUegrain, bom in 1710, Pigalle, born in 1714, and Falconet, born in 1716. Jean Jacques Cafiieri was bom in 1725, Pajou in 1780 and Clodion in 1788. With the exception of the first three, all these artists survived Louis XV and lived under the changed infiuences of the approaching Revolution.
EDME BOUCHARDON (1698-1762) was bom at Chaumont about one hundred and sixty miles southeast of Paris. His father was an architect and sculptor and educated his son to be his successor. When he was still quite young he went to Paris and was admitted to the studio of the younger Coustou. Here he remained until 1722 when he took the Prir de Rome. He re- mained in Italy for ten years, executing works which made him celebrated. In 1782 he was recalled to Paris by the king, who made him his aculpteur ordinaire and gave him many orders for Versailles and other royal residences. In 1746 he entered the Academy and in two years became one of its professors. There are
^ "La Sculpture Firan^iue,'* Chapter VI, by Louis Gonae.
\
THE SiftCLE DE LOUIS XIV 129
UDimportant statues b; Bouchsrdon at Versailles and in the church of St. Sutpice. La Fontaine de la rue de Crenelle St. Germain and bis statue in the Louvre of L'amour le taiilant un arc dan* la ma»>ue d'HercuU are the two works by which his reputation is to be judged.
The rue de Grenelle is an old, narrow and tortuous street in the Latin quarter of Paris. The fountain is aear where it crosses the new Boulevard Raspail. The street is so narrow that no general effect can be gained and no satisfactory photograph of the whole can be taken. It consists of a concave classical elevation with a projection in the center. On the projecting center are three statues ; a seated one representing Paris and two reclining ones at her feet representing the rivers Seine and Mame. On the curves at each side are two niches: in each a statue representing a season. Be- neath each niche is a bas-relief in which little children carry out the idea of the season (Figs. 66, 67, 68, 69). The has-reliefs are greatly admired. The various statues are commonplace. They are neither Impressive nor beautiful. They are correct, hut ordinary; in no way inspiring. The whole work is well conceived and carried out. Students of classical architecture arc satisfied with it. It is valuable as a specimen of the academic training of the period. There is a project for moving it away and placing it where it can be better examined. Then perhaps the beauties praised by con- temporaries will be perceived and appreciated.
Bouchardon was a scholar, a writer, and a fervent lover of the antique. L'amour »e taUlant im arc dans la ma»iue d'Hercvie is a singular composition. It reprc-
ISO MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
sent8 Cupid by the stren^h of his left hand squeez- ing a bow from the club of Hercules. He holds the club upright between his legs; grasps the emerging bow in his right hand, squeezes down with the left and turns his face to the left with a smile to call attention to the ease with which he is accomplishing the task. His wings only partially flutter to further show the absence of exertion. The pose is pleasing, the action is well controlled, the face is attractive. The victory of love over force is easy and complete. What Her- cules may have thought of the work does not appear.
Bouchardon's last and greatest work was a bronze equestrian statue of Louis XV fourteen feet high, which stood in the Place Louis XV, now Place de la Concorde, until the Revolution, when it was torn down, melted and the metal used for cannon. Bouchardon did not live to finish it. To Pigalle was entrusted the task.^
JEAN BAPTISTE LEMOYNE (1704-1788) was born and died in Paris. He was a pupil of Le Lorain, was made an academician in 1788, and developed to the highest degree the art of portraiture. Most of his time was given to the production of bronze statues of Louis XV, all of which were destroyed during the Revolution. The one at Bordeaux was particularly praised. Many of his busts are still in existence and show a delightful apprehension of individuality and a complete absence of stiffness and pomposity. Some of his best are at the Theatre Fran9ais in the Foyer des Artistes, to which
^ This and other monuments to Louis XV are engraved in Piene Fattens interesting work, '* Monuments ^rig^ en France en Thonneur de Louis XV." See "£dm^ Bouchardon/' par Alphonse Roserot. Paris 1910.
fiT'NJM l-'.^.
■ . -■m^ ti. .^ >^Hi
2 'C
CM
Q
C/3
O en
.Si PQ
a o
u o
3 O
PQ
CO
01}
THE SitlCLE DE LOUIS XIV 131
the public is not admitted. The bust of Mile. Clairon is regarded as the very highest development of the art of portraiture.'
Lemojne had many pupils, among whom the most celebrated were Falconet, Figalle, Caffieri and Pajou.
MICHEL SLODTZ (1705-1764) was the fifth son of Sebastien Slodtz, a native of Antwerp who moved to Paris when he was quite young, studied under Girardon and became a naturalized Frenchman. There is by him in the Louvre a statue of Hannibal, executed for Marly and for many years in the Gardens of the Tuileries. It is called Anmbal me»urant au botsieau ^ leg atmeaux del chevalieri Romains ttiis il Caanet.
Young Slodtz early displayed talent. He captured the Prix de Rome in 1730. After his years of service he remained in Italy until 1747 executing a number of works which still ornament Roman churches. On his return to France he was employed by the king in mak- ing designs for court festivities. In 1750 he was charged to execute in the church of St. Sulpice the tomb of the Abbi Lanquet de Gerzy,^ where he intro-
' Clure-Joaiphe-UrU (17eS-IB03) was a celebrated tragic actren. When she waa fifty she conquered the heart o( the Margrave of Anspach, at least twelve years her junior, and for years she reigned over Anspach aa if she were it» queen. She returned to Paris in 17B1. In 1780 ap- peared her celebrated "M^moires." which are entertaining reading
* BotuMu b an old French measure containing nearly three galloiu.
■ John Joseph Lanquet de Geray (16T7-17S3) was a French prelate of lovely character who however was always in hot water because he would indulge bis passion for polemics. He was bishop of Soissons and aubaequently archbishop of Sens. He was elected to the Acadfmie Fiantaise in 1721 and waa made a ConscUler d'EUt in 1747. It may have been the memory of his benevolence that saved his tomb from defecntion.
182 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
duces, entirely new ideas into funereal sculpture, ideas that met with favor as they were adopted by many future sculptors. The idea was death as a skeleton taking part in the intended action. The tomb is in- tact and is regarded as Slodtz's chef d^aeuvre and as an excellent specimen of the funereal sculpture of the period. Slodtz was also employed in decorating the church, especially the Lady-Chapel.
GABRIELr-CHRISTOPHE ALLEGRAIN (1710- 1795) was bom and died in Paris. He was a member of the Academy in 1751, one of its professors in 1759 and its rector in 1788. His works would not have received so much attention had he not been Pigalle's brother-in-law and had not they been so highly praised by Diderot. Two of his works are in the Louvre: his Baigneuse and his Diane surprise an bain par Action. Of the Baigneuse (Fig. 70) Diderot wrote as follows: *
" Beautiful, beautiful, sublime figure ! They even say it is the most beautiful, the most perfect female figure modem art has produced. The severest criticism is mute in her presence. It is only after a long ad- miring silence that criticism suggests in low tones that the perfection of the head does not altogether respond to that of the body. The head is nevertheless beauti- ful: the eyes are beautifully enshrined, the shape is beautiful; the mouth, the nose, though it might be more delicate. Criticism might be tempted to accuse the neck of being too short, but would repent on con- sidering that the head is inclined. Should the critic find fault with the coiffure, when his eye rests on the
} "^uvres 4e Denis Diderot-Salons/' Tome in, p. 75 el aef.
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV ISS
shoulders he cannot help exclaiming: 'The beautiful shoulders ; how beautiful they are ! what form of arms t what precious and miraculous truths of nature are in all these parts ! * " etc.
This little is enough to show the exaggerated style of the criticism which Diderot parades in detail all over the body.
Gonse is hardly less fulsome:
" The * Baigneuse * of Allegrain is a wise and agree- able work elegantly composed, of clear intentions and perfectly correct. The feminine forms, skillfully bal- anced, appear in that happy classical equilibrium which is not open to criticism. The moulding of the marble is followed into all the details with a rare delicacy. What more is needed to merit the praises the piece received when first exposed and which it has always enjoyed! **
To the ordinary eye the statue seems a large, realistic and public representation of an ordinary act which is generally conducted in private.
JEAN BAPTISTE PIGALLE (1714-1785) was bom and died in Paris. He studied first under Robert le Lorain and then under Lemoyne. His progress was slow. Having failed to capture the Priic de Rome he went to Italy on foot where he nearly died of privations. He was rescued by the son of Guillaume Coustou who recognized his talents and encouraged him to persevere. On his return to France he obtained employment at Lyons. When thirty he exhibited in Paris a statue which made him famous and secured him admission to the Academy. It is called Mercare attachant sea ttdon- niire* (Fig. 71) and is now in the Louvre. The statue
184 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
is supple, easy, graceful, admirably modeled. The ex- pression of the face particularly pleased the king.
Pigalle executed a number of trivial works to satisfy the taste of the court and a few grander works which appeal to modern taste. Of them all the monument to Maurice de Saxe (Fig. 72) at Strasbourg is the most important. Hermann Maurice, Comte de Saxe, was the son of Augustus II the great Elector of Saxony. He was a soldier of fortune who after serving under many flags became a French subject and a marshal of her armies. He was bom in 1696 in Saxony and died in 1750 at the Chateau of Chambord in France where he was lodged with the appurtenances of royalty. He enjoyed the reputation of being the greatest general of his generation. The monument was ordered in 1753. At the Salon of 1756 its model was displayed, but the monument itself was not ready for shipment until 1768, and was not erected in the Lutheran church of St. Thomas at Strasbourg until 1774.
The monument represents the hero in his marshal's uniform in front of a lofty and broad pyramid on which high up over his head is engraved the account of some of his triumphs. On his right, over upturned flags are the Austrian eagle, the Belgian lion and the English leopard, hurrying away in defeat. On his left are French standards: in their midst a weeping cupid. The hero is represented taking a step down towards the tomb which is opening to receive him. At his feet is crouched a figure representing France. With her right hand she tries to arrest the steps of the hero, while she extends her left pitifully towards Death who, as a shrouded skeleton, stands at the right end of the
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 185
sarcophagus which is on a still lower level. At the other end of the sarcophagus is Hercules weeping for the loss to the French army. The figure of the hero is as fine as any work of sculpture of the century. The figure of France is beautiful ; her action graceful. The stretch of her two arms unite the hero and the tomb most pathetically. The whole composition is ad- mirably composed and put together.
There is in Notre Dame of Paris a work by Pigalle which is passed by visitors absorbed in contemplating the interior architecture of the building. It is a monu- ment to the memory of Henri Claude Comte d'Har- court (Fig. 78) (1704-1769), lieutenant-general of the king's armies, second son of Henri I due d'Harcourt. The theme was suggested by the Comte's eccentric wife. She would have him represented as, in answer to her cries, struggling in vain to lift himself from his sar- cophagus. The genius of life at the left end of the sarcophagus has apparently been aiding, but lets fall his torch and sinks down in recognition of the hopeless- ness of the undertaking, further emphasized by the figure of death at the other end of the sarcophagus holding up the hour glass. The emaciated body of the Comte seems about disappearing anew in the sarcoph- agus beneath its falling lid. On a lower level and amid her husband's trophies the Countess still wrings her hands and utters her cries. It is a curious and un- attractive composition.
Pigalle's studies for the body of the Comte may have inspired his nude statue of Voltaire of which the story is too long to be repeated. It stands in the library of the Institute where few are admitted to see it.
186 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
About the last of Pigalle's works was a statue of Louis XV for Rheims. The statue of the king dis- appeared during the Revolution and was replaced in 1819 by a figure by the sculptor Cartellier (Pierre Cartellier (1767-1881). The two figures about the pedestal were preserved and are thus described by Pigalle himself:
" To the right of the Prince the gentleness of the Government is represented by a woman holding in one hand a rudder and with the other leading a lion at liberty by the mane to express that a Frenchman in spite of his strength willingly submits to a gentle gov- ernment. To his left the happiness of the people is expressed by a happy citizen enjoying perfect repose in the midst of abundance expressed by the horn of plenty from which flow fruit, flowers, pearls and other riches. The olive grows by his side. He is seated on bales of merchandise. His purse is open to show his security and at his side, symbol of the golden age, the wolf and the lamb are together sleeping." ^
The figure of the citizen was and is greatly admired. Even Falconet — no friend of Pigalle — proclaimed it unsurpassed in ancient or modern art.
The year he died Pigalle was promoted to be Chan- cellor of the Academy.
There are a few of Pigalle's works in the Louvre. Among them U Amour et VAmitiS and UEnfant et la Cctge were particularly admired. There is also a bust of Maurice of Saxony, said to have been taken from life a short, time before the death of the Marshal and
^ "Rheims, Monuments et Histoire," par Hippolyte Basin. Rheima, L'brairie de l* Acad^mie, 1900, p. 422.
Fig. 70— Allegrain. Baigrieuso. (Louvre)
l-'iB. TS.-l'igallc. Maurice ,1,- Saxc. (SlraJi.mre)
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV 137
to have served as a model for the head of the statue at Strasbourg.
MAURICE ETIENNE FALCONET (171ft-n81) was bom and died- id Paris. He was a pupil of Le- moyne. He is best known by two works: his heroic equestrian statue of " Peter the Great " at St. Peters- burg, executed for Catherine II and his charming statue of Nympke deicendant au bam (Fig. 74) exhibited in 1757. There are a few others of his works in the Salle des Coustous of the Louvre. Among others is his ex- aggerated and ridiculous " Milon de Crotone " which admitted him to the Academy in 1764, — his morceau de riception, as it is called.
Diderot had a very high opinion of Falconet, He calls him a genius with all the qualities both compatible and incompatible with genius. He says he has deli- cacy, taste, gentleness and superabundant grace. He compares him with Pigalle whom he states was lacking in ideality but knew how to represent nature and to represent it true, warm, vigorous. According to Dide- rot, Falconet disliked Pigalle, but did him justice. He adds : " At all events they are two great men, who when fifteen or twenty centuries from now heads or feet of their statues will be rescued from the ruins of the great city, will show that we were not children, at least in sculpture.'*
Falconet was called to Russia in 1766 and devoted nearly eight years to the statue of " Peter the Great " which is still one of the chief ornaments of St. Peters- burg. He is said to have received, over and above ex- penses, a gratification of two hundred thousand francs.
188 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
The CAFFIERI were an Italian family which came to France in 1660 on the invitation of the Cardinal Maza- rin. The first was Philippe who was bom in Rome in 1684 and died in Paris in 1716. He was employed by Mazarin and by Colbert in decorating the royal palaces. His eldest son, Franfois Charles, was bom in Paris in 1667 and died in 1729 in Brest where he had been employed in decorating men-of-war. His sixth son, named Jacques (1678-1765), devoted him- self to sculpture and executed busts of merit. Charles- Philippe (1696-1766), son of Fran9ois Charles, suc- ceeded to his father's business. Philippe (1714-1774), son of Jacques, distinguished himself as an engraver and designer of jewels.
Another son of Jacques, Jean-Jacques (1725-1792), was the most celebrated of the family. He studied under Lemoyne, captured the Prix de Rome in 1748 • and was admitted to the Academy in 1769. He first distinguished himself by a group of the " Trinity " for the church of Saint Louis des Fran9ais in Rome. After his return to France he devoted himself princi- pally to busts, in which department of sculpture he had no superior except Houdon. Some of his most successful efforts are in the Theatre Fran9ai8. There is no better one than his bust of " Rotrou ** (1609— 1660). As Rotrou died seventy-five years before Caf- fieri was born, CafBeri could only have had old represen- tations to guide him. He has produced a marvel of character and life. The presence of the man is felt as acutely as the power of art can make it felt. Rotrou's early and tragic death seems to cast a shadow over the dramatist's debonair features. It seems to take an effort
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 189
to bold up in pride the noble head. The lips are apart and the collar is loosed as if breathing were no longer free and easy. Most remarkable are the ease and grace of the pose. The figure seems to breathe and move within the drapery. The grand eyes have not lost tlicir luster ; but the lids are drooping and the eyebrows need wrinkles for support. The mousquetaire*s cloak mark!) the poet's epoch: in its management it marks a model for every epoch.
There are two other busts belonging to the Comedic Fran^aise which are worthy to be compared with the Rotrou: La CJumri^e, executed in 1785 and Jean- Jacquet Rouueau, executed in 1787.
AUGUSTIN PAJOU (1780-1809) was bom and died in Paris. He captured the Prix de Rome when .^'eighteen and was admitted to the Academy when thirty. He excelled in the soft and graceful nudities of the day of which his Psyche in the Louvre is a specimen. Of this Psyche Andre Michel writes as follows : '
" This Psyche which could with difficulty be passed as an antique is a charming work. Everything about her is deliciously in the style, the taste and the ideas of the times : the decorations of the stool on which she is seated; the arrows and the quiver embroidered on her cushion ; the floating locks of her hair which seem awaiting the cap of the national colors and a ribbon of the united orders ; the supple opulence of her bust
* AncM-Ptml-ChaTles Michel, one of the best and most authorita- tive erf French art critics was bom in Montpelier in \85S, His&Kiclc9 on the "Salona" in the "Joumala dea D^bsts" and those by Robert de la Sifetanne in the "Revue 6ea Deux Mondes" are acoepted by con- ■ervstives aa tbe best and the most disbterested criticisms publi^ed.
14rO MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
from which she must have let fall the enveloping fichu before she stabbed herself; even the characterizing shade of her grief : everything indicates her style. She must have read Rousseau before plunging a dagger into her breast; that lovely breast swelling with life; and must have written some eloquent and sensible let- ters. Perhaps she does well to kill herself. In a few years she would risk being guillotined as was Mme. Roland whom she resembles."
She is certainly a very substantial and material Psyche; not a bit classical or ethereal. Psyche stab- bing herself is not part of the accepted tradition.
More interesting is his bust of Mme. du Barry (Fig. 75), also in the Louvre; and still more interesting is his statue of Maria Leczinska (Fig. 76)9 represented as Charity. It was executed after her death and was intended to adorn her tomb. His portrait busts are creditable but not remarkable. There is also in the Louvre a group of " Pluto and Cerberus," Pajou's morceau de reception,
CLAUDE MICHEL (1788-1814) known as CLO- DION was born at Nancy and died in Paris. He was a nephew and pupil of Lambert-Sigisbert Adam, the sculptor of the principal group of the Neptune fountain at Versailles. After the death of his uncle in 1759 he entered Pigalle's studio, but before the end of the year ' had captured the Prix de Rome, His departure for Italy was delayed until 1762 and he remained away until 1771. From his return until his death he was the most active, imaginative, popular and sensual sculp- tor of Paris. He excelled in playful bas-reliefs of
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 1*1
satyrs (Fig. 77), nympha and cupids; and in pretty statuettes of childish nudities. Most of his works are in plaster, glazed and sometimes colored, or in porce- lain. His mind worked too rapidly for the slow pro- cesses of carving in marble or stone. He had a large studio filled with workmen, reduplicating his works and applying them to pieces of furniture, toilet articles, clocks, etc. No boudoir was complete without a con- tribution from Clodiofi's atelier. There was also a. serious side to his character as his works for the cathe- dral of Rouen and his statue of " Montesquieu " in the Institut attest. With the approach of the Revolu- tion and the revival of taste for the severely classical, Clodion's popularity declined but was never lost. To-day his models have reappeared and are as popular as ever.
The works for Rouen cathedral were intended for the jtibi and consisted of a colossal figure of " Ste. Cecilia *' and a bas-relief representing the death of the Virgin. When the juhi was taken down a few years ago, these were removed into a side chapel and are, I understand, to be transferred to the Museum.
In the court of the building No. 20 Place Vendome is to be seen a bas-relief over thirty feet long, by Clodion, called Le triomphe de Galatie,
Two of his characteristic works are in the Hotel Cluny. One represents a faun playing on a pipe to dancing faun children, and the other a faunesse play- ing on a banjo to dancing faun children. The lovely childish face of the faunesse is especially character- istic. Clodion's classicality was limited to subjects. His forms and features are studied from nature. In
142 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
the Louvre, by Clodion, is a large faun with a baby satyr on her shoulder. The group was once at Fon- tainebleau. It would look better if smaller. The sub- ject requires a smaller scale.
About 1780 there lived in the rue de Grenelle the very rich and fastidious Baron de Bezenval. For him Clodion decorated a bath-room which excited the envy of all other Paris barons and the enthusiasm of those who were permitted to see it. It is now miles and miles away from Paris in a chateau belonging to one of the baron's descendants who lives not far from Macon and keeps his treasures locked up for fear a Morgan may see them and tempt him.
There is in the Kensington Museum one of Clodion's fine works, a chimney-piece which once belonged to Mme. de Shrilly.
JEAN-ANTOINE HOUDON (1744-1828) was bom at Versailles and died in Paris. His parents were house servants. Nothing seems to be known of his early life nor of the circumstances which led him into sculp- ture. His father at one time was concierge of the Ecole des Elfeves Proteges, as it was called, where pupils were retained for further instruction before they were sent to Italy.^ The boy may have had the run of the studios, have displayed youthful talent and have re- ceived encouragement and instruction. All that is defi-
^ L'Eoole Toyale des £Uves prot^g^s was created in 1748. Six pupils of the academy were selected by competition. They lived together under the control of a director appointed by the king, received a pension and were instructed by a professor who was charged "to ornament their minds with history, fable and other matters which related to the arts they embraced.*' The school lasted until 1775. See Lavisse ct Rambaud* "Histoire G^n^rale," Tome VII, p. 766.
t'ig. 74. — Faloiiiiet. N.vmplie (Icsceiiduiil uii liaiu. (l-oiivri')
Fig. 75. — Pajuii. Mnie. du Barry. (Loiivrt)
Fig. 7C. — Pajou. Mark Lcc/inska.
Fig. 77.— CloJion. Salyrs. (I>ouvrc)
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV 148
nitely known is that at twelve he belonged to the Ecole Royale de Sculpture, where he was entered as a pupil of Slodtz; at twenty he captured the Prix de Rome and the same year started for Italy where he remained ten years. During the eighteenth century there was a great demand for artists in Italy and the skill of the Priw de Rome Frenchmen was quickly recognized. As the French government exercised control, they could be called back whenever their services were required. As evidence of their industry and' their progress pupils were obliged from time to time to send home speci- mens of their work. As a specimen of his work Houdon sent back an ScorchS; that is a statue of a skinned person to serve in schools for lessons in plastic an- atomy. Houdon valued such, specimens so highly for purposes of instructipn that he executed several of them in different attitudes at different periods of his life. The most celebrated of his works, executed while at Rome, is a statue of " St. Bruno " nine feet which stands in the entrance of the church of Maria degli Angeli built into the ruins of the baths of Diocletian; Michael Angelo's last work as architect. Michael Angelo's plan was radically changed in 1749. Houdon took for his model one of the monks at prayer and reproduced him as simply and as naturally as possible. With his shaved pate, bare; clothed in the simple robes of the order, standing with his head slightly bowed and his hands across his breast, the saint is the personification of humility, obedience, sanc- tity and simplicity. Not an ornament or symbol of any kind is used. Houdon depended for effect upon the artistic revelation of the character of the saint.
.-•^
144 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Pope Clement XIY said of it that it would speak if it were not against the rule of the order.
Houdon began exhibiting in 1771. At the Salon of that year he showed a model for a statue of " Morpheus.** The statue was not executed until 1777 and served as his morceau de riceptum, A reproduc- tion of the work is in the Louvre, also a bust of " Diderot ** exhibited in 1771 which was the beginning of the remarkable series of busts (Figs. 78 and 79) (over two hundred, according to Gonse) which show Houdon to be the most remarkable plastic delineator of human character not only of his own age, but of every age. It would be useless to criticise, or compare, the most lifelike busts which in large numbers were regularly produced in never yielding merit. Those of well-known men are known by their plaster casts all over the civilized world. "Voltaire" (Fig. 80), " Franklin " and " Mirabeau " (Fig. 81), three of the easiest to be appreciated, are to be seen in every or- derly museum of the fine arts.
In 1779 he executed for the ComMie Franfaise a bust of " Moliere " which made Caffieri mad with jeal- ousy because it was regarded as so much superior to the one of his own production. As neither artist could have seen Moliire these busts were based principally on apprehension of character. This made Houdon's superiority all the more displeasing to Caffieri.
Houdon was equally capable of executing full-length statues, singly or in groups : but his busts were so far superior to those of other artists of the day that they monopolized attention. There were two exceptions, however : his " Diana '* of which there is a bronze in
THE SifeCLE DE LOUIS XIV 145
the Louvre, and the seated " Voltaire '* (Fig. 82) of the Theatre Fran9ais. A satisfactory history of this ** Diana " has not yet been written. So far as the editor has as yet been able to ascertain, the facts may be as follows : About 1772 Houdon must have attracted the attention of Catherine II of Russia, for he ex- hibited her bust in the Salon of 1778 and also busts of members of the reigning family of Saxe-Gotha et Altenbourg. In the Salon of 1776 appears a model of a sepulchral chapel for a deceased Saxon duchess, and in 1777 appears the bust of a ** Diana " with the notice that a model of the whole statue is in the artist's studio and that the statue itself is in the gardens of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha. The " Diana '* may have been in the duke's gardens, but he refused to accept it and also refused Houdon's plans for his mother's sepulchral chapel. The original " Diana " was pur- chased by the Empress of Russia and is now in the Hermitage. According to the Catalogue, the bronze in the Louvre was made in 1790. It is known that one was made in 178S for M. Girardot de- Marigny who does not seem to have been related to the Marquis de Marigny, brother of Mme. de Pompadour. Other copies may have been made as Houdon did not neglect the commercial value of his art.
The Louvre bronze is a wonderfully light and grace- ful statue of exquisite modeling. She is represented gently running with her left foot resting on the ground. In her right hand she holds forward an arrow: in her left, she holds down a bow. In 1778 the following criticism of it appeared in the ** Journal de Paris : " ^
A ^'Guette dM Beaux Arts," 1889, p. 88S.
• ^
146 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
*^ I can't describe to you the effect she produces. Elegance, lightness, nobility ! She has everything. Poised on the point of one of her feet, with the other suspended in the air, you see her run. The eye must hurry in order to follow her; for in an instant she will have disappeared. She is truly Diana the goddess ; for she fills perfectly the idea the poets have given of her. The forms are not only the true forms of a beautiful woman, but it is the perfection of beauty above even choice nature and the purity of form that announce the celestial being. Light, noble, graceful, imposing, she would be called the sister of Apollo, that divine Apollo of the Vatican: the only figure on earth which conveys the idea of a god."
Houdon did not like such fulsome flattery and thus answered his unknown critic:
*^ Though this work has given me more labor than any other, I am not of your opinion in reference to the comparison you make. Since you are acquainted with the * Apollo ' of the Vatican, and since you ap- pear to be an amateur of sculpture, you must recog- nize that my work does not approach it. I do not speak from modesty, but because I have found the * Apollo ' about perfect ; though you must know that what is called perfect in art can only be that which approaches perfection. My * Diana ' is not in that class. I know it, however much artists, my confrires^ have praised it."
To this Andr^ Michel, the writer of the article in the " Gazette " adds :
" Certainly never were compliments more merited. If you choose, and placing yourself in a purely aca-
THE SINGLE DE LOUIS XIV 147
demic point of view, you may discuss the character of the head which looks too much like a portrait. But everybody agrees that in light and elegant grace of outline, fine and strong precision, in ease and simplic- ity of execution, in absolute justness of movement and in the living rhythm with which the whole statue is penetrated — it is a perfect work which at the same time ravishes, astonishes and reassures the eye."
As to the seated " Voltaire " of the Theatre Franfais, who has not seen it; and who that has seen has re- strained the expression of his admiration? It leaves an indelible impression. Voltaire as there represented is thereafter the Voltaire of the thoughts and of the imagination. Every detail contributes its share to the individual power of the work. The classic gown seems appropriate to the familiar converse of the elderly sage. The grasp of the hands steadies the utterance of his thought. The sparkling eyes and the sharp lips, holding a witticism between them, are turned as to a friend and not to an audience. The work is filled full of the intense vibrancy of modern humanity which it holds up in contrast to the calm dignity of classic ab- sorption. The poor old gentleman was very sick when Houdon was at work and died before the statue was finished.
Voltaire died in 1778. The finished statue was not exhibited until the Salon of 1781.
It waq in 1786 that Houdon was induced by Frank- lin to take the voyage to America for the purpose of executing e stetue of Washington who was then fifty- three and had just laid down his military power. He reached Mt. Vernon in October and stayed with Wash-
148 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ington a fortnight making studies and measurements of head, face, person and costumes and, where possible, taking casts. The statue itself took three years to finish and is now in the Capitol of Virginia at Rich- mond. It is not satisfactory: the head is too small for the body ; the shoulders are not straight ; the back is not erect and vigorous. The right hand holds a long cane turned in like a French walking-stick. The left arm and the cloak rest on a very high and large fasces; too large and too high. On the ground, back of it, is something that looks like a very large and complicated ploughshare; while the general's sword hangs perpendicularly from the outside of the bundle of rods. The head has always been regarded as a model of dignified and wise authority. But it is diffi- cult to believe that at fifty-three Washington did not appear more youthful and vigorous than Houdon has represented him.
For forty odd years Houdon continued to produce busts that are marvels of individual revelation. Many of them are at Versailles : some at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. The terra cotta of " Louis XV " at the Ecole des Beaux Arts should be seen : also the *^ Louis XVI " (Fig. 88) at Versailles. Neither flatter, both reveal.
Houdon was not at home with the Revolution: still less with the Empire. The noise of the Revolution disturbed ^im. The academic classicality of the Empire hampered the freedom of his genius. Little by little he retired or was driven from activity. The gift of a work of art had procured for him perpetual admission to the Fran^ais. There he wouH be seen every evening it was open. After a while, he would have to be led
Fig. 78. — Iluuilftn. Rousseau, (l^iuvrc)
Fig. 79— Houdon. Woshingloii. (Loiivr<>)
Voltaire. (Louvre)
Fig. 81.— HoiiOim. Miralieaii. (Louvre)
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV 149
to hie Beat. Then, after another while, be did not come at all. He was dead.
Houdon's works are so fascinating: they draw you BO closely to the man, that you long to become better acquainted with his personal history, his social and domestic circumstanceB. His biographers have natu- rally given prominence to his artistic success and have only remotely considered his private life. Biographers of the present day are more inclined to satisfy the desire to know the more inner experiences of recorded heroes.
Many other sculptors lived and worked during the period when the free and lovely French art of the middle of the ei^teenth century was slowly yielding to revived classicisni. Though most of them are for- gotten, a few are still remembered, not only by the record of their achievements but by their preserved works. Among the more important is Julien.
PIERRE JULIEN (1781-1804) was bom near Puy in the southeastern part of France. Of his youth ; how he reached Paris; studied under a Coustou and todk the Prix de Rome m 1765, little is known. In Italy he devoted himself to copying from the antique. His copies of the " Apollo Belvedere " and of the " Gladia* tor " were thought escellent. After his return to Paris he was not received by the Academy until 1779. His morceau de riception was an original " Gladiator," which, or a reduced copy of which, is in the Louvre. He executed a statue of " La Fontaine " which is now said to be somewhere in the Palais de I'Institut where few can see it; and an equally famous statue of the
150 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
painter " Poussin " of which the present whereabouts is still more uncertain. But the work by which he is best known, and which is a lovely work of art is called La Jewne fUle ^ la chevre and is in the Louvre. The work was undoubtedly suggested by a previous work called Amalihcea; mentioned, but disappeared. Per- haps the two are one. Amalthiea was one of the two daughters of Melisseus, king of Crete, who had charge of the infant Jupiter or it was the name of her goat who suckled the baby, or the two were confoimded in name and in tradition. Here the artist has combined both girl and goat. The goat is about drinking and the girl has evidently been caught in the act of being about to bathe. She starts with modest affright. Her face is very pretty, her attitude very graceful, her form very charming, her legs very long, fine and strong, admirable for swimming. She should put up her hair before plunging.
There is another pretty group in the Louvre, Gany^ mide versant le nectar i Voiseau de Jupiter, Julien thought highly of it, and expected it would open for hiin the doors of the Academic seven years before they were opened by the Gladiateur. The goat girl is far more attractive, so much more attractive than any of his other works that it puts him in the class of artists who, like Deveria and Couture, are known by one work alone.
VASSE is another of the less known sculptors of the period. He was born in 1716 and died in 1772. He took the Prix de Rome and was also of the Academie. An effective mourning statue in the Louvre has lately
THE SifiCLE DE LOUIS XIV I5I
been attributed to him. It baa also been establishea that he was the author of the tomb of " King Stanislas " at Nancy. His talent ran to funereal compositions.
Boisot, Roland and Edm£ Dumont are three others who would be mentioned in a more extended work, or if more were known about them.
The cellars and the garrets of the Louvre are filled with marbles which are being dug out and studied all the while, assigned to their authors, and making more and more clear the history of sculpture interrupted and clouded by the Revolution.
CHAPTER IV
FBOM THE REVOLUTION (1787) TO THE SECOND EMFIBE (1852)
ABOUT the middle of the eighteenth century many influences combined to turn the minds of artists, amateurs and critics, once more back to the dassic. The unsubstantial creations of Boucher and Clodion were beginning to tire. The French longed for something in art to correspond to the serious cir- cumstances of their daily lives. The discovery of Pompeii in 1748 opened a new field of thought. Winckelmann's " History of Art in Antiquity," which appeared In 1764, wag accepted by many as a satis- factory solution of the difficulty. The study of antique art would lead artistic minds away from trouble and give the best comfort of which art was capable. To readers of to-day, Lessing, in his Laocoon, seems more persuasive than Winckelmann. Both Winckelmann and Lessing were translated into French and had more in- fluence in Paris than in any city of Germany. In 1774 Louis XV died and his tastes ceased controlling the court. Louis XVI was a sober, domestic and moral man who objected to nudity except when presented classicaUy and then but sparingly. He selected the Comte d'Angevillers as his Directeur et ordotmateur gSniral det b&timen*, jardins, arii, acadSmiei, et manor- facturet royalea. That is, he placed him in supreme
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 153
control over all the royal arts and manufactures, parks and palaces. Not enough has as yet been printed about this remarkable man. The little that is known has been dug out of the Archives Nationales.*
He was an emphatic classicist and was as dictatorial as Le Brun. He prescribed subjects and stated minutely how they must be treated. In the same article Michel quotes from writers of the first part of the nineteenth century to show how emphatically the sculpture of the eighteenth century was condemned. He mentions two authors, but does not state from which one he is quot- ing, nor does he give time or place of the statements. The authors mentioned are Jean Baptiste Bon Bou- tard (1771-1838, Paris) who for thirty-eight years was art editor of the " Journal des IWbats," and who in 1826 published a " Dictionnaire des Arts du Dessin " ; and Antoine Chrysost6me Quatrem^re de Quincy (1756-1849, Paris), who up to 1821 was as active in politics as in art ; until 1839 was perpetual secre- tary of the Academy of Fine Arts; was recognized as authority in art criticism and was the author of many books on art which may still be read with profit. That part of the quotation in which the treatment of a face is prescribed is as follows : ** The lines of a beautiful face are simple, straight and as few as pos- sible. A face, in which the line which descends from the forehead to the point of the nose, and the lines of the eyebrows and eyelids, are broken, has less beauty than a face in which all these lines are straight; and the deformity increases as lines are multiplied by the
' See utidea b; Andrt Michel in the "Gsiette dca Bemui Arts,"
154 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
cavities of the eyes, the swelling gf the nostrils and the exuberance of the lips."
The collection of superb busts belonging to the Commie Fran9aise was severely condemned and was stigmatized as belonging to a period which must be regarded as that of the greatest decadence of tast«. The lines of the face of the " Apollo Belvedere " were regarded as perfection. Portraiture must remain within them.
During the active revolutionary period, that is from 1789 until the advent of Napoleon and the establish- ment of the Consulate in 1799, French sculptors were principally employed in devising and executing decora- tions for the numerous festivities and triumphs which marked the course of the revolutionary government. Statues were not intended to be lasting; were of plaster, or of some other fragile material, and have disappeared. With the establishment of the Empire in 1804, the restoration of order and the reestablish- ment of court patronage, the arts revived with renewed force and with enthusiasm in keeping with the magnifi- cent patriotism of the day. There have been few pe- riods in French history when art activity was not a vital part of French public and private life, and no period was more gloriously artistic than the reign of the first Napoleon. A few sculptors should be mentioned who lived through the revolutionary period, well into, if not through, the Empire, and some of whose works still survive to continue their contemporary reputations.
Among the earliest is JEAN GUTLLAUME MOITTE (1747-1810), a pupil of Pigalle and Le-
|
H |
||
|
i^ |
fclV-j |
u |
|
wt^uw |
1 |
fra |
|
m |
f^t^/^M |
|
|
OLTAIRE. J^^l |
Fig, 8>2.— Hmuloii. Voltaire. (Tlieatre Francais. Paris)
U„l„l. Ik..r,vlV. (I'.ri.)
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 155
moyne. In 1768 he gained the Prix de Rome by a statue of David with the head of Gohath. He vas employed by the Republic; was a member of the In- stitut from its foundation, a professor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts and a member of the Legion of Honor, There are extant lists of his works; most of his works have disappeared. Some of them are at Versailles if they have not been removed to the Louvre. He may be partially judged by bas-reliefs at the Chateau de risle Adam and by a bas-relief executed for the vesti- bule of the Luxembourg, called " France " surrounded by the virtues as she calls her children to her de- fense. With Moitte biographers associate Cartellier and Lemot.
PIERRE CARTELLIER (1757-1831 : ifi, 1808 ; I., 1810). In 1806 he attracted attention by a statue of " Pudeur," which was at the Palais de Malmaison until the English carried it off. He is perhaps best known to-day by his statue of "General Pichegru," executed for the Luxembourg and now at Versailles. The " Surrender of Ulm " on the Arc du Carrousel (Fig. 84) is by him, also a Louis XTV h cheval, at the entrance to the Invalides. But there is noth- ing in these works to indicate special talent or to attract particular attention. There are works by him at the Louvre and at the Luxembourg. He also executed the Mausoleum of the Empress Josephine in the church of Rueil. In 1816 he was appointed Professor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Cartellier's chief celebrity comes from his being the master of Rude.
156 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
FRANgOIS FREDERIC LEMOT (1778-1827: P. de R., 1790; I., 1808). Of Lemot there are in exist- ence two works which show forth his style and his abil- ity. First the horses on top of the Arc da Carrotuel (Fig. 84), and second, the Fronton du Louvre, opposite the church of St. Germain-l'Auxerrois. On account of height, neither will attract attention and attention once directed will not be retained. Part, if not the whole, of the statue of Henry IV (Fig. 8fi) on the Pont Neuf is by Lemot. Before his death, Lemot was made a baron. Though Lemot was twenty-four years younger than Cartellier he died six years before him. His early death at forty-six was deplored by his contemporaries.
Chaudet (1768-1810), Chinard (1756-1818) and Roland (1746-1816) were contemporaries and enjoyed equal reputations.
PHILIPPE LAURENT ROLAND was bom near Lille and died in Paris. He became a member of the Institut in 1795 and became a professor in the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1806. He had the distinguished honor of being the master of David d'Angers. There are a few works by him in the Louvre of which the best is a bust of " Suv4e," a painter of the time of Louia XVI. There is also a bust of "Pajou," his master, of about the same time and a statue of " Homer " of 1812. His large and important works, if not destroyed, may reappear,
JOSEPH CHINARD was bom in Lyons, lived there most of his life, and died there. He was an ardent revolutionist and until the Empire most of his time was
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 137
employed in designing and executing gigantic figures for revolutionary triumphs and celebrations. He is best known by the figure of the Carabmier on the Arc du Carrousel. He is said to have executed busts of "Josephine," "Mme. lUcamier " (Fig. 86) and other famous beauties.
ANTOINE DENIS CHAUDET (P. de R., 1786; I., 1800). Chaudet is best known as the author of the colossal statue of Napoleon in Roman attire which stood on the column of the Place VendSme until the Restora- tion. Tliere are several things by him in the Louvre and at Versailles. He divided with Canova the favors of Napoleon's court.
Bosio was later than these three and did his best work after the Restoration. Besides he is better known, for more of his works have been preserved.
FRANCOIS JOSEPH BOSIO was bom at Monaco, which then belonged to Italy, in 1768, and died in Paris in 1845. When quite young he left Monaco, came to Paris and entered Pajou's studio. He soon became filled with admiration for Canova, accepted his views and was all his life his humble follower. He enjoyed more prolonged and steady court favor than any other sculptor of his time. He was a favorite with French rulers from Napoleon until Louis Philippe. He was a member of the Legion of Honor, of the Institut, and Charles X made him a baron.
Hia principal extant work is the equestrian statue of Louis XIV, in the Place des Victoires in Paris- He was employed both on the Arc du Carrousel and
158 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
on the monument in the Place Vendome, but exactly what p€urt in each is due to him is not yet satisfactorily established. There are several of his works at the Louvre, of which La Nymphe Salmacis attracts the most attention. Salmacis was the name of the cele- brated spring near Halicamassus in Caria, fabled to render effeminate all who drank of its waters. Bosio's Salmacis is seated on the ground partly leaning on her left hand. Her right hand is extended to, and holds the toes of, the right foot towards which her gaze is directed. She is draped about the loins. The head has the appearance of being a portrait. The attitude is graceful and the modeling excellent but there is no expression or sentiment. If Bosio's object was to ex- press effeminacy, he has not succeeded. His statue of Henry IV, when a boy, is charming; so is a bust of " Josephine " by him in the Dijon Museum. Giraud and Cortot were of about the same age and enjoyed about the same reputation.
PIERRE FRANCOIS GR^GOIRE GIRAUD (1788-1886: P. de R., 1806), was bojn at a place called Luc, way down in the southeast of France. He was intended for business and was first sent to Toulon to be apprenticed to a merchant. A rich uncle living in Paris objected and took charge of his education.. In Paris he made the acquaintance of Jean Baptiste Giraud who turned his attention to sculpture, eventu- ally adopted him and made him his heir.
JEAN BAPTISTE GIRAUD was a remarkable character. He was born in 1762 at Aix in Provence.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 139
He inherited a large fortune which enabled him to de- vote himself to the art of his choice which was scul^^ ture. He passed eight years in Italy collecting plaster casts of the most celebrated works of antiquity. These he finally assembled in a large hotel on the Place Ven- dome in Paris. His Paris hotel became the head- quarters of artists and critics who, though not in open opposition to the Academy, were not inclined to submit themselves without reserve to the Academy's teaching. Em4ric-David was their prophet who put their views into his " Recherches sur I'art statuaire, consider^ chez les anciens et les modemes." -When the^elder Giraud died in 1880, he left everything to the younger Giraud who oniy lived six years to enjoy his good fortune. There are several things in existence to show the style of the younger Giraud. The statue of PhUoctite, on which he took the Prix de Rome, is still at the Ecole des Beaux Arts, and resembles in style Puget's MUon. Two works at the Louvre attract attention. One is a "Dog" (Fig. 87). Andr^ Michel thus describes it: " Reclined : his left paw bent backward, the dog who seems abruptly awakened from a dream, nervously erects his ears and wrinkles the skin of his forehead. He listens and seems to fear a surprise, or to be get- ting ready to obey an order from his master. About the pedestal, which is oval, unrolls a frieze composed of bas-reliefs of great strength and firmness, and in workmanship similar to the engraving of medals. These bas-reliefs symbolize the dog's principal virtues. Fidel- ity, Courage, Vigilance and Activity. They represent the animal successively crouching by the funereal urn of his master ; fighting and strangling a bull ; deliver-
160 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ing a child in its cradle from the attacks of a threaten- ing serpent, and chasing and seizing a stag. The modeling is very precise, firm and delicate. A livelier and more intelligent dog it would be difficult to find in sculpture. There is nothing superior to it among the antiques of the Vatican."
A still more interesting monument by Giraud has lately been added to the Louvre. When he was quite young he lost a child and, shortly afterward, his wife in childbirth. The work, which is in wax, is supposed to be a design, or part of a design, of a funereal monument to show forth his grief. The deceased is stretched out on her back holding closely the still- born infant to her breast, while the other dead child reclines by her side. The work was a fearful, yet artistic reality. Whatever inclination Giraud had towards classic art, his grief crushed it out of him, while leaving his natural artistic expression strong and pure.
JEAN PIERRE CORTOT (1787-1848: Paris P. de R., 1809; I., 1826). His best known existing work is the " Apotheosis of Napoleon '* (Fig. 88) on the Arc de I'Etoile. His " Soldier of Marathon " formerly in the Garden of the Tuileries, lately removed to the Louvre, is also famous. There are works by him at Angers, Lyons and Rome. At the outbreak of the Revolution of 1880, he was at work on a stupendous monument in honor of Louis XVI, which was to be erected on the Place de la Concorde where the king was executed. The fronton of the Chamber of Deputies is also by him. He was an artist of great ability, calm, cor- rect, cold, not enthusiastic; but safe, reliable, self-
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 161
contained. A younger and more popular artist was Pradier.
JAMES PRADIER was born in Geneva in 1792 of a family of French Protestant refugees ; studied in Paris under Girard and Lemot, (P. de R. in 1813, 1., 1827,) died at Bougival, near Paris, in 1852. Pradier was a prolific worker. There are statues by him in many of the cities of France. His best work is in monumental sculpture. Good examples are in Paris. By him are the Muses of Serious and Light Comedy of the Fon- tmne Moiiire (Fig. 89) at the corner of the rue de Richelieu and the rue Moliire; the four figures of " Victory " in the spandrils* of the Arc de I'Etoilc, the figures of " Lille " and " Strasbourg " (Fig. 90) in the Place de la Concorde, and above all the twelve figures, solemn and thoughtful, which surround the Tomb of Napoleon (Fig, 91), in the crypt of the church of Les Invalides. His lighter vein is well illustrated hy his three Graces at Versailles and his Toilette d'Atalante (Fig. 92) in the Louvre, executed but two years before his death. Atalanta, quite nude, with the exception of a bit of drapery about her left forearm, is on her right knee while adjusting the sandal of her left foot. The position is realistic and more suggestive of sensual- ity than of grace. All of Pradier's minor works offend, or attract in the same manner. They are sensual to those who seek sensuality and graceful to those who are satisfied with 'grace. This double rdle accounts for Pradier's great popularity.
Enough of the artists of this period have been men- tioned and enough of their works have been shown, to
162 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
convey an idea of the condition of French sculpture during the early part of the nineteenth century. Canova dominated in sculpture as David dominated in paint- ing. Canova was three times in Paris: First in 1802 to execute a statue of " Napoleon.*' In spite of Napo- leon's objections, he finally consented to be represented nude and as a Roman emperor. The statue which is over eight feet high was appropriated by the English when the allies entered Paris, and now adorns the resi- dence of the Duke of Wellington in London. A bronze copy is in the court of the Brera palace in Milan. Canova was again in Paris in 1810 to execute a statue of the Empress Maria Theresa. This statue is now at Parma. He was again in Paris in 1815, representing the Pope in securing the return of the works of art Napoleon had stolen from Italy. His return to Italy was triumphal. The Pope made him a marquis.
As in painting Gericault and Delacroix led the way from classicality and the rigid rules of the Academy, so in sculpture Rude, David D'Angers and Barye, led the way back to nature and to that glorious freedom which characterizes French sculpture of the present day. These three men were of such great importance and influence that their lives as well as their works are of interest. Rude was bom in Dijon in 1784 and died in Paris in 1855. David was born in Angers in 1789 and died in Paris in 1856. Barye was a little younger. He was bom in Paris in 1796 where he died in 1875. Barye accomplished in the animal kingdom what the other two accomplished in the human kingdom. These men were not prejudiced. They were not the enemies
y
Fig. 88— Cortot. Apotheiais of Napoleon. (I'aria)
Kig, 89.— I'mditT. Fontaine Moliere, (Paris)
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 168
of classicalism. They recognized its value. But they would have nature in all its phases open to sculpture. They recognized the dignity and nobility of man as nature made him. They claimed that -man as he is, and his natural sentiments and emotions, were worthy objects of art. They admitted that classic art wa» worthy of study and worthy of imitation; but they insisted that nature was the greatest and best teacher, without whose instructions the artist could not grow into the fullness of artistic life. All their lives through they occasionally made use of classic subjects and they never hesitated to acknowledge the benefit of classic education.
FRANC^OIS RUDE was the son of a chaudronnier. The nearest translation to the word is coppersmith; though in those days the chaudronvier was much more. Rude's father worked in many metals. He not only made pots and pans, but locks and keys, ovens, chim- ney pieces, griUet; everything in metal to which a skilled workman could put his hands. Franfois was the third of nine children. At first everything went well with the chaudrort/Mer. He saved enough money to buy a house; then enough to give it a new front. Francois seems to have been the best and the strongest of all the children, most of whom died young. When he was sixteen occurred an event which decided his future. While assisting his father he had hurt one of his hands and for a few days was incapacitated from work. Wandering about the town he perceived a crowd pouring into a public building. He was told that M. Devosge'e school of drawing was holding its anniver-
164 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
sary; that the works of the graduates were to be ex- hibited; prizes were to be awarded; addresses were to be made, etc. Having nothing better to do, he followed the crowd. Devosge was a very rich, public-spirited, amateur, who believed that the ability to draw should be cultivated not only by those who contemplated an artist's career, but by artizans and mechanics. He had established, and maintained at his own expense, a school of drawing which had been so successful that, finally, it was adopted by the city and Devosge was granted a small subsidy with which to increase his admirable en- deavors. He was also permitted to call his school PAcademie. The very next day young Rude begged of his father permission to join the school. At first the father refused absolutely, as he dreaded the en- trance into his workshop of anything of the nature of art, a word which suggested to him eccentricity, unreliability, everything opposed to regularity and industry. Finally he told his son he might dispose of his leisure hours as he pleased. His leisure hours were from six to eight in the morning during the summer months, and from six to eight in the evening during the winter months, when it was too dark to work any longer at the forge. With these few hours to offer he called on Devosge the next day and made so favorable an impression that he was received. De- vosge found him a most apt and interesting pupil. He was not satisfied with copying casts from the antique, but wished to know all the histories and traditions of the personages he was copying. Devosge supplied him with histories and mythologies. Late at night a faint light might be seen gleaming where the enthusiastic boy
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 163
was filling his mind with stories of gods, goddesses and human heroes. He led this life for four years, becom- ing more and more ahsorbed in art, more and more dis- satisfied with his father's business, more and more de termined to be a sculptor. Then rapidly followed sad events that terminated obligations. In 1808 his mother died. In 1805 his father died. In 1806 the last sister remaining at home died. So Rude was free to do as he pleased. Early in 1807 he started for Paris with a letter of introduction from Devosge to Denon, the imperial superintendent of the Fine Arts, and with four hundred francs ($80) in his pocket. Before leaving Dijon Rude had attracted the attention and secured the interest of a M. Fremiet for whom he had made a bust of a deceased father-in-law. Fremiet was a tax officer and a person of importance.
On reaching Paris he presented himself to Denon with a specimen of his work. Denon received him kindly, admired the specimen and introduced him to a sculptor named Gaulle.' Gaulle was one of the many sculptors employed at the time on the bas-reliefs of the column of the Place Vendome. He received Rude into his studio and employed him as an assistant. Rude did not stay long with him, but soon transferred his services to Pierre Cartellier, already mentioned, a pro- fessor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Encouraged by Cartellier, Rude in 1809 competed for the Prix de Rome and came out third. He kept on competing until 1812 when he finally obtained the prize. Owing to the political state of Europe at the time, the gov-
' Edmoad GsuUe, bom at I^ngrea about one bimdred uid siity milei loutbMit of Puis, in 1770, died ia Paris in 1B41.
166 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
eminent could not send its pupils to Rome, so that the Prix de Rome^ apart from the honor, was of little value.
After the battle of Waterloo, Rude, who was an en- thusiastic Bonapartist, was afraid to stay in Paris and returned to Dijon. After the one hundred days he and his friend Fremiet, who was an equally enthusiastic Bonapartist, fled to Brussels where David, the exiled painter, had preceded them. Fremiet took with him his entire family. Rude remained in Brussels for twelve years, until 1827. Thanks to David he seems to hai^ found plenty of employment under Belgian architects. He even opened a school of sculpture which was so successful that he married one of Fr^miet's daughters. The principal works of Rude during his residence in Brussels were executed for the palace which was being erected for the Prince of Orange at Tervueren, about ten miles east of Brussels. The palace was subsequently almost entirely consumed by fire and many of Rude's works were destroyed. The palace has lately been re- built by Girault, the architect of the Petit Palais. There are plaster casts of Rude's works, however, in Brussels and the preliminary drawings are in the Museum of Dijon. Apart from minor and incidental ornaments, there were two important works in bas-relief: one rep- resenting the Calydonian hunt ; the other, giving scenes from the life of Achilles. These works are thoroughly classic, immature and not very promising. The Achil- les series is possibly the more important. It consists of eight distinct scenes, each intended to occupy a slab of about six feet by three. The treatment in both series is bold, without Greek moderation or grace; though
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 187
some scenes are well composed and some figures finely and naturally modeled.
After Kude*8 return to Paris, his first work to attract particular attention was exhibited in 1828 and was called Mercure attackant $e* talotmiires (Mercury at- taching his winged sandals) " talaria." The figure was only in plaster in 1828; was exhibited in bronze in 1888, again at the Exposition Universelle of 1855, and is now in the Louvre. It is supposed to represent the god just starting for Olympus after having killed the hundred-eyed Argus, guardian of lo. Rude's idea was to represent the beginning of upward fiight when the body has already lost its ponderosity and is about float- ing in mid air. The rif^t arm holding the caduceus points the way to heaven. The body is on tiptoes. The right foot is on an elevated bit of rock. The god reaches down to it with his right hand to adjust one of his " talaria." From one point of view the line from the left hand to the left foot seems to give the effect of the spring of a bow. The statue was received with enthusiastic criticism, established Rude's reputation and brought him plenty of orders.
At the Salon of 1881 Rude exhibited a plaster cast of a figure which attracted quite as much attention as the Mercury and which remains to this day an object of admiration. It was bought by the state, reexhibited in marble in 1888 and won for Rude the coveted ribbon of the Legion d'Honneur. It represents a nude " Nea- politan Fisher Boy " (Fig. 98) squatted on his nets and amusing himself with a turtle. He wears a fisher- man's cap turned down over his left ear, while about his neck is hung an amulet to ward off evil. He has
168 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
bridled the turtle with a bit of cane and is driving him along with a laugh which seems to fill the marble with jollity. The classicists claimed the work because the modeling is so fine. The opposing party, the roman- ticists, claimed it because the subject and the treatment are so far away from ancient history, or mythology.
The part taken by Rude in the decoration of the Arc de PEtoile must be preceded by reference to the history of the monument. It was started by Napoleon after the victorious campaign of 1806 as a monument to his victorious army. At the time of the Restoration very little had been done beside the masonry of the four supports. After the termination of the war in Spain, Louis XVIII determined to finish the monument and to dedicate it to the glory of the due d'Angouleme, his nephew, who had commanded the French forces. The masonry was about finished and the sculpture was selected. After the death of Louis XVIII his brother and successor, Charles X, father of the due d'Angou- leme, decided to give the monument a more general character by dedicating it to the armies of France. After the Revolution of 1880 and the advent of Louis Philippe, the character of the monument was once more changed. It was part of Louis Philippe's policy to administer to the popular enthusiasm for the memory of Napoleon. So he determined to restore the monu- ment, so far as possible, to the original intent of com- memorating the glories of Napoleon's armies. The or- namentation of the arch was planned and carried out as it exists to-day.
Of course every sculptor of position in Paris wished to have a part in the work, and each used all the in-
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 169
fluence he possessed to advance his interest. A sculp- tor named Etex * was the most successful wire-puller. He secured two of the large groups. The other two were assigned to Rude and Cortot. Rude also received a part of the upper frieze surrounding the monument. That Rude at one time expected at least three of the large groups is evident from his sketches preserved in the Louvre. His sketches also show that the group he executed was not carried out In accordance with his original idea. As carried out the group is by far the grandest of the four and is one of the most remarkable pieces of modem sculpture. It is thirty-six feet high and the individual adult figures if upright would be eighteen feet tall. It is called Le Dipart (Fig. 94) and represents the goddess of war calling, and leading troops to the front. The goddess herself with arms, legs and wings spread out and her mouth uttering a cry that can be heard, leads the way to the frontier to repel the invading foes. Directly beneath her, a mature man in Roman armor with his hehnet held above his head in his right hand, and his head turned back, is the per- sonification of heroic leadership. His left hand is about a boy (Fig. 95) who keeps pace with his stride, clenches his right fist, looks up into his face for inspiration with which the goddess above seems to fill him. He is a most
> Antoiite Etex (1S08-1B8S: Med. lit cl., 1833: *. 1841), wu bom in Farii sod died at Cluville, twelve nules from Paris on the way to Ver- auUe*. He wai architect and painter as well as iculptor; studied Mnilp- ture under Pmdier, painting under Ingres, and architecture under Duban. In 1B29 he competed for the Prix de Rome and came out second. Besides his groups for the Arc de I'Etoile he executed a colosBal group for tbe city of Lyons, called Cain a to race maudilt de That. His tomb of Gjricault is celebrated. He wu very popular, executed uuuiy worki, few of which are approved by modern criticism.
170 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
beautiful youth with only hebnet, sword and buskins about his lovely body. This figure, the leader and the flying fury have made Rude's name immortal. The re- maining figures are subordinate and only intended to fill out the proper proportions of the group.
Rude's group is as inspiring to-day as ever and cannot ever possibly lose its power. What French art may have lost by not confiding the other groups to him may be inferred by comparing them to this one. It was part of the original plan to have the arch sur- mounted by a colossal group, or groups, representing the apotheosis of Napoleon. ,This part of the plan has never been carried out. Rude's designs, of which some are in the Louvre, were not accepted. (See Fal- guiire.) None of Rude's subsequent works equal Le Dipart in penetrating force and patriotic power, though the same spirit is displayed in a measure in some of his statues of the Empire's heroes; especially in his statue of " Greneral Ney."
Rude's next work of any importance was a colossal statue of Le Marechal de Saxe, ordered by the govern- ment to compensate him for the time and labor wasted on his efforts to devise some suitable and acceptable design for the crowning of the Arc de I'Etoile. The order was issued in 1886 and the statue was completed in 1888. It was one of the series of French heroes for Versailles. The statue stayed at Versailles until 1890 when it was moved to the Louvre where it is now. Neither the theme nor the circumstances of the order were inspiring. The statue is an official work conscien- tiously executed, uninteresting, commonplace.
About the time this statue was finished Rude received
Fig. 90.— PraiHer. Strashimrg. (Puris)
Fig. 91.— Pradier. Tomb of Napok-on. (I'aris)
Fig. 93.— I'railkr. Toilette d'Alalantc. (Louvre)
Fig. 93.— Ku.k'. Neai«)litaii Fislior B«,v, (Louvn)
FROM EEVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 171
another order from the state. This time for a group representing the Baptism of Christ for the church of the Madeleine. The group stands in the lirst chapel to the left on entering where it can with difficulty be seen and appreciated. It consists of three figures: our Saviour in the center, standing upright and holding His falling garments about His loins; on His left is John the Baptist with his knee on a rock holding above the head of the Saviour a vessel from which the bap- tismal water is falling; on the left is a stooping and adoring angel with outspread wings. The group does not show that Rude possessed deep religious sentiments, or the power to express them. Other religious works bj Rude are of the same negative character. The " Baptism " of the church of the Madeleine was finished in 1841. Id 1846 Rude again produced a work which attracted general attention and which still provokes criticism good and bad.
About six miles south of Dijon is a village named Fizin. On a rocky eminence overlooking it, one of Napoleon's old soldiers named Noisot, who had accom- panied him to St Helena and enthusiastically treasured his memory, had purchased a few acres to which he would retire to grieve over the past and to indulge in insane hopes for the future. When Napoleon's remains were returned to Paris Noisot went to Paris and there made Rude's acquaintance. Thereafter, whenever Rude revisited the scenes of his childhood, he would see the enthusiast and the two would talk about Napoleon. Once Noisot took him out to Fixin and showed him what a superb site his retreat would be for a statue to their hero. Rude sympathetically excited exclaimed : " Rely
172 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
on me, mj Noisot, I will make jou an emperor ! " This was the origin of the famous ** Napoleon of Fixin " (Fig. 96) which two years afterwards was inaugurated with ceremonies, processions, banquets and every im- aginable outburst of patriotic enthusiasm. Once more Rude's name was shouted from one end of France to the other and once more orders poured in upon him. The plaster cast model of the monument is in the Salle de Rude of the Louvre. So a journey to Fixin is not necessary unless the traveler wishes the effect of the most impressive surroundings without which the oddi- ties of the work are apt to capture judgment. Upon the top of a high and abrupt rock, representing the island of St. Helena, and covered with his campaign cloak as with a shroud, is extended the body of Napo- leon. As if awakening, he with his right hand is re- moving the cloak from his head and breast. It is also seen that his limbs are moving beneath the cloak. His head and shoulders are revealed. He wears the uniform he wore during the early part of his career before the Empire, and the leaves of the crown which surrounds his brow are inscribed with the names of his early Italian victories. His eyes are still closed, but about to open. Against the rock and below his cloak is a large dead eagle, very dead; showing that for the Empire there is no resurrection. There are other accessories; the corporal's hat, falling chains and manacles. The large pedestal on which the monument rests makes it appear more narrow, upright and abrupt. The work is open to every kind of criticism and demands full sympathy with the artist and with the sentiments which actuated him.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 173
Before Le Riveil de BoTtaparte, as it has come to be called, was finislied. Rude had received orders for three works which added to his reputation and which still exist : the tomb of Godefroi Cavmgnac for the Cime- ti^re de Montmartre of Paris, a statue of Gaapard Monge for the city of Beaune, twenty odd miles south- west of Dijon, and a statue of Jeawae d'Arc (Fig. 97) for the garden of the Luxembourg in Paris. Rude represented Cavaignac on his back, covered only with a shroud which left bare his head and part of his breast. Owing to political obstacles the monument was not erected at Montmartre until 1866. Of the three works, the " Jeanne d'Arc " is the most important and the only one to be mentioned in this short notice. It has been moved from the Jardin du Luxembourg to the Salle de Rude of the Louvre.
Rude represents Jeanne as a young girl standing upright with a large head and commonplace features. She wears a short jacket laced over an under garment and a long skirt looped up on her left hip with a cord with which her chaplet seems intertwined. Her head is slightly bent down to the left -as if listening to some- thing far away to the right; while, as if to aid in the listening, or as if astounded by the sound, her right hand is brought up to the level of her right ear. As if In anticipation of her career, there is a suit of mail by her side on which her left hand rests while her left foot, seen beneath her skirt, is already in armor. The statue was not publicly exhibited until 1852 and was called Jeanne d'Arc icoutant lei Vmx. It met with abundance of criticism, most of it enthusiastic. The subject is treated so subjectively that no valuable criti-
174 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
cism is possible. Since Rude's time Jeanne d'Arc has been so frequently the object of artistic endeavor and has been presented in such a variety of ages, appear- ances, sizes and actions that criticism is weary ^nd is repelled*
During the Revolution of 1848 Rude received an order for a gigantic figure of the '* Republic " for the Pantheon. The work was not terminated before the Republic was terminated and the Second Empire established.
Of Rude's works under Napoleon III, the principal is the bronze of ** Marechal Ney " (Fig. 98), about nine feet high, standing in the Avenue de PObservatoire not far from the spot where Ney was shot. It is realistic and heroic. Rude represents the hero dismounted and lead- ing his troops. He flourishes his sword high over his head, holds his scabbard tightly in his left hand, turns his head back and shouts : ^* En Avant." Rude's first notion was to represent Ney as he appeared at his execution. This was not approved by the authorities to whom it appeared too tragic, too realistic. The present statue has received no end of criticism from classicists as one of their rules is that no gesture shall be made above the head, nor below the waist. Another of their rules is that the mouth should never be opened to a cry.
It is certainly odd that Rude's last two works of consequence should show a complete return to classi- cism. These are: first, HebS et Vaigle de Jupiter or- dered by the city of Dijon about 1846, not seriously considered by Rude before 1850, of which the model was not finished for two years more, and of which the
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 175
marble statue was not fully completed at the time of his death in 18S6. The statue is nearly eight feet high and now stands in the Museum of Dijon, It rep- resents Heb6, nude, with the exception of a bit of drapery about her left forearm and falling over her left knee, standing and holding aloft a cup of nectar in her right hand. At her feet is a large eagle which raises its beak towards the nectar and seems endeavor- ing to envelop Hebe with its wings. One of its enor- mous wings reaches as high up as the top of Hebe's head and forms a background for her elevated right arm. The other wing, but partially unfolded, is held back by H^b^'s left hand. The composition is singular and the treatment of the nude is not attractive. The work does not add to Rude's reputation; nor does the other one which was ordered by Devosge, son of Kude's first instructor. It is called L' Amour dominateur du monde (Love the Conqueror of the World), and is or was, also, in the Dijon Museum. Love is repre- sented as a nude boy seated on the side of a rock from which his bow and quiver are hanging. His face is turned to the right. His right arm hangs carelessly over his quiver. His left hand rests upon his extended left leg and holds a small upright torch. At his feet are a pair of doves. Love*s expression is that of a precocious and self-satisfied schoolboy. It seems in- conceivable that the author of Lg Depart could have terminated his career with such a platitude.
Rude died on the 8d of November, 1865. He had not been in good health for some weeks but his death was unexpected. At the Exposition Universelle of 1855 he had been awarded a MidcuUe d'Honneur which in
176 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
some degree compensated him for his rejection by the Institut. Three times he was proposed for member- ship and as often rejected. He was a person of rough manners and of unguarded speech: not made to con- ciliate, but to triumph by robust force and honest pur- poses. He was an admirable instructor, adored by his pupils. He will ever be known by Le DSpart and in a minor degree by his Ney^ by the Pecheur Napolitain and by the Jeanne d^Arc. See ** Fran90is Rude Sculp- teur, ses ceuvres et son temps,'' par Louis de Fourcaud, and ^^ Fran9ois Rude,'' par Alexis Bertrand. Read them both.
Rude's Le Dipart is so identified with the Arc de I'Etoilc and the arch is such an important monument that the reader should be made acquainted with the artists who made the principal contributions to its or- namentation and with the character of their contribu- tions. The most successful aspirant was Ej^i^, as> al- ready stated. A short account of him has already been given in a note. He secured the two large groups on the east side of the Arc; the side away from Paris. These groups are about thirty-six feet high by about twenty feet broad. The individual adult figures, stand- ing erect, would be about nineteen feet tall. One group is called " Resistance " ; the other " Peace." The first refers to the desperate resistance made by the French to the allies in 1814 and the second to the peace which followed the return of the Bourbons. Resistance is represented by a nude young man with a drawn sword, standing in a resolute attitude. On his right his father, bowed down with terror, holds him by the knees and apparently would restrain him. On his left his wife.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 177
holding a dead infant, is in a suppliant attitude. Be- hind him a wounded cavalier falls from his horse. At the top of the composition, the genius of the future, according to the explanation of the artist, with flames bursting from its forehead, with a flaming sword in its right hand and its left hand clenched, urges continued resistance. The composition is bold, startling, and lack- ing in harmony; action is exaggerated; anatomical details are coarse. Above this group and between the impost and the entablature of the arch is a bas-relief of the passage of the bridge of Arcole (Nov. 15, 1796) by Feuchire.^ Bonaparte with a drawn aword in one hand and a flag in the other is resolutely rushing across the broken floor of the bridge of Arcole. Colonel Muiron, himself fatally wounded, is endeavoring to re- strain him. Oflicers and soldiers are charging in Bona- parte's lead. In the center of the scene Andre Etienne, a mere youth thereafter known as le Tambour d'Arcole, is bravely beating the charge. On the left are seen Austrian batteries. This and the other corresponding reliefs are about twenty-eight feet long and thirteen feet high.
Peace is represented by a nude, helmeted soldier sheathing his sword. On his right, a mother is caress- ing her child held on her knees. Near her, a standing young boy is reading. On the left a man, on his knees, is examining a ploughshare. Behind, is a laborer tam- ing a bull. Above, is Minerva; her lance in one hand, with the other she seems protecting an olive tree. Above this group, and corresponding to the other bas-relief,
■ Jetn Juquea Feuchin (1807-1B5S). wm bom and died in Pari*. Be WM a pt4iil of Cortot.
178 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
is one representing the capture of Alexandria (July 8, 1798) by J. E. Chaponni^re. Kleber, followed by his soldiers has reached the top of the ramparts of Alex- andria. He has been wounded during the assault and carries his right hand to his forehead. With the other hand he points his sword towards the enemy. A grena- dier pierces with his bayonet the breast of the Turk who wounded the general. A naked Egyptian would kill the grenadier, while a Mussulman trying to deflect the grenadier's thrust, is himself impaled by another French bayonet. The French flag floats behind Kleber. Three other soldiers take part in the scene. Off at one side Turks and Egyptian^ are seen in the tumult of defeat.
On the side towards the Champs Elysees the work on the right by Rude has already been described. The corresponding work on the left is by Cor tot, already mentioned, and represents the Apotheosis of Napoleon. It is also called Le Triomphe. Napoleon I, standing in classic drapery and pressing a sword to his breast, occupies the center of the composition. On his left Victory, nude to the waist, her wings folded, her brow crowned with laurel, holding in one hand an olive branch, places with the other a crown on the head of the Em- peror. On the right of Napoleon, a conquered city is making her submission. Napoleon extends his hand over her in token of clemency. Behind and on the right is History inscribing on her tablets the names of Napo- leon's greatest victories: "Pyramides, Marengo, Auster- litz," etc. On the left is a kneeling prisoner. Flying from left to right over these figures is Fame sounding a trumpet and holding a flag surmounted by the im-
Fig. 94.— KlKlf. I^ Depart. (I'liris)
Fig. 83.— Rude. A Boy. (Paris)
Fig. 97.— Riidi-. Ji-arine ti'Arc. (Ixjuvro)
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 179
perial eagle and the monograni E. F. In the background IB a pahn tree with captured trophies hanging from its branches. The work is stately, classic, eminently cor- rect and academic. In comparison with Rude's work it is imperialistic, cold and lifeless.
Above these works are two bas-reliefs corresponding in size and occupying similar positions to the two bas- reliefs on the other side of the arch. Above Rude's group is the " Funeral of General Marceau " ; above Cortot's, the " Battle of Aboukir." Let FuniraiUet du general Marceaa (Sept. 20, 1792) is by Lemaire.^ The body of Marceau m uniform and partially covered by a military cloak is extended on a litter in the center of the composition. On the left the Archduke Charles, accompanied by four Austrian officers, is about laying a crown of flowers on the body of the French general. On the right are two French soldiers, one leading a horse. An officer in tears rests his head on the breast of a soldier who himself hides his eyes. At the end of the scene a young trooper leans on his musket. In the background are trees and houses. On one of the houses is inscribed " Alten Kirken XXI September 1796."
The "Battle of Aboukir" (July 26, 1799) is by Bernard Gabriel Seurre, known as Seurre Aine.* In the center of the composition an aide-de-camp with bare
< Philippe Henri Lemain (17»S-1S80: P. de B., 1821 ; Med. lit d. 1872; «, 1834; O. «, 1842; I., lS4d). Leniaire wu born in Valmdennca and died in Fluu. By him ii the Fnmion of the Madeline; a statue of Hocbe at Versailles, and a «Utue of Napdeon at Lille.
■ 1796-1867: P. de S., 1818; I., 1851. Author of the Rt&tue of MoU6re of la Fontaine Mdi^e. The younger Seune was Charles Bfarie Emile Seurre (1798-1858: P. de R., 1824), principally known for the statue of Napoleon which stood on the Vendbne oolumn from 1633 uDta 1868.
180 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
head advances to Generals Bonaparte and Murat who are mounted. He leads Kincei Mustapha, general in chief of the Ottoman forces, captured by Murat's men. Mustapha leans on his joung son who bows with respect. A number of captives follow their chief. One of them with his face bowed to the ground seeks to excite the pity of the conquerors. The flags of the conquered are stamped under foot. Behind Bonaparte floats a flag on whose folds is written " 22nd Brigade."
On the north ai\d south sides of the arch, at the same distance from the ground and of the same height and length, are bas-reliefs representing, the one on the north side, the Battle of Austerlitz; the one on the south side, the Battle of Jemmapes. The Battle of Austerlitz (Dec. 2, 1806) is by Gechter.^ Napoleon on horseback occupies the center of the composition. Immovable, and regarding the combat between the Austrians and Rus- sians on the one side and the French infantry on the other, who are charging with fixed bayonets, he restrains with a gesture of his hand the guards back of him. A battery of the guards on the extreme right is trained on the enemy. On the left is the heart of the battle. General Friant, leaping from his horse, with a gun in his hand is forcing himself a passage through the enemy. Repulsed in disorder over the pond of Gokolnitz, the Russians and Austrians feel the ice giving way beneath their feet and are disappearing. A large number of cavalry are already half immersed. On a block of ice is inscribed " F. Gechter 1886."
The Battle of Jemmapes (Nov. 6, 1792) is by Maro-
1 Jean Francois Tb^odore Gechter (1706-1845). Gechter was bom and died in Paris. There are statues by him in the Madeleine.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 181
rhetti.^ Dumouriez, on horseback, galloping from left to right and followed by Muahai^ Rosi^res, f errand, Stennebosse, Bloisi^res and theDuke-ofChartres, swings his hat to rally his troops who for a moment seem to falter. Behind him General Drouet, falling from his horse, is cared for by an officer of the ambulance. Colonel Tbouvenot, seen from the back, with his sabre in the air, charges at the head of a battalion against the right flank of the enemy. There is a general en- gagement on the right of the bas-relief between the French infantry and the Austrian cavalry. An Austrian superior officer, bare-headed and with his arm in a sling, is being made a prisoner. On the broken wheel of a caisson in the middle of the composition is inscribed " C. Marochetti, 1884."
On the entablement between the architrave and the cornice is a frieze six feet ten inches high surrounding the monument and divided into two parts each two hun- dred and twenty-five feet long. The parts are called " The Departure " and " The Return " of the French armies. The Departure occupies the front towards Paris and the east halves of the two sides. The Re- tum occupies the front away from Paris and the remaining halves.
The Departure is by three artists:^ the central
1 Chuiea Msrochelti, an It&lUn bora b Turin m 1B05, died in LoodiHi in 18S7. Med. 2nd d., 1627; 9, 1839. Attached to the Orieana family whom he followed into exile, created a baron by the King of Sardinia for hij equestrian statue of Emmanuel Philibert at Turin, See f:riticiim of artist by Gustave Pknche in his "Portraits d' Artistes." Hit principal work is SaiaU Maddeine en Eitme in the Church of the Madeleine.
» Sylvertre Jo^ph Bran (P. de B., 1817). Uiti£ (P. de B. in 1804). Geotgea Jacquot (1794-1BT4: P. de R.. 1820; Med. tad d., 1831; «, 1857). I can find but little about these ortiits. — Ed.
182 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
part on the east side towards Paris by Brun ; the north side by Xaitie and the west side by Jacquot. In the center of the east side is an altar of which the base is ornamented with garlands of oak. On it is inscribed " Patrie " and above " The Law," « The King.'' Eight bundles of flags form the background. On each side of the altar, on columns decorated with military em- blems, are tripods bearing sacred fire. To the left, Bailly presses flags against his heart. Then follows the due d'Orleans hand in hand with Leyes with his eyes fixed on the altar. Leyes, extending his right hand, is in the attitude of a man ofFerinjg a vow. Then follow La Fayette and Beumonville distributing flags. Cham- pionnet, one knee on the ground, receives a flag from the hands of Jourdan. La Tour d'Auvergne, Joubert, Cam- bronne, Carnot, Goult, Hoche and Marceau are swear- ing to defend the country. Behind them are seated Roland and his wife ; and nearby, standing, are Moitte and Marie Joseph Chenier. At the other side of the altar, in the center are the due de Bourbon, Talleyrand and Mirabeau who seem to be receiving the oaths of Custine, de Foix who has one knee on the ground, of Desaix, of the due de Chartres, of Mass6na and Kleber. Near them in determined attitudes are grouped about a flag, Houchard, Kellerman, Daboville, Lefebvre, Augereau, Gouvion Saint-Cyr. Next to them is Jos^ phine de Beauharnais seated under a tree with her daughter Hortense on her knees, her son standing by her side. Then comes Louis David, also seated, with a pencil in his hand. Last, and standing, are Gossec and Rouget de Lisle.
To the extreme right and distinct from the central
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 18S
composition are cavalry and grenadiers marching, by Laiti^, followed by the artillery reaching half around the north side of the monument. The procession is terminated by a winged genius inscribing on tablets the names of the braves who are marching to defend their country.
On the corresponding left, and by Jacquot, hussars and engineers are marching, followed on the south side of the monument by the infantry and the baggage; another genius closes the procession.
The Return of the armies is also by three artists: the central portion occupying most of the west front is by Caillouette ;' the northern portion is by Rude, and the southern part by Scurre Aine. On the western front in the center is France, seated on a throne and distributing crowns. Near her, seated on the steps of the throne are Abundance and Peace. On the right and left of these three are soldiers of all arms, some of them wounded, bringing trophies with which they do homage to France, On the right of these begins Seurre's work which extends around and embraces the remaining half of the west front. Soldiers are marching towards a triumphal arch, on top of which is written : " To the Army of Italy,** and escorting a car drawn by four horses, one of which has fallen, on which is a statue representing the Nile. On the south side, wounded sol- diers are on a caisson drawn by oxen. A young Italian with a child on his knees sits beside them. At the end of the scene. Victory with folded wings, nude to the waist, is inscribing the names of victors. Where Rude's
I Louii Denii CuUouette (1790-1868), pupa of CartelUer: beat known by a sUtue at Maiie de Medidi at the Luxembourg.
184 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
work begins, people are attracted by soldiers of the army of Egypt who are escorting a figure of the Sphinx on a car drawn by four oxen. Around on the north side are cuirassiers and a train wagon carrying wounded. An engineer, in Egyptian costume, engraves with hiero- glyphics on an obelisk the noble deeds of the Egyptian army. This frieze is so high from the ground that it cannot be well seen, or appreciated. According to the accounts of those who saw it before it was put in place, the part executed by Rude was particularly excellent.
These works and the four statues of Fame by Pradier in the soffits of the greater arch are the principal deco- rations of the monument. In addition, are the figures in the soffits of the lesser arch; shields bearing names about the cornice, and no end of minor decorations about the inner portions of the monument. For full descrip- tion see : " Histoire et Description de PArc de Triomphe de I'Etoile," par Henri Jouin. See also criticism by Gustave Planche in his " Portraits d'Artistes."
PIERRE JEAN DAVID, called David d'Ahgers,* from the place of his birth and also to distinguish him from David, the painter, was born on the 1 2th of March, 1789. His father Pierre Louis David was a cabinet- maker and wood-carver in very poor circumstances. The year after David's birth the Revolution started. In 1798 the Vend^en revolt against the revolutionary authorities broke out. David's father joined the ranks of the constituted forces and took his five-year-old son with him. The youth shared the hardships of the cam-
* David d* Angers entered TEoole Centiale d' Angers when twelve (1800). He left Angers for Paris in 1806 when twenty. P.deR., 1811.
Fig. 98— Riule. Mart-dial Nt-y. (Paris)
d
Fig. 99.— David. Philopomene. (Louvre)
-Daviil. Boiiiipartf. (l^mvrf)
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 183
paign and was often a prisoner In the hands of the Vendeens. His father was one of the five thousand prisoners shut up in the church of St. Florent whose lives were spared hy the intercessions of the dying Marquis de Boncbamp, the Vendeen general. The church now contains David d'Angers' monument to the general.
When the Vendeen insurrection was suppressed the father with his young son returned to Angers and to his workshop. As the boy grew he began to manifest the desire to be an artist. His father opposed this desire as he wished his boy to be his successor and as, in his own business, he drew a sharp distinction between the artistic and the practical and useful. As the boy grew his desire increased until the father's opposition was overcome. There was at Angers, as at most French towns, a government school of drawing. This, David was permitted to enter in 1800 when he was twelve, under the conditions, however, as in the case of Rude, that only his spare time should be passed away from his father's workshop. As the boy advanced in years he became convinced that in Paris alone could he receive needed instruction. In 1808 when he was twenty he went to Paris. At first he endured the trials and pri- vations which so often attend the first efforts of genius. After a while he found a place in the atelier of Roland, one of the prominent sculptors of the day. Roland provided him with remunerative employment and pre- pared him for the competitions of the Ecole des Reaux Arts. In 1811 he captured the PHr de Rome. The next five years he passed in Italy. When he returned to France in the spring of 1816 he found Paris occu-
186 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
pied by the armies of the allies and the Louvre being despoiled of the treasures gathered by Bonaparte from the capitals of Europe. The humiliation of the circum- stances was too much for his sensitive nature ; so, with- out stopping in Paris, he hurried to Angers. Disgusted by finding Angers occupied by Prussians he resolved to cross over to England. Apart from his hatred of the invaders he had two other motives for the journey: first a desire to see the Elgin marbles which were then on exhibition in London, and second to deliver a letter of introduction to Flaxman which Canova had given him with the assurance that Flaxman would certainly find him pleasant and remunerative employment. There is no evidence that the Elgin marbles made a profound impression on David and there is evidence that Flaxman refused to assist him. It is stated that David had to sell some of his clothes to procure money to help him back to France.
In 1815 Louis XVIII had decided to ornament the Pont Louis XVI, now La Concorde, with twelve colossal statues of French heroes. To Roland was assigned the statue of le Grand Condi. When Roland died in the spring of 1816 David, the most promising of his pupils, was selected for the work. David discarded Roland's sketch and produced an entirely original statue. The plaster model was exhibited in 1817 ; the marble statue, now in the fore-court of Versailles, was not finished until 1827. David selected as his theme an episode that oc- curred when Conde was but twenty-three. At the siege of Fribourg in Baden, impatient at the slow progress made, he threw his general's baton over the city's ram- parts and then challenged his troops to follow him to
FROM EEVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 187
regain it. David represents Cand4 in the act of throw- ing. His body turned to one side, rests entirely upon the left foot. His right hand, holding the baton, is crossed over the left shoulder ready for the throw. His left hand holds fast his sword. His head turned to the right, and slightly elevated, gazes haughtily towards the enemy. The figure is filled with sovereign and energetic disdain. The most remarkable thing about the statue is that David discarded the conventional classic garb supposed to be prescribed by the Academy and dressed his hero as he must have been dressed at the time, even to the feathers in his cap, his boots and the embroidery on his shirt sleeves, without one bit impairing the grand action of the figure, David's triumph was immediate and complete. At once he found himself among the foremost of sculptors with al! the orders he could ac- cept. To the end of his life David was the busiest and most popular of French sculptors of his day. His short exile in 1851 added to his popularity. His statues are all over France. His medallions for which he was particularly celebrated were in many hundreds of households. Hundreds of them have been gathered in the Louvre, His works do not enjoy the esteem they once enjoyed. They were exaggerated in con- ception and hurried in execution. Among those in Paris which still attract attention should be men- tioned the statues in the tympanum of the pediment of the Fanth^n, the Philopomene of the Louvre and the tomb of General Gobert in the Cimeti^re de I'Est (Pire-Lachaise).
In 1880 the Pantheon was again secularized and the former inscription: Aux grands kommes, la patrie re-
188 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
connaissante was restored. When the building was a church its tympanum had been decorated by Guillaume Coustou. His work was destroyed in 1791 and Guil- laume Moitte was commissioned to replace it by some- thing of a secular character. He selected as his theme: La patrie couronnant les Vertus civiques et le$ Vertus guerrHres. Moitte died in 1810 leaving his work un- finished. It, in turn, was destroyed in 1822. After the re-secularizing of 1880 the task of refilling the pediment with statues was entrusted to David. The only condition imposed was that he should be governed by the original motto: Aux grands hommesy la patrie reconnaissante.
David's work has been highly praised and severely judged. It is so high up that it cannot be well seen. Modern judgment is content to pass it by; or to ac- cept it as an example of a departed taste. The statues are all colossal, or they would not be recognized from the ground. In the center on a broad and graded pedestal stands a figure in classic attire representing France. She holds straight out from her shoulders bunches of wreaths. On the steps of the pedestal are seated two figures, also in classic garments. The one on the right of France represents Liberty. She wears the Phrygian cap, turns her head up towards France and also has her hands filled with wreaths. Her left hand is stretched up towards France, her right hangs down over her left knee. The other figure represents History, is winged and wreathed. She sits with her back to France and writes on a tablet the names of military heroes. She has already written : " Hoche, Bonaparte, La Voisine, Kleber.*' At each end of the
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 189
pediment are young boys engaged, at one end in mili- tary, and at the other end in civil, studies. On the central figure's right are arranged the statues of those who have distinguished themselves in civil life and done deeds worthy of their country's commendation. David has been severely criticised, both for the selection and also for the grouping of his civil heroes. To the im- mediate ri^t of the central figure is a row of four standing figures: Fenelon, Monge, Miraheau and Malesherbes. Then follow, in another row, Laplace, Berthollet, Camot and Manuel; then David, the painter, Cuvicr and La Fayette. Then, seated on a bench with their backs to the others are Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau ; Voltaire looking back over his left shoulder, and Rousseau with head bent and sup- ported by his right hand. Last of all is Bichot on the ground with head thrown back as if dying. Those in the front rank are receiving their wreaths ; the others have already received them. On the military side the only recognizable person is Bonaparte. He, bareheaded, is rushing eagerly forward and extending his left hand to receive his wreath. Those about him and behind him represent the various arms of the military service. There is an engineer, an artilleryman, a hussar, a grenadier, a drummer boy and last an expiring cuiras- sier to correspond to Bichot on the other side. To the modem eye the composition b lacking in harmony and symmetry; the figures are badly grouped and badly spaced. A tympanum is a had place for the display of statues. How the Greeks overcame the difficulty, or whether they overcame it at all, is not known, for it is not yet decided exactly how the figures of the
190 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Parthenon, those of the i£gina temple or those of the Zeus temple at Olympia were distributed. David had no precedent to guide him. He wa^ governed by his own sense of fitness and proportion.
David's Philopomine (Fig. 99) was executed in 1887. For years it stood in the garden of the Tuileries ex- posed to the inclemencies of the weather; now it is sheltered in the Louvre. When first exhibited it received as diverse criticisms as the Fronton of the Pantheon. Philopomine was born in Arcadia about 250 b. c. When he was about thirty, according to the story, at the Battle of Gallasia, while fighting with the Macedonians against the Spartans, his thighs were transfixed by a javelin. Breaking the weapon by a sudden motion of his legs, he pulled out the pieces and continued the fight. David does not follow the story accurately. He represents his hero as of middle age, and he only trans- fixes one thigh. He probably selected the incident for the opportunity afforded of representing extraordinary motion, and he added years to his hero to increase the pathos of the situation. The subject is not pleasing: the element of beauty is not present. It is still thought to be admirable as a study of the nude, of muscular action and of anatomical balance. That David was emulous of Puget and desired comparison with the Milon of Crotona was alleged. The tomb of General Gobert in the Cemetery of Pfcre-Lachaise is thought by some modem critics to be the best of David's works. It represents the general falling from his horse beneath the blows of the foe who killed him in Spain in 1808. The cost of the tomb was defrayed by a legacy of two hundred thousand francs left by the general's son.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 191
Napoleon Grobert, who lost his life in Egypt at the early age of twenty-six.
Among the more important of David's works outside of Paris are the Porte d*Aix at Marseilles; the tomb of " General Bonchamp " at St. Florent ; the statue of " Corneille " at Rouen ; " Jean Bart " at Dunkerque ; " Gutenberg " at Strasbourg and of " Jefferson " at Philadelphia. David's later works are hurried, exag- gerated and lacking in the calm and dignity which should characterize works of art. Of his medallions, those of "Bonaparte'' (Fig. 100), of " Kleber," of ** Grericault " and of " Alfred de Musset " are among the most characteristic. Of beauty he had little ap- prehension. His works have ceased to attract atten- tion. His history no longer inspires interest. He disliked Rude personally and criticised his works severely and unjustly..
ANTOINE LOUIS BARYE (179ft-1876: Med. 2nd cL, 1831; ^, 1888; O. ^, 1855; Inst. 1868). Barye was born and died in Paris. His life was uneventful, quiet and retired. He shunned publicity, was extremely modest and sensitive and distrusted his own abilities. He was twice married and the father of ten children. When quite young he was apprenticed by his father to a jeweler and was employed in making designs for ornaments in bronze. He developed great skill in model- ing animals in clay and wax from which all kinds of ornaments in bronze were prepared. In 1817 he took a few lessons of Bosio and also of Gros, the painter. He competed three times for the Prix de Rome, but each time his work was rejected because not sufficiently
192 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
academic. In 1881 he exhibited a statue of St. Sebas- tian, modeled as classically as possible. It secured him a second class medal. With his Sebastian he ex- hibited several of his animal pieces; among others a " Tiger Devouring a Crocodile " (Fig. 101), which at- tracted enthusiastic admiration. His connection with jewelers and his work as an artisan prevented for a long time his recognition as a sculptor. It was not until 1888 that the sculpturesque character and merit of his work began to be recognized. But even after that time his works were often rejected from salons on the ground that they were the works of an artisan and not those of an artist. In 1888 he produced his ** Lion and Serpent " which now stands in the garden of the Tuileries, a work which, in the opinion of many of his admirers, he never surpassed. Between 1885 and 1847 he produced no end of small models for Parisian bronze manufacture. The bronzes from these models are household objects known everywhere where French art is appreciated. In 1847 he produced the magnificent ** Seated Lion ** which also decorates the garden of the Tuileries. In 1850 came the group of the " Centaur and the Lapith« '* (Fig. 102). If Barye is less successful in the representation of the human animal it may be because his art is not sufficiently intellectual.
Barve is more admired than ever. In the absence of academic prejudice criticism is more enthusiastic than ever, though there have ever been those who fully appreciated him. Readers of French are strongly rec- ommended to G. Planche, ** Portraits d' Artistes," vol. 2, p. 138, Paris, 1853 ; and Th. Gauthier, " Les Beaux
Fig. lOi. -liiiry.-. Ct-ntaur and Itic Ijipillia-. (Tuil.-ri.-s)
Fig. 10:{.— Joiiffruy. YouTig Girl and Venus. (Louvi
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 198
Arts en Europe," Seconde Serie, p. 179, Paris, 1855. A translation of Bonnat's contribution to his centenary is appended.^
Rude, David d' Angers and Barye disenfranchised sculpture. The distinctions of classic, ideal and real subsist, but in moderation and not to the extent of dividing sculptors into rigid classes, or to the extent of exciting academic exclusion. Talent, whatever be its style of manifestation, is recognized, nor is an artist who has distinguished himself in some one particular style to be held to that style or to be prevented from trying his skill in any other. From the nature of the art, it cannot permit the license generated by French painting of the day. Impressionism in sculpture is as impossible as it would be in architecture. If such a ge- nius as Rodin ^ has only been minutely successful in that which a few rhapsodists call impressionistic sculpture, it is certain that no lesser light will make the attempt.
Napoleon III was the broadest-minded, the most en- thusiastic and the least egotistical patron of the fine arts of all French sovereigns: but his taste did not run to modem sculpture. He assisted VioUet-le-Duc enthusiastically in the rehabilitation of medieval sculp- ture and always gave sculptors oiBcial encouragement and reward: but the spirit of his reign found its art satisfaction in painting. During the Second Empire there was no development in sculpture to correspond to the development of painting under the leadership of such men as Grerome, Meissonier and Cabanel. So that when reference is made to the sculpture of the Second Empire, attention is not called to any specific develop-
^ See Appendix, p. 806. ' See page 875.
194 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ment but to the sculptors who distinguished themselves especially during the Second Empire; that is between 1852 and 1870. Most of these were pupils of Pradier, of Rude, or of David d' Angers. Among Pradier's pupils, apart from Etex already mentioned, Guillaume, Perraud and Jouffroy are most worthy of mention. Among Rude's pupils Carpeaux and Fremiet are the two most distinguished. Fremiet can hardly be as- signed to the Empire as his most distinguished works were executed subsequent to the Empire. David d* An- gers' pupils were more numerous but less distinguished. Among them may be mentioned Cavelier, Carrier-Bel- leuse, Bonnassieux, Preault, Millet and Foyatier. Some of these will be briefly considered under the heads of their respective masters. Before them, however, a few of about the same time as their masters should be mentioned, who remained classics, in name at least.
AUGUSTIN ALEXANDRE DUMONT (1801- 1884: P. de R., 1823; Med. 1st cl., 1881; fl^, 1886; L, 1888; O. fl^, 1855; Gd. Med. d'Hon., 1865 E. U.; C. ^, 1870), was descended from a line of sculptors. The first one was Pierre Dumont (1660-1787), Mas- ter Sculptor of the Academy of St. Luke. His son, Fran9ois, (1687-1726) carried off the highest prize in sculpture in 1709; married a sister of the painter, Coypel ; was premier sculpteur of the Due de Lorraine, and died of a fall in Lille when only thirty-nine. There are four statues by him at St. Sulpice.
His son Edme (1720—1775) became a member of the Academie In 1768. By him in the Louvre is a singular statue called Milon de Crotone essayant ses forces.
FROM REVOLUTION TO SECOND EMPIRE 193
His son Jacques Edme (1761-1844) took the P. de S. in 1788 and is particularly known for the statue of a Sapeur on the Arc du Carrouael. There are three busts by him in the Louvre. He is the father of Augustin Alexandre who is, therefore, of the fifth gen- eration of Parisian sculptors, for they were all bom in Paris, and all but one died in Paris. Augustin Alexandre's best known work is the statue of the " Genius of Liberty " on top of the July Column in the Place de la Bastille. Other well-known works are, the Vierge de Notre Dame de Lorette, Sainte CScUe of the Madeleine and " Commerce " at the Bourse. He was made a professor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1852.
FRANCISQUE JOSEPH DURET (1804-1865: P. de R., 1828; Med. 1st cl., 1881 ; L, 1845; Med. d'H., 1855), His statue of Mercury inventing the lyre, ex- hibited in 1831 brought him not only a first-class medal but great reputation. It was unfortunately destroyed when the Palais Royal was sacked in 1848. The Mus- eums of Orleans and Valenciennes have copies in bronze. Two years afterward he produced in bronze the " Nea- politan Dancer " which added greatly to his reputation. It seems the acme of the long list of Neapolitan fisher boys which commenced with Rude. Buret's figure is dancing lightly and gracefully on one foot to the sound of castanets which he snaps as he swings his arms about his head. The statue is in the Louvre. Duret was an excellent teacher and left many admirable pupils.
CHAPTER V
ARTISTS OF THE LATE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
A LTHOUGH very few of the artists who flour- /-%^ ished during the latter part of the nineteenth century equaled their immediate predecessors, their ranks contain many names which will live in the history of French Sculpture. From the downfall of the Second 'Empire to the present day there never has been a time when the technique was so well understood, when sculptors were so bold and daring and when their imaginations were so lively and fanciful. If their themes have often been paltry, exaggerated or vulgar, it must be remembered that France has not offered them heroic topics. Lately France, from one end to the other, has been seized with the desire of erecting monuments to those of her children who were heroes in the days of heroism; and also to those who in the milder walks of literature, science and art, have tried to keep France in the lead of civilization. To such an extent has this craze extended, for it seems to have become a craze, that the authorities of Paris consider prohibiting the erection of any more statues within the city limits for the next ten years.
Of the many sculptors who have risen to distinction during the period under consideration, it is evident that in a work of this kind, but a few can be even men-
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 197
tioned. These will be noticed in the order of their birth and will be divided into two classes: those bom before 1870 and those born after 1870.
Fbadieb's Pupils FRANgOIS JOUFFROY (1806-1882: P. de R., 1882; Med. 2nd cl., 1888; Med. 1st cl., 1839; #, 1848; Med. 2nd cl., 1848; I., 1857; O. «. 1861). JouiFroj was bom in Dijon and died at Lavul. His exquisite statue of a young girl confiding her first secret to Venus (Fig. 108), now in the Louvre, justifies all the encomiums he received from contemporary critics. Sev- eral of his works are in the Museum of Dijon. In 1854 he executed a colossal group for the portal of the church of St. Gervais. He executed two statues in 1869 for the Palais dc Justice: "Punishment" and " Protection." There is also by him in the Pantheon a statue of " St. Bernard.** All his works are graceful and delicate. He also was a professor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts and enjoyed a hi^ reputation both as artist and as teacher.
JEAN JOSEPH PERRAUD (1819-1876: P. de R., 1847; Med. 1st cl., 1855; Rap., 1857; *, 1857; Med. d'H., 1868; 1., 1866; Med. d'H., 1867 E. U.; O. #, 1867; Med. d'H., 1869). Perraud was bom at Monay near the Jura mountains and died in Paris. During the Second Empire no sculptor enjoyed a greater reputation. He was one of the professors of the Ecole des Beaux Arts and his atelier was always full of pupils. He made his reputation by a group called " The Infancy of Bacchus,'* which has been lately
198 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
removed to the Louvre from the Luxembourg. Also in the Louvre is his extremely classical Les AdieuXy a bas-relief representing a yoimg Greek warrior bidding adieux to his aged parents before departing for the wars. From these two works his style and the taste of his times may be judged. There is also a colossal work by him called Le Jour^ in the Avenue de PObserva- toire. His work are not highly esteemed at present. He is better known by the number and ability of his pupils.
JEAN BAPTISTE CLAUDE EUGENE GUIL- LAUME (1822-1904: P. de R., 1845; Med. 2nd cL, 1852; 1st cl., 1855 E. U.; fl^, 1855; L, 1862; Med. d*H., 1864 E. U.; O. 9t, 1867; C. i^i, 1876; Med. d'H., 1878 E. U.; G. O. 9fy 1889). Guillaume was born at Montbard (Cote d*Or). He entered the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1841; took the Pfir de Rome in 1845 and captured a first-class medal in 1855. His reputation was established in 1858 by a bronze group of grand style; the Grctcchi (Fig. 104) of the Museum of the Luxembourg, or to be more exact, the tomb of the Gracchi where he represents the two brothers, half length, holding hands in a last grasp. In this work is already shown that firmness of the idea and that so- briety of execution which are the distinctive features of M. Guillaume's talent. The bust of Ingres of the Ecole des Beaux Arts shows the same characteristics. The famous saying of the painter, '^ Drawing is the honesty of art," is equally applicable to sculpture. M. Guil- laume has produced a great deal. Some of his busts are especially to be prized. By their qualities of penetra-
y
Fifi. 107.— Frt-mkl. Ix>iiis il'Orlfans. (Pitrrefoiuls)
Fig. 108— Frt-iMitt. Jcaimt- d'Arc. (Paris)
Fig. 109.— Frt'Hiiet. Jeanne tl'Art-. (Nuncj)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 199
tion and by the high level of their style they will ever be models. It was of the nature of the artist to keep them within the tranquil exercises of the commendable practices of antiquity from which careless thumb punches are carefully banished. The busts of Baltard, Buloz, Marc Sequin, Jules Ferry, and particularly of Mgr. Darboy (in the Luxembourg) are in line with the grand French busts of preceding centuries. It would be difficult to give to this form of art more proud dignity, more nobility, more sincerity of execu- tion. His qualities of simplicity, dignity and grandeur are no better seen than in his group of a ^^ Roman Marriage " which was at the Luxembourg. His ^* Music " on the fa9ade of the Opera House makes a poor impression by the side of La Danse by Carpeaux. His decorations of the Pavilion Turgot are too high up to be properly appreciated. His re- ligious works in the church of Sainte Clotilde do not display his best and highest qualities.
Guillaume was a writer as well as a sculptor. His contributions to the ^* Gazette des Beaux Arts " are of the highest order of honest criticism. He was appointed Pirector of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1864 and brought to the office dignity, affability, grace, keen impartial judgment and admirable executive ability. The writer would acknowledge his great obligation to him in the direction of his studies and in his intro- duction to the artistic life of the times.
Rude's Pupils
Fr^miet and Carpeaux, Rude's pupils, are two of the most distinguished sculptors of French history.
200 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
EMMANUEL FREMIET (1824-1900, Paris: Med. 8rd cl., 1849; 2nd cL, 1851 ; 8rd cL, 1855 E. U.; #, 1860; Med. d'H., 1887; H. C, 1889 E. U.; L, 1892; C. #, 1896; G. O. #, 1900; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.) Fremiet was a pupil of Rude, his uncle. An- other uncle, Werner, a painter, employed in the Mu- seum of Natural History, was his first employer. He at first paid him but five francs a month for executing lithographs of animals; a sum that was subsequently increased to twenty-five francs. He became proficient in drawing and modeling animals. In 1848 he exhibited his first animal, a gazelle. In 1849 he exhibited a family of cats which procured him a third-class medal and was purchased by the state. In 1851 appeared the wounded dog which is now just outside the gallery of the Luxembourg and which excites general sympathy. His work was quick to attract the attention of Napo- leon III, for whom he made a number of statuettes of himself surrounded by various mounted troops of his armies. These works of art were probably destroyed in the burning of the Tuileries. Up to this time he had confined himself principally to animals. Here- after animals were subordinate in his inventions. In 1859 appeared his terrible composition of a " Gorilla " with the body of a woman. Then, after a few years, appeared his delightful group of a " Faun Playing with Cub Bears" (Fig. 105), in which every visitor to the Luxembourg delights. In 1868 he executed " Napoleon I " in bronze for the city of Grenoble. This was dismounted two years afterwards and has disappeared. In 1870 appeared the " Marine Horses " (Fig. 106) for the Fountain of the Observatory of
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 201
which Carpeaux executed the crowning, and at the same time the statue of "Louis d'Orleans " (Fig. 107) for the restored Chateau de Pierrefonds. After the down- fall of Napoleon, Fremiet developed a new grandeur of conception and boldness of execution. In 1872 ap- peared his second edition of the " Jeanne d'Arc " (Fig.
108) of the Place des Pyramides; the first one of 1868 having been withdrawn. The Grand Condi for Chan- tilly was of 1881. The Portefalot of the Hotel de Ville dates from 1888. The « Jeanne d'Arc '' (Fig.
109) for Nancy from 1889. " Velasquez " was produced in 1890; St. George transperfant le dragon (Fig. 110), 1891 ; and " Duguesclin '* in 1902. To this same late period belongs the statue of " St. Michael " (Fig. Ill) as a knight of the fourteenth century, for the spire of the church on the Mont St. Michel; the monu- ment to " Raffet '• (Fig. 112) in front of the Louvre and the most lifelike statue of " Meissonier " (Fig. 118) at Poissy.
Amid so many works of superb art personal taste must choose. The Jeanne d'Arc was not successful. The writer incurred the displeasure of the author by likening it to a school girl mounted on an omnibus horse. Yet that was about the view taken by the public. The second statue differed but little from the first. The present gilding does not alter its impres- sion. No existing statue of Jeanne d'Arc is fully satis- factory. As she was but seventeen when her career was terminated it is impossible to give to girlish actu- ality the force of legendary heroism. To have accom- plished the physical acts attributed to her would have required the development of a mature man. Paul
202 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Dubois' statue which in general conception resembles Fremiet's is accepted by most critics as its superior in delicacy of sentiment and spirituality of expression. It wields a sword, however, which no girl could handle. La Place des Pyramides, where Fremiet's statue stands, has nevertheless become a rallying point of patriotic demonstrations and the statue itself the object of floral offerings from students who love the history of their country. Fremiet's statue of " Duguesclin " (Fig. 114) at Dinan is the most magnificent combination of man and horse conceivable for the expression of strength and defiant courage. No more glorious monument stands on French soil. A plaster cast of it is in the Petit Palais of Paris where is also one of the nearly as magnificent group of " St. George and the Dragon." The saint on a superb rearing charger thrusts his spear through the dragon with a force that causes the spear to bend and seems to cause the steed to rear. The saint's face has an intense, practical expression as if for the time being he were absorbed by the material part of his exploit. See Etienne Bericon's most ex- cellent article on Fremiet in the " Gazette des Beaux Arts " for 1898. It is too long to be translated.
JEAN BAPTISTE CARPEAUX (1827-1876: P. de R., 1854; Med. 2nd cl., 1859; 1st cl., 1868; #, 1866; Med. 1st cl., 1867 E. U.; O. #, 1876). Car- peaux was born in Valenciennes and died at Courbevoie, near Paris. The son of a poor stone-mason, he was brought up in indigence. His father wished him to be an architect and placed him when a boy at the Academy of Valenciennes where he was taught mathematics and
Fig. 1 10. — Fremiet. St. George trnn.spon;ant If Dragon. (I'c'tit I'alais}
^''K. 111.— Fr6mk-t. St. Mi«-liel. (Monl St. Michel)
Fig. I !«.— Fremiet. Raffi-t. (Louvre)
Fi«. 1 1.'(.— >'r.'-mk-t. McissoniiT. (Pnssy)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES «08
drawing. In 1844 the father, hoping to better his condition, moved to Paris where after a while he found a position at ei^teen hundred francs a year, a sum barely sufficient to keep his family alive. Young Car- peaux; was placed in the Royal School of Drawing and Mathematics, the Httle Ecole des Beaux Arts, as it was called, and soon began to show a decided talent for sculpture. He supported himself by making designs for bronze and other manufactures of small commer- cial images. He was for a while a pupil in Rude's studio and subsequently in Duret's studio. In 1844 he entered the Ecole des Beaux Arts where he annually competed for the Prix de Roms, but did not capture it until 18S4. In the meantime he had executed works for his native city and had been rewarded by an annuity of six hundred francs. He was in Rome until 1859 and subsequently obtained permission to stay two years longer. While in Rome he executed works which made him celebrated. The first one of importance of 1858 was called Pecheur Napolitam H la CoquiUe (Fig. 115) (Neapolitan Fisher Boy with a Shell). It represents a fisher boy, nude with the exception of a fisher's cap and a bit of netting over his left leg, on his right knee, holding with his two hands a large conch shell to "his left ear and laughing with pleasure at the sound it reverberates. " In the ' Fisher Boy ' Carpeaux makes no attempt to disguise reminiscences of Rude's Enfant d la tortue. But the work is not the work of a pupil. Carpeaux not only reveals a fine sentiment for the slender forms of childhood, but a science of profiles and mimicry which he said he owed to Duret, and that profound science of anatomical construction in move-
204 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ment which was so perfect in him, so complete, so nearly infallible as to suf&ce for the immortality of his works. From this time forward not a work, not a fragment of a work, left his hands which is not a model of con- struction. If this merit is not in the future an element of absolute authenticity for works attributed to him, when the testimony of contemporary biographers, of catalogues, signatures even, shall have disappeared in the destruction of time, this perfect science will never- theless prevent there being attributed to him any work whatsoever, even a rough model hastily put together, where proportions are doubtful and the anatomy un- certain. The end of a finger modeled by Carpeaux in a few seconds is as marvelous from this point of view as the most finished work. You see at once what is beneath; the ends of the bones, the motions of the joints, expressed with the infallibility, slightly accentu* ated by art, which is always presented by nature. Apart from the beautiful sculptural lines which are renewed on every side of the work, the Pecheur a la Coquille presents a charming idea. The boy is naked, wears a Neapolitan cap. He is more supple than Rude's Enfant & la tortue. Crouched on the heel of his right foot, with its knee to the ground, he applies to his ear the whistling lips of a marine shell. With the juvenile and joyous expression of a laughing sur- prise he listens — even with his looks — to the con- fused and rumbling sounds, the echoes, the murmurs and the whispers which escape from the pearly shell.** * As Carpeaux had not named his statue when he sent
^ "Le Statuaire J. B. Carpeaux: sa vie et son ceuvre/' par Ernest Chesneau, p. 55.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 805
it to Paris the Academy called It " A Shepherd " and expressed the hope that Carpeaus would elevate his style by exercising his talents on noble subjects. Some one suggested that he should have called it " The Youthful Ulysses " or at least " Masaniello when a Boy."
The statue wag exhibited in bronze at the Salon of 1869 when he received a second class medal ; in marble at the Salon of 1868 when he received a first class medal and also in marble at the E. U. of 1867, when he also received a first class medal. The original plaster model is in the Louvre.
Another work executed at about the same time, proved of value. It was a bust of the Marqttiie d£ la Valette, the wife of the French Ambassador, with which the Marquise was highly pleased. Subsequently in Paris the Marquise introduced Carpeaux to the Princegte Mathilde and she in turn introduced him to the Em- press. Thus began Carpeaux's court favors.
In 1858 Carpeaux visited Naples, was taken sick, and was poisoned by an over-dose of calomel which affected his general health for many months thereafter. After his return to Rome he determined for his next envoi to carry out an idea which he had entertained ever since finishing the Peckeur. In chapter thirty- three of Dante's " Inferno " the visitors meet Ugolino, the Tyrant of Pisa, who was thrown into a dungeon with his four sons and left there to starve to death. The spirit of Ugolino describes to the visitors how he bit his fingers in his- agony ; how day by day the strength of his sons failed until by the sixth day the fourth and last son died, etc. Carpeaux was undoubt-
206 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
edly inspired by the Laocoon and his ambition was to rival the ancient sculptor by setting forth a medieval form of torture in equally appropriate artistic form. M. Schnetz, director of the Rome Academy, whose permission was necessary, endeavored to dissuade Car- peaux from so serious and venturesome an undertaking. He explained that the work would necessarily be com- pared to the Laocoon and undoubtedly to its disad- vantage; that the subject was too disagreeable for a work of modern art; that, apart from the subject, a father and four sons would be difficult to group within the limits of correct academic sculpture; that the bit- ing of fingers was an action too repulsive for artistic representation, and that by eliminating the subordinate figures he could easily utilize his main figure in some more attractive conception. Carpeaux could not be dissuaded nor could Schnetz be moved. The discussion became so sharp that in the autumn of 1859 Carpeaux left Rome, returned to France and to Valenciennes his native city. He stayed away long enough to execute several works in Valenciennes, Lille and Tourcoing. The threat that his name would be struck from the rolls of the pupils of the Academic drew him back to Rome early in 1860. He found Schnetz as bitterly opposed as ever to the Ugolino. When Schnetz finally decided that the work could not be executed with his permission Carpeaux again left Rome, returned to Paris and laid the whole matter before M. Fould, at that time minister of state. The decision of the govern- ment was not only in Carpeaifx's favor but he was granted two extra years at Rome to finish the work. He returned in triumph, was graciously received by
Fig. 114— Freiiiii-I. Diigui-s-lin. {Diiiaii ami PitU PuluU)
Fig. 1 15.— Carpeaun. PMieur u la Coquillc. (Louvre)
Fig. 117. — Car|M'aiix. La Dansc. (Opera, Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 207
Schnetz, who seems to have been happy to be relieved of responsibility, immediately set to work and finished the group by August, 1861. Its public exhibition pro- duced great excitement in Roman art and aristocratic circles. Crowds invaded the Academy. Early in 1862 Ugolino was shipped to Paris, was temporarily exhib- ited in the Ecole des Beaux Arts. To the commission of the Institute, was submitted the artist's request that it be done in bronze at the expense of the government. After prolonged deliberation the commission rejected Carpeaux's plea and decided that the work was un- worthy of further government consideration. Then a storm broke loose. Carpeaux's friends were clamorous : the Mayor of Valenciennes protested: even Schnetz wrote letters of regret. Finally the matter was ap- pealed to the minister of state who decided in Car- peaux's favor and thirty thousand francs were ap- propriated to do the wort in bronze. The bronze was finished in time for the Salon of 1868, was purchased by the government and was erected in the Garden of the Tuileries. There it remained near to a copy of the Laocoon until 1908 when to preserve it from fur- ther damage by the weather it was moved to the Salle Carpeaux of the Louvre where it can be examined at leisure. The figures are all nude. Ugolino is seated on a rock, his fingers in his mouth, the toes of his left foot bent over the toes of his right foot and his body so drawn together that his right elbow is on his left knee while his left elbow rests on the back of one of his sons who, standing by his left side bends his body so that his head is hidden behind the father's right forearm. Another sonf apparently the youngest and
208 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
smallest, lies dead on his back, his head against the outer side of his father's left leg. A third son in the background is falling against the father's rfght side. The fourth and oldest son has fallen against the father's right hip, clasps his legs and looks up to him crying for help. The head of the father is evidently taken from one of Michael Angelo's heads in the Medici Chapel of San Lorenzo in Florence. That Ugolino suggested to Rodin Le Penseur is a possibility.
The group has always been severely if not justly criticised. The tragic and fleeting biting of fingers by Ugolino may be accepted in the poetic version of the tragedy. When petrified in bronze, or marble, it be- comes heavy and too repulsive to be truly tragic. The moral suffering, caused by the inability of the father to keep his sons, is lost in the savage grimace which distorts the father's face. The incomparable anatom- ical science, displayed in the actions and poses of the sons, will be fully appreciated by artists though it does not appeal to the ordinary observer. A replica in marble was made for the E. I. of 1867.
When the Marquise de la Valette returned from Rome she had not forgotten Carpeaux. She introduced him to the Princesse Mathilde of whom he executed a noble bust which advanced still further his reputation as an artistic portraitist. The Princesse Mathilde in turn introduced him to the Empress who ordered of him a statue of the Prince Imperial. This statue, one of the most charming productions of modern French art, belongs to 1865. After many vicissitudes it is now in the Castle of Arenenberg, Thourgovie, Suisse.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 809
A replica is in the ^useum of Lille. The Prince at the time was in his tenth year. He is represented stand- ing, simply dressed in jacket, vest and knickerbockers; bis right arm hangs by his side; his left hand is about the large neck of Nero, his pet dog who, seated behind him, turns up his huge head seeking to attract his master's gaze by his own. They stand easily and grace- fully as might stand any very nice little boy and any very good dog. If from the general effect the eye turns to particulars, seeking the cause of such pleasant satisfaction, it finds every detail of anatomy and con- struction as exact as if in obedience to the strictest academic laws.
The group was intended as a surprise to the Emperor on his return from Algeria. It did surprise and gratify him. So long as the Empire lasted Carpeaux was a favorite at court and favored whenever the services of a sculptor were desired. In 1866 opportunity was af- forded Carpeaux to show his skill on a large scale. He was engaged in the decoration of the new PainUon de Flore (Fig. 116) of the Louvre. The designs he offered were opposed by the architect on account of their interfering with the lines of the building. But the objections were disallowed, the designs accepted, the works executed and put in place. That the archi- tecture does not suffer is evident.
Carpeaux's contributions consist of two colossal, in- dependent groups. In the larger, and more conspicuous one over the fronton of the Pavilion, France is in the center seated on the back of a huge eagle with out- stretched wings. In her right hand she holds aloft a torch while her garments are whirled about her by the
210 i MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
wind. The theme is France bringing light to the world and protecting agriculture and the sciences. Agricul- ture and the Sciences are represented by two figures stretched out on either side of the feet of France on the curved top of the fronton. These figures convey a suggestion of the figures of the Medici ChapeL On the right of France, Science is represented by an elderly man reclining on his garments which are par- tially pulled over his forehead. His left elbow rests on a pile of books ; his left hand is to his brow. His right arm is stretched out. His right hand holds a compass with which he measures a globe standing be- hind him. Agriculture is represented by a nude man in the prime of life stretched out with his crossed arms on the back of a recumbent ox which turns its large, fine head with its gentle eyes to the front over the man's left hip. Various instruments are scattered about to complete the symbolism.
In this group was Carpcaux's first venture with the female nude. Admiration was excited by the free and graceful pose and by the youthful appearance of the rounded forms.
Carpeaux's second contribution, where space was limited, was the goddess Flora. He represented the goddess nude, crouched on her right knee, her arms outstretched joyously scattering fiowers amid a crowd of fat babies, dancing about her. A joyous subject most delightfully carried out. The face of Flora is radiant with modern jollity. There is nothing classic or academic in her features or in her form, exuberant with modem life and vigor. A figure more filled with robust life and radiant beauty does not exist in ancient
tHg. 1 18.— rar[n-uiix. F..imtHin ..f llic OI>s,.rval..ry. (I'uris)
q
^Tt,-*rJ^Bi^HSS
Fig. lis.— Foyaticr. Spurlaius. (Tuiltries)
Fig. 121.— Cawlii-r. I,a Mm- ilcs Gracqii'-^- (Miist-t; du LuxL'iiibuurg)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 211
or modern sculpture. If Carpeaux's reputation needed filling this figure filled it.
Then came La Dante ' (Fig. 117) of the new Opera House about which there was diversity of opinion and always will he. In 1865 the new Opera House was so far advanced that Gamier, its architect, could distribute the four sculptural subjects intended to adorn the front entrance. To Carpeaux was assigned Muiiic ; to Eugene Guillaume was assigned Dance. When the two artists met and compared subjects it appeared that each pre- ferred the other's. The matter was laid before Gamier who readily consented to a change and Carpcaux soon set about his work. The work was finished, put in place and exhibited to the public in the summer of 1869. In the center is a tall much winged figure beautifully and elegantly modeled, personifying Dance. In his right hand he holds a tambourine: his left is up in the air as if marking the measures of the dance. His hair seems blown about by the rapidity of his motion. At his feet is upset a bouncing sprite with fool's cap and bells. Hand in hand, dancing madly around them are naked women who are filled with the spirit of Bac- cKanalian revelry. Such a furious intermingling of legs and arms, tossing heads and palpitating bosoms, was never conceived before by modem artist. No wonder good and quiet souls were honestly shocked at the exhibition. No wonder staid academicians decided that the limits of true art had been overstepped. Paris was divided, opposition became furious. One morning it was found that during the night a miscreant had broken a bottle of ink on the principal figure of the > 8«e Appeodix, p. 315.
2U MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Pupils of David d'Angers
As already stated, among David d'Angers' pupils, Cavelier, Carrier-Belleuse, Bonnassieux, Preault, Millet and Foyatier were conspicuous. Of these but very brief accounts can be given in this hand-book.
DENIS FOYATIER (1798-1868: Med. 2nd cL, 1819; ifi, 1884), was bom at Bussiire, not very far from the city of Lyons where he received his first ar^ tistic training. His famous statue of *^ Spartacus " (Fig. 119) in the Jardin des Tuileries was exhibited in the Salon of 1827. That he was ever a pupil of David d'Angers is doubtful. His equestrian statue of "Jeanne d'Arc " (Fig. 120) at Orleans was erected in 1855.
ANTOINE AUGUST PREAULT (1809-1879: Med. 2nd cl., 1849; ifl, 1870). He was particularly noted for his midaUlons of which two colossal ones, about a foot and a half in diameter, are in the Louvre; one of Dante, the other of Virgil. A sincere and vigorous artist.
JEAN BONNASSIEUX (1810-1892: P. de R., 1886; Med. 2nd cL, 1842; 1st cl., 1844; 2nd cl., 1848; 1st cl., 1855 E. U. ; l*, 1855; I., 1866). Bon- nassieux was born at Panissi^re in the Department of the Loire, not far from the city of Lyons. His father was a cabinet-maker and wished his son to succeed him. When quite young the boy had very poor health and was unable to work or study. To amuse himself he
|
^^v^r s ^p^' ^^ |
B| |
||
|
|1 |
|||
|
r |
_j ^^^HBB |
||
|
Bi ' *" |
|. IM.— CrrkT-lMlnis.-. HM: (M.im- ,lu l.ii„.„il..jiirs)
Fig. !*•- — ^Uulxiis, Florentino Singt-
|
F |
1M |
r-— i- >. |
|
m. |
>s'^' |
|
|
.«niY« ,'^' |
-'il |
t^A " |
|
^sm^^ |
m |
|
|
^^Hknif-'i'^^H |
^ |
smm BD |
|
ll |
■ |
II |
|
^:r',^.„aM |
FiK. !«.— Dulwis. Military Cinrafi.-. (Nantes)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 215
began making figures in clay; small figures of scenes from the life of Christ. These were so well done that after a while they attracted the attention of the village curS. He persuaded the father that the boy's talent was too fine to be wasted on cabinet work and finally obtained his permission to take the boy to Lyons and apprentice him to a manufacturer of church images who would permit him to avail himself of the instruc- tions given at the Lyons School of Art. To make the story short, he made such progress at Lyons that he secured assistance to take him to Paris, where he con- tinued to progress so rapidly that in 1886 when twenty- six years old, he captured the Prix de Rome. From that time on his life was quiet, orderly and successful. He was of gentle disposition, orthodox in his belief, a firm and consistent moralist, kind in his judgment of others. His greatest successes were in religious sub- jects, in statues of the Virgin, of Saints, and of those who had been true to the Church.
His first success was with his Amour Fidele (Faithful Love), which he executed when in Rome but which was not exhibited until the Salon of 1842, where it brought him a second class medal. Love is represented as a nude young boy, standing, cutting off with a pair of shears which he holds in his right hand, the end of his left wing which he holds in his left hand under his left shoulder. His lovely head is turned down and towards the cutting. Behind him is a seated greyhound. The idea is original and graceful; the treatment is charm- ing; the face and form of the boy are lovely. The statue is now in the Louvre. Next came in 1842 his ^ David " which procured him a first-class medal«
216 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
There is the same gentle and lovely treatment of youth- ful form. This statue also dates back to his sojourn in Rome.
At the E. U. of 1855 he obtained a first-class medal with his statue of " Meditation " which was most highly praised by the critics of the day. It was purchased by the Emperor, presented by him to Prince Napoleon and destroyed in the burning of the Palais Royal in 1841. A rough and unfinished copy of it was at the Lu]&embourg.
Bonnassieux is the author of the colossal statue of the " Virgin and Child " at Puy, and of many other far more attractive groups of the same subject in churches of Lyons and of the neighborhood of Lyons. Notre Dame de Grace on the exterior of the church of Saint-Nizier at Lyons and Notre Dame de Bon AccueU for the church of Saint Andr^ at Tarare ^ are filled with the Christian spirit of the thirteenth century. So is his Mater Dolorosa for the church of the Made- leine, also at Tarare.
Among his many sepulchral monuments the best known are those of le P. Lacordaire in the Dominican convent of Flavigny (Cote d'Or), of the P. Captier at L'Ecole Albert-le-Grand ; and particularly the monu- ment in the choir of Notre Dame, of " Darboy," Arch- bishop of Paris who was murdered by the commimists in 1871. He represents the archbishop falling against the wall of the Roquette and with his last effort raising his right hand to bless his murderers. The sentiments which inspired Bonnassieux all his life were not those
^ A town of fifteen thotuand inhabitanta about twenty-five nulei northwest of Lyons.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 217
of his generation. Faith will have to be more lively and sincere to appreciate his labors. The Groupe des Heures over the clock of the Bourse of Lyons, and the group over the PaviUon de Marsan of the Louvre representing Wisdom attracting Truth and rejecting Error, show his treatment of the nude.
PIERRE JULES CAVELIER (1814-1908?: P. de R., 1842; Med. 8rd cL, 1842; 1st cL, 1849; Med. d'H., 1849; ^y 1858; Med. 8rd cL, 1865 E. U.; O. ^, 1861; I., 1865; Prof, k I'Ecole des Beaux Arts). His works are to be recommended for elevation of style, elegance of form and purity of execution. Among his decorative works to be seen at Paris are Fame recom- pensing the arts on the fafade of the gallery of Apollo of the Louvre, and Poetry and History on the Central Pavilion of the same building. His works at the Hotel de Ville were destroyed during the Commune. At the Luxembourg are Le Sommeil and La Mere des Gracques^ (Fig. 121) which for its dimity and simplicity might be attributed to Guillaume.
AIME MILLET (1819-1891: Med. 1st cl., 1857; ^, 1869; Med. 1st cl., 1867 E. U.; O. l^l, 1870; Med. 1st cl., 1878 E. U.; gold medal, 1889 E. U.). Millet is one of the many artists who during the Empire and later received every official reward and other marks of popularity, yet who to-day are so for- gotten that it is difficult to obtain the facts of their lives and of their activities. The " Apollo " that crowns the Opera House is the only one of Millet's works that still attracts attention.
218 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
CARRIER-BELLEUSE (1824-1887: Meds. 8rd cl., 1861 and 1868 ; Med., 1866; Med. d*H., 1867; «i, 1867; O. lii, 1885). His real name was Albert Ernest Carrier de Belleuse. He was bom in Anizy-le-Chateau in the Department Aisne and died at Sevres near Paris. He made his chief reputation as director of the manu- factory at Sevres where his models for clocks, etc. rival those of Clodion. There is — or was — a statue of " Hcb6 " (Fig. 122) by him at the Luxembourg. He is the father of Louis Robert Carrier-Belleuse the painter (1848) and of his brother Pierre Carrier-Belleuse (1851) who has distinguished himself by his pastels.
Of the many sculptors who distinguished themselves during the Second Empire and subsequently, some of whom survived into the present century, five not yet mentioned, deserve special notice. They are Paul Dubois, Falgui^re, Chapu, Dalou and Barrias,
PALTL DUBOIS (1829-1906: Med. 2nd cl., 1868; Med. d'H., 1865; Med. 2nd cl., 1867 E. U.; ^, 1867; 0. lii, 1874; Med. d'H., 1874; L, 1876; Med. d'H., 1878 E. U.; C. lii, 1886; G. O. lii, 1889; G. C. «i, 1896; in painting, Med. 1st cl., 1876 and 1878 E. U.), was born at Nogent sur Seine (Aube) and died in Paris. His family intended him for the bar. To oblige them he studied law and was admitted, but immediately made use of his acquired liberty to devote himself to sculp- ture. In 1868 he exhibited a youthful "St. John'' for which he obtained a second class medal. In 1865 he exhibited a "Florentine Singer" (Fig. 128) which established his reputation and brought him the M. d'H. The work is at the Luxembourg and shows the wonder-
Fig. 12(i.— I>ul>ok Scieiicf. (NunU-s)
Fig. H7.— DiihoU. Charily. (Nantes)
Fig. 1«8.— Dubois. Faith. (Naiitt-s)
:«■ V .N
Fig. !«!).— DuIm'
J.aiiiie ilArc. (Rlieiins anil Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 219
ful power of transmitting to marble, chaste and deli- cate sentiments. In 1876 he exhibited two of the four figures for the tomb of General Lamorici^re. The whole work was not exhibited until the Exposition Uni- verselle of 1878. The " Tomb of Gen. Lamoricifere " (Fig. 124) at Nantes is regarded as one of the greatest works of modem sculpture and as putting its author on a level with the great artists of antiquity. The tomb itself is evidently modeled on the tomb of the last duke of Brittany by Colombe. Instead of alle- gorical figures at the comers, Dubois has placed figures of Military Courage (Fig. 125), Science (Fig. 126), Charity (Fig. 127) and Faith (Fig. 128). Military Courage is a seated young soldier of very fine and determined features. He wears a crested medieval helmet curving up in front over his eyes and far over his nock behind. He is clothed in a leather corselet, and in the large skiii of- some wild beast of which the forelegs are loosely tied about his shoulders. It falls behind him, folding over his knees and reaching to the ground. His right hand is clenched on his right knee with a gesture of determination while his left hand holds upright to his breast a long sword of which the point rests on the ground. The picture is complete of reserved force, quiet determination and ready cour- age; perhaps suggested by M, Angelo's " Meditation " of the Medici Chapel. Charity and Science are more ordinary. Faith is regarded as quite as worthy of praise as Military Courage though the term Faith does not seem appropriate. She is a seated young woman clothed in a long sleeved, rather tight fitting, gown of common material reaching to the ground and hiding
220 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
her feet. She turns half way to the right and lifts her face and clasped hands as if appealing or suppli- cating. Her hair is braided and caught up in the back of her neck in very simple fashion. The figure is alive with deep and tender emotions. The admirable drapery is treated with consummate skill. If any fault is to be found with the tomb's composition it is that the figures do not seem to be such inherent parts of the tomb as do the figures of Colombe's tomb. They might be taken away and each appreciated by itself. In 1889 he added to his reputation by the production of an equestrian statue of Jeanne d'Arc (Fig. 129). The statue is in many respects like Fremiet's but more delicate and ideal. Besides, the relations between horse and rider are better proportioned and balanced. The original is at Rheims. A replica is in front of the church of St. Augustin in Paris.
Dubois was as much at home with the brush as with the chisel. Without pretending to be a painter he produced portraits of his daughters and of other young girls that are models of grace and beauty and for which he received as high rewards as for his statues. His painter's technique is as subtle as can be. One would say Leonardo must have taught him. In Dubois the artist expressed the man. The beauty and grace of his works were the reflection of his life and of his character. In 1878 he was appointed Director of the Ecole des Beaux Arts as worthy successor to M. Guillaume.
JEAN ALEXANDRE JOSEPH FALGUlilRE (1881-1890: P. de Rome, 1869; Meds. 1864, 1867;
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 221
Med. Ist cL, 1867 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1868; lii, 1870; Med. 1st cl., 1878 E. U.; O. lii, 1878; L, 1882; C. ^9 1889). He was born in Toulouse and died in Paris; was appointed Professor k I'Ecole des Beaux Arts as Jouffroy's successor in 1882. (From the French of Gustave Greoffroy " Gazette des Beaux Arts 1900,'' p. 897.)
The accounts of Falguiire's death are infinitely touching and stamp the last moments of the departed artist with resignation, courage and heroism. Before his last sleep he was able to bid good-by to his life, to his art, and to those who were near his heart. He had been to Nimes to see in place his unfinished statue of Alphonse Daudet. During the voyage he felt the first cold approach of death. On his return to Paris, breathless from the exertion he had made, and on reaching the rue d'Assas, he paused at the door of his studio and would once more enter to see the many uncom- pleted works it held; but his weakness was too great. It required all his strength to reach his home and to stretch himself on the bed he was never to leave. When his end was approaching and while holding in his fever- ish hands the hands of his wife he still wished to see his pupils and particularly Paul Dubois, the friend of his youth and his companion during his days at Rome.
The joyous son of Toulouse who lived the pleasures of Paris, who was always light-hearted and gay, who found the utmost pleasure in the inventions of a jolly and sensual art, died with the pride of a stoic. Per- haps such an end goes well with the thoughtless gayety he cherished, with the brave air which sang in his manner, his conversation and his art. It also excites
22S MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
the supposition that Falgui^re had deeper and more restless thoughts than could have been suspected. Be- neath the joviality of the man who knows but that there existed the grief of the disappointed artist? Per- chance there was melancholy in spite of talent, in spite of success, in spite of the long list of honors; the Prix de Rome in 1859, the medals of 1864 and 1867, the midaHle d^honneur of 1868, the Legion d*honneur of 1870. Then the Institute, and always increasing orders! After having done homage to the man let us examine his works in their essential points so as to be able to define the various tendencies of the spirit of the artist. Perhaps, the conclusion will be more in accord with his death than with the official and pleas- ant appearances of his life.
A pupil of Jouffroy (Prix de Rome), Falgui^re had at first a style which led to nature through the antique. This style is perfectly represented at the Luxembourg by the bronze of " The Victor of the Cock Fight " (Fig. 180) and the marble, " Tarcissius, Christian Martyr '* (Fig. 181). These works have a great charm. They must have remained in the preoccupation of the artist not as complete realizations, definite and full accom- plishments, but as points of departure, as indications of a logical development. They indicate the teaching of a school but at the same time they are animated by that sense of liberty which only comes from direct contact with nature. " The Victor of the Cock Fight " is nearer to ancient sculpture than to imitations of ancient sculpture. He rushes along joyously waving his left hand in the air while holding close to him with the other hand the victorious bird. His head is turned
-Faiguiere. The Victor of the Cock Fight. (Musee du Luxembourg)
Fig, 138, — Falguiere. Pierre Corneille. (Theatre Franjais)
Fig. 133.— Falguiere. Saint Vincent de Paul. (Panthion)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 823
in a jolly and harmonious movement while all his adoIeB- cent body is covered with the fine grace of the first flower of youth. It has parentage with the Neapolitan fishermen of Rude and Carpeaux ; the one with a turtle, the other with a shell, while these in turn resemble the Greek statue of the boy pulling a thorn from his foot. But Falgui&re's little runner resembles something still finer. By the expression of singular joy in the face, by the happy and slightly cruel unconsciousness of the smile, " The Victor of the Cock Fight " is an Eros making his d^but by reviving pagan grace in Its most lively and acute expression.
The " Tarcissius, Christian Martyr," is of the same talent, but of a very different expression. From its head to its feet the stoned little body of the dying child is of a humble, weak and morbid character. The sickly body and members make the head appear abnormally large. All the little life that is passing away was paltry, badly balanced, but exalted and made beautiful by the ardor of belief and the desire of sacrifice. In contrast to the agile youth, to the existence freely budding, to the subtle force and to the expanding joy of the victorious boy, this other boy in his death shows an artist already expert in seizing the shades of sen- timent and of conducting them to their complete real- ization by the practice of the finest of arts.
Falgui^re continued to show the same reliability in the execution of single figures. He understood what he had to say, expressed himself with clearness, showed by the result the possession of an intelligence open to the significations of form and a reflection which had mas- tered its subject. The Pierre CorrtHUe (Fig. 182) of
224 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
the Theatre'-Fran9ais and particularly the Saint Vincent de Paul (Fig. 188) of the Pantheon are of the same firm style as his earlier works with a new fullness added. The author, seated and writing, seems as if decked with a preparation of Cornelian poetry. The sculptor has made of him an official and theatrical interpretation, influenced, as he must have been by the place and the surroundings of the statue's destination. The priest, on the other hand, is of a very sober humanity, of a truth very finely perceptible; which, however, does not prevent the complexity of the expression. Vincent de Paul, as is well known, was not simply a charitable man, passing his days and nights in picking up aban- doned children from the streets. This is the legend; the signification of his role would have it so, and Fal- gui&re has been careful to preserve this ideal repre- sentation of his subject. De Paul faces us clothed in his cloak with two little naked beings asleep in his large hands which seem filled with maternal sweetness. This active goodness was doubled with faculties for organiz- ing and governing. He was founder of brotherhoods of charity, head of missions, reformer of the habits of the clergy and of abbeys, preceptor of princely families, royal almoner of the French galleys, creator of the institution of the Sisters of Charity an<l of the Salpetri&re hospital and determined adversary of Jan- senism. Vincent de Paul was a politician of the militant church and Falgui^re, passing from the hands to the face has caused to appear on the physiognomy of good- ness the very sharp and wide-awake shrewdness which belonged there. The exercise of charity by a man of this stamp does not necessarily create round features,
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 225
simple eyes, or a sentimentality that is perpetually affected. This hero of charity showed himself to be shrewd and on the alert and the artist who showed him after this fashion executed a work of psychology and of history.
The same gift of understanding history was exercised by Falguiire when, during the days of his great suc- cess he was called on to satisfy the demands of cities who desired remembrances of their heroisms, their mis- fortunes; of the great men who had gone forth from their walls. With a lively happiness of expression he made real statues of Lamartine, Gambetta, La Roche- jacquelein by occasionally something striking in the drapery, or odd in the attitude showing the diversity of talent, or slight uncertainty of thought resulting from too great facility of workmanship. The essential was that Lamartine had his significance as u poet; Gambetta, his attraction as a man of action, as an orator, as a leader of crowds; La Rochejacquelein, his character as a clever captain of the Chouannerie. Look into your memory, you will find these particular quali- ties, these proofs of penetration. If you would repre- sent Falguiire accurately to yourself don't forget that he is a representative of a happy region of our France, of the^city of Toulouse; rosy and golden, the city of poets, singers and orators, where the sun fairy, self- intoxicated, has endowed her children with gifts of improvisation and of illusioned and exegetic realization. Those thus endowed love immediate realization, are irritated by obstacles, are easily discouraged and may hurt their first sketches by wishing to finish them with- out the delays of study and patience. Falguiere, though
226 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
having submitted to Roman discipline which might have dammed the source of his inspiration and dried up the sap of his talent, revived the quick gifts of his race when face to face with the many labors of his Parisian renown. The days of the opening of the Salons were his days of triumph. But it cannot be doubted that he was the victim of the work forced upon him by his brilliant situation. He finished off the majority of his works not by obstinately persevering in penetrating the difficult secrets of nature but by a theatrical arrange- ment and with the carelessness of an acquired manner. The movements of life and the richness of expression which at first he affirmed, weakened when he was en- gaged in his most important undertakings and failed completely in circumstances which cannot be ignored.
Do you remember in the TahleatLX de Siige of Theo- pliile Gauthier a description of a snow statue of Re- sistance on one of the ramparts of Paris during the murderous winter of 1870? ^ This enormous figure which soon disappeared, melting away in mud and water, seems emblematic of the enterprises in which the fine sculptor of the Vainqueur au Combat de Coqs and the Tarcissius tried to increase his reputation.
You remember that about 1882 Paris had a curious experience. An effort was made to change th^ per- spective and the character of one of the fine views of the town by placing on top of the Arc de PEtoile the project of a large mass of sculpture. For weeks, for months, huge carcasses of laths stuffed with rags and plaster were offered to the contemplation of criticism.
^ Executed by Falgui^re when a member of the Garde Natioiiale. There is an etching by Bracquemond.
Fig. 134. — Chapu. Jeanne d'Arc. (Mus^ du Luxembourg)
^' 1
Fig. 13C.— Dalou. Triumph of tlie Hcpublic. (Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 227
Judgment was asked : it was not favorable. It was not difficult to foresee that the monument could not sup- port a four-horse chariot driven by an image of the Republic; that such a modem idea could not surmount a structure that already had a past that could be dated as could the past of Notre Dame or Versailles. It fatigued the eyes and the spirit to attempt to under- stand the movement and the significance of the various personages. From a distance nothing could be distin- guished but a confused object placed in the center of the top on the arch like a clock on a mantel-piece. At each step of approach the view of the whole decreased, disappeared. But details appeared ; heads of horses, arms of women profiled against the sky. Then these visions disappeared as if buried. Soon nothing was seen but the hoofs of horses beating the air. Then even these disappeared. Nothing was left. You could walk all about the arch with your face in the air looking up into the sky, with your neck twisted, without a sign that on top rolled a chariot, steeds galloping and a gigantic RSpublique gloriously posing and driving. The effect was still worse if approached from the Avenue de la Grande Armee. A monument which should have two fronts cannot be tolerated if it have a front and a rear. What therefore would become of this one, of which the west side was already degraded by inferior bas-reliefs ; should the effect of having a back be still further emphasized by being surmounted by rumps of animals and busts of personages forming puzzles in stone and destroying the sacred outline of the arche triomphalet
This experience will probably be the last. The fail-
228 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
ure of the attempt, in spite of Falgui^re's renown, has conclusively shown how vain it is to desire to finish a work which a former generation has left unfinished. Whatever is invented, or is done, however ingenious may be the motive, however learned may be the decora- tion, it is a fault historically and artistically to put your signature to a page you have not written. Every- thing added runs the risk of being an excrescence. Rude's group may be said to be an addition. But the example has only the value of an exception. If Rude could show forth his sculptural genius without aifect- ing the value of the architecture of the monument, his effort and his success only make more conspicuous the failures of Cortot and Etex; to which must be added the failure of Falgui^re. Attention may be called to the cruelty of the apotheosis, (of Cortot) the hard partiality of the work of art, exalting the chief and his captains and crushing beneath its weight the nameless crowd condemned by the Csesar to death and oblivion. The idea was just and generous to desire a reparation for these unknown dead. It was ardently desired that the remembrance could be revived of the obscure armies fallen on the battle-fields of Europe. But it was for- gotten that reparation had been made; that justice had had its day. When the government of Louis Philippe confided to Rude the task of evoking the de- parture of the volunteers and when the sculptor opened in stone the furious mouth of the country roaring out the Marseillaise, the soldiers of the Revolution were avenged. A protestation and an arrest had been writ- ten across the apology of the other (Cortot). The victor of Cortot could have been left face to face with
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 229
the Euminidea of Rude and it should have been decided to leave the monument as it was, as a grand dead thing carrying all its unalterable signification.
Could Falgui^re*s group, with its dimensions unde- termined, have been placed elsewhere? Could his " Re- public " have come down from the Arc de I'Etoile and have mingled with the crowds of a suburb? All that is known is that an error was committed and that the group was totally abandoned.
There was another mistake, committed at the Pan- thten. One look behind the curtain which hides at the end of the temple the contest of the Progrit terraitant I'Erreur is enough to show the disproportion and empti- ness of the figures and their accessories, A snow monu- ment bound to disappear. And finally, not to open a dispute which will remain celebrated, the statue of Balzac, ordered of the artist by the Societe des Gens de Lettres to replace Rodin's Balzac, is it not by unanimous opinion a hasty and empty work? Another snow image! Draw a veil, as has been done at the Pantheon, on these still-bom works. It is evident that, on these occasions, Falguiire was irritated by the slow- ness of work, confounded enormity of proportions with the true greatness which lies in the strength of the model, and found himself at the end of his force after the first effort had exhausted his knowledge and skill. Examine all the grand works with which he was charged, you will find inequality, differences ; both the excel- lencies and the faults which he had in common. He had a lively sculpturesque imagination, a taste gener- ally fine and he knew how to create in his art. '* The morrow of our defeats," he created a type for patriotic
230 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
monuments with his group at Greneva of ** Switzerland " welcoming the French army, showing Switzerland lift- ing up a falling young soldier. Here there is no excessive pantomime, no display of gesture or expres- sion. On the other hand he is drawn away by decora- tive conventionalism in his statue of *^ Admiral Courbet ^ at Abbeville. As a sculptor of busts, if he has not the fine nervousness of Carpeaux, or the singular depth of live expression of Rodin, he is nevertheless a very in- telligent and wise portraitist, as can be easily verified by the bust of the ** Baroness Daumesnil " at the Lux- embourg. In painting, for he handled brushes and palettes, he has shown in an art, not his own, that he had a correct feeling for lights and shades. His Lut- teurs; his ** Cain and Abel," his Vaku are colored sculpture.
All this he accomplished; much more he started. He worked with strength. His orders for statues and groups he carried out to the finish. He left behind him statues, still unseen, of " Pasteur," " Bizet," of " Am- broise Thomas." When he felt old age approaching, when quite near sixty he was seized with a sincere in- spiration of a new sculpture. Tired of official pro- grammes, attracted by ever-living nature, troubled perhaps by the example of Rodin who is perpetually discovering new forms, movements and expressions in the inexhaustible productions of life, he produced in a few years statues of women which gave him a recom- mencement of reputation: Diane, Nymphe chasseresse^ Bacchantes, Femme au paon, almost always the same strong, solid body under different names ; a sculpture of the nude at the same time firm and quivering, showing
f
mil 111
;. 138.— Dalou. Statue of the Republic. (Paris)
Fig. 139. — Barrias. Jeune fille de Megare.
(Musee du Luxembourg)
Fig. 140.— Barriaa. First Funeral. (Hotel de Ville. Paris)
ig. 141.— Barrias. Victor Hugo. (Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 231
at times a lovely rhythm of the body, more frequently the texture of the iSesh and the folds of the skin. He showed himself with undeniable force a poet of the un- dressed, a Parisian Praxiteles ; very free, even lax, the day he dared to present La Dan^ettse which became a subject of scandal. It was truly a composite bit of degeneracy with its Spanish danse du x^entre, its Java- nese gestures; its symbolical arrangement of the hair and its accidental or intentional resemblance to Cleo de Merode. It was even far away from the little Diane^ boldly stripped, but discharging her arrow with so bold and scornful a look from beneath her lowering eyelids.^ This brief review of Falguiire's activity, this attempt to characterize some of his works, and of his principal attempts may suffice to suggest that this happy man was tormented; that this easy and glorious producer was disturbed; that this acclaimed artist, as he ad- vanced in life and mastered his art, became more and more conscious of the combat raging within him. Those who are truly disfranchised from every convention, and those who yield themselves to the genius of nature with all their intelligence and all their sensibility, are rare. The light-hearted Vainqueur au Combat de Coqs; the little Martyr^ so frail ; the good and clever St. Vincent de Paul; and Diane, carnal and proud — I may forget or be mistaken in some — are about his tomb. May Falguiire, reassured and confident at the last minute have seen them thus assembled, after the long look he gave his studio on the eve of his death.
^ Dates of the nudes, Diane (pUtre, 1882, marbre, 1887); Nymphe cfaaasereflse (pi. 1884, bronxe, 1885, m. 1888); Femme au paon (m. 1890); Danaeuae (m. 1896).
232 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
HENRI MICHEL ANTOINE CHAPU (1888- 1891: P. de R., 1856; M., 8rd cL, 1868 (Mercure inr vewtant le Caducee); M., 1865; ^, 1867; Jeanne d'Arc, Salon de 1870; L, 1880; O. ^, 1872). Chapu was born at the little village of le Mee not far from Melun a little to the southeast of Paris. His parents were farm laborers and so poor that the care of the son was entrusted to an uncle named Lecocq with whom he lived until he was ten. When Chapu was about twelve his father obtained the comfortable position of concierge with the Marquis of Vogu^ whose hotel was at No. 92 rue de Lille, Paris. Chapu was destined to be an upholsterer and was sent to the school of decorative art in the rue de I'Ecole de M^ecine to obtain the necessary instruction in drawing. Here he made such wonderful progress in drawing, designing and modeling that an artistic career was decided for him. He ob- tained a prix which opened to him the Ecole des Beaux Arts. He chose sculpture and entered Pradier's studio. In 1852 Pradier died and Chapu became one of Duret's pupils. In 1855 he captured the Prix de Rome* Dur- ing the five years he passed at Rome he devoted him- self to serious study. His renvois were not remarkable, but showed refinement cuid grace and indicated careful study. He was of a very amiable and gentle disposi- tion and made many friends. He returned to Paris in 1861 and at first found modest employment as an architectural decorator. In 1868 he was awarded a third class medal for his ** Mercury Inventing the Caduceus," his last renvoi from Rome. This was the beginning of official recognition. The work was pur- chased by the state and is now in the Luxembourg.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES iB8
To the ordinary observer the action seems strained and exaggerated, if ingenious, and the composition forced.
In 1865 and 1866 he received medals. In the second instance the award came from a Cljftie in which are evident those peculiar charms which soon made Chapu one of the master sculptors of the day. Chapu's Clytie is in the Museum of Dijon. Chapu's first great triumph, and perhaps the greatest triumph of his career, was made with his Jeanne d'Arc (Fig. 184) which was exhibited at the Salon of 1870. As the Prussian war broke out in the summer of 1870, works of art of the year were not well known and appreciated until the war was over.
Fidi^re thus writes of it:
" For Chapu, the son of peasants, la Pucelle is first and foremost a peasant, the glorious incarnation of virtue in the humble. She Is particularly the patroness of those thousands of anonymous heroes who shed their blood on the field of battle, those obscure martyrs who have made, and will continue to make, the glory of their country. She is beautiful of course, she cannot be conceived otherwise; but of a particular beauty; not too gracious, for that would enfeeble character; not too masculine, for that would hurt the idea that must be held, of a supernatural force. At the time Chapu dreamed of his statue scientific materialism had not yet hurt with its sad hypotheses the pure figure of the virgin of Vaucouleurs. Chapu therefore easily avoided the quicksands into which other artists have fallen. He knew how to cause Jeanne's every feature to vibrate with the mystic ardor which animated her, without show- ing on her face the consuming signs of nervous excita-
2S4 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
bility. She is seated, her limbs drawn up under her body, her hands joined in an expression of ardent prayer. She is still the humble shepherdess of a little village of Lorraine, but in the admirable expression of her melting looks you can see the ecstasy which takes her far away from the world of reality; the radiant vision which shows her her future destinies, the combats, the glory, the martyrdom."
Of the many artistic conceptions of Jeanne d'Arc no one is more simple, more earnest, more in accord with the little that is known of her.
The other work which distinguished Chapu above his confreres is the figure of " Youth " which he executed for the monument of Regnault in the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Regnault was killed during the siege of Paris on the 19th of January, 1871. Chapu's figure was exhib- ited at the Salon of 1875 and was rewarded with the MedaiUe d^honneur. The monument which stands in the Gour du Murier was inaugurated on the 11th of August, 1876. The following description of the monu- ment is from Fidi^re:
^^ The monument in white marble soberly decorated with polychrome ornaments, consists of two Ionic col- umns supporting a triangular pediment. On the col- umns are inscribed the names of Regnault's companions who like himself were victims of the war. An imita- tion drapery, sown with golden lotuses, masques the entrance to the temple, in front of which are two seats which seem to invite those passing to pause and medi- tate upon the virtues of those who died for their coun- try. In the pediment the word * Patrie * resumes and shines forth the meaning of the monument. The very
Fig. 142.— Barrias. Victor Hugo. (Parb)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 885
top is crowned with a flame symbolizing the resurrec- tion and the life to come. Between the two columns and within the appropriate decoration is a tombstone which serves as a pedestal for a bronze bust of Regnault whose energetic features express noble 6uid supreme in- dignation. In front of the stone, and hardly detached from it, the gracious figure of a young girl, in a movement of supreme grace, lifts towards the image of the painter a golden branch, the sign of glory and the palm of martyrdom. What does this virgin represent who is both seductive and chaste? Is it glory? No! Glory ia a more haughty divinity and has not so youth- ful a charm. Is it immortality? Again no. To cele- brate the apotheosis of these young men the artist did not think it necessary to evolce solemn abstractions. It is youth, eternal and radiant youth that he has chosen, youth which holds the germs of all hopes, beauties and joys. For his figure Chapu has chosen that fugitive and charming hour when beauty begins to expand. The first budding of girlhood has passed ; but youth in full flower is still present. The body is turned towards the bust of the painter, the figure is seen from behind; but in the effort she is making the body is so turned that the fine and lovely head is seen almost in profile. The hair caught up at the back of the head exposes in all their splendor the elegant pose of the neck, the harmonious line of the shoulders, the savory modeling of the bust and the arms. Never did marble better lend itself to render the most delicate palpita- tions of flesh, the undulating flexibility of a young body. As a critic has put it, ' There exudes from this work that perfume so difficult to describe and yet so
236 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
particular, so frank, only met in irreproachable works of art, no matter to what period they belong. It is not a piece of exceptional beauty that attracts regards. It is not one supreme quality which excites a cry of admiration. On the contrary it presents a perfect and harmonious combination before which you experience a species of rest, a calm satisfaction, full, and more and more profound. It is certainly a delicious thing to feel an emotion penetrating you slowly and surely without noise or violence. The originality of the work appears in that, without lowering itself, without losing any of its dignity, or of respect for classic art from which it springs, it is of our time and offers the ideal of OUT sculpture, which we can understand and enjoy.' The drapery is classic; the young girl is of to-day. She uses classic drapery for the part she has to play." Chapu executed a number of works in which grandeur and dignity rather than grace and beauty are the ele- ments. The monument to Berryer in the Palais de Justice is accessible and an admirable specimen of this style of composition. The orator stands full to the front. His lawyer's robe wide open shows the tightly buttoned dress-coat in which he always appeared. His head is slightly thrown back and his large right hand is spread out over his left breast. Attitude and ex- pression are not without a shade of pomposity. At the sides of the pedestal on which the statue stands are two seated allegorical statues in classic drapery. They are admirably correct; cold, and in no way to be dis- tinguished from the vast multitude of allegorital figures executed for ornamental purposes. The figure to the left of the spectator is called Fidelity. She sits to the
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 287
left and faces the front. Her left arm, shoulder, breast and back are nude. Her garment is drawn up over the back of her head. Her eyes are partially shut. Her expression ts disdainful; or, may be, she is listening to Berryer's eloquence. Between her knees and her clasped hands is a large shield on which is a fleur-de- lys indicating Berryer's adhesion to the Bourbon dy- nasty. The other figure is called Eloquence and is in about the same attitude. Her right hand, holding a pen, rests on a scroll lying on her left knee. Her head is turned up towards the orator as if catching his words and her left hand is raised to carry out the idea of attention. She is supposed to be inscribing his words. The term Eloquence does not seem appropriate. The whole monument is very impressive. The sli^t exag- geration of the principal figure Is counterbalanced by the calm dignity of the allegorical figures. The location of the monument adds to its impressiveness. Other works of similar character if not of equal importance, are the monument to " Le Verrier " at the Paris Ob- servatory ; the monument to " Mgr. Dupanloup " in the cathedral of Orleans, to " Mgr. Toumier " at Nantes and to " M. Schneider " at Creusot. His fune- real figures are of high order. At P^re-Lachaise are La Pensee on the tomb of the Comtesse d'Agoult and L'Immortaliti on the tomb of Jean Raynaud. At Dreuz his funereal statue of Madame la ducketse d'OrUana is of the highest order. In Paris should be observed his statues of the four seasons on the Alagasin du Prin- temps. His Cantata on the fafade of the Opera House would attract attention were it not overshadowed by Carpeaux's La Dame. Of his many excellent busts
258 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
perhaps the best are those of Bonnat^ Uabhi Bruyere at the Eglise Saint Martin, Paris; Lehrwiht at the Palais de I'Institut and Alexandre Dumas at the Com^ die Fran9ai8e. His medals and medallions were equally successful. To the end of his life he received more orders than he could fill and left many unfinished works which his confreres were proud to finish.
JULES DALOU (1888-1902: Med., 1870; Med. d'H., 1888; ^, 1888; O. ^, 1889; Grand Prix, 1889 E. U.; C. ^, 1889, — one of the founders of the Soc. Nat. des Beaux Arts, 1889), was bom and died in Paris. After the Commune in 1871 with which he was in some way related, he fled to London where he remained several years in exile. His great work is the group of the ** Triumph of the Republic" (Figs. 185 and 186) of the Place de la Nation in Paris, executed in 1899. The work is a very singular, if a very impressive, composition. On a chariot drawn by lions is a high and composite structure, decorated with huge plant leaves and architectural volutes. From the top of it protrudes a large ball on which stands a colossal figure of the Republic. She wears the Phrygian cap; is classically robed with her right breast ex- posed, is bare-footed, rests her left hand on a bundle of fasces and extends the right as if in blessing, or — it has been profanely suggested — to keep her bal- ance. Leaning, if not exactly seated, on the lions is a male figure, nude with the exception of a bit of drapery gathered about and flowing from the left shoulder. He holds a torch out in front of him over the lions' heads while looking back and up towards the
H
.£3
o
G C
o
SB
'A
Fig. 148.^Moreau. Pierre Joigneaux. (Beaune)
|
B J |
^^ |
f |
■ |
|
j^Plll^MPiPi |
1 |
H |
|
|
y |
1 |
||
|
1 1 |
1 |
Fig. Ufl.— Crauk. Coligny. (Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 2S9
figure of the Republic. On the right of the chariot is a figure representing Labor. A blacksroith, nude to the waist and with a leather apron about his loins, holds a hammer over his right shoulder while appar- ently steadying the chariot with his left. His gaze is directed outward. A little cupid in front of him holds something in his arms which is not very clear. On the other side of the chariot is an opulent figure with massive skirts which seem to hinder her move- ments, representing Justice. She is bent over and is pushing the chariot with her right hand. Her left hand holds the scepter of Justice and her trailing skirts. As has been observed by a critic she looks as if she came out of a picture by Veronese. She, too, is preceded by a cupidon who carries the scales of Justice. Back of the chariot walks a nude female figure representing Fecundity. She extends her hand backward and is supposed to be scattering flowers. The figure of the Republic is grand, simple, imposing; a magnificent ideal. The arms of the Genius and of Fecundity, stretched out fore and aft, interfere with the simple gesture of the principal figure. Justice is encumbered by her skirts and Fecundity should^ be draped. The group impresses by its size, its pictur- esqueness and its oddity.
A far superior woxk of art is his bas-relief of 1888 at the Chamber of Deputies. The scene is the moment when Mirabeau, speaking^ior the Assembly, defies the orders of the king. He stands facing De Brez^ the king's representative, in f^font of a table behind which are seated, or standing, the leaders of the three orders. Back of Mirabeau are massed in groups, standing and
240 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
seated, the representatives. In the extreme left a nonchalant attendant is carrying away a bench as if the session were over. In the background are steps leading up to the vacant throne. The scene is in- tensely impressive and managed with consummate skill. The different planes and the perspective are wonder- fully rendered. It would be difficult to find in the whole range of modem sculpture a more excellent bas- relief. This work alone stamps Dalou as an artist of the highest genius. His ** Monument to Delacroix " (Fig. 187) in the garden of the Luxembourg is one of the earliest of its kind; that is where the subject is represented by a bust only, while allegorical or his- torical figures, grouped about it, carry out the artist's conception. The style has proved very popular in France. Many examples are to be seen in Paris. In Dalou's work, Time, winged and flying, bears Fame in his arms who is offering a palm, while Apollo, seated at the base of the pedestal, claps his hands in ap- proval. A strange conception carried out boldly, but without grace or beauty.
By Dalou are the bas-reliefs on the pedestal of the " Statue of the Republic »» (Fig. 188) in the Place de la Republique formerly Place du Chateau d'Eau, at the end of the Boulevard St. Martin. Also the monument to Alphand in the Bois de Boulogne. At the time of his death he was engaged on a monument to Gambetta for the city of Bordeaux. He will be known and judged by Le triomphe de la Riptiblique.
LOUIS ERNEST BARRIAS (1841-1905: P. de Rome, 1866; M. d'H., 1878; ^, 1878; O. i^i, 1881;
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 241
I., 1884; M., 1870; M. Ist cl., 1872). Barrias was the son of Felix Barrias, a painter, and was born and brought up in an artistic atmosphere. He was in- tended to be a painter and was placed in the studio of L^n Cogniet. His preference for sculpture was soon shown. His first instruction in sculpture was from Cavelier who fitted him for the Ecole des Beaux Arts where in 1868 he became the pupil of Jouffroy; in 1865 he captured the Prix de Rome. In 1868 he sent from Rome a statue which established his reputa- tion. It is called Jeune pile de MSgare (Fig. 189). It represents a young girl spinning. She is seated on the ground, her legs crossed in front of her. She is nude to the waist. Her left hand holds the distaff high above her head. Her right hand holds the spindle and rests oa her right knee. Her head and face are charming. The attitude is graceful; the drapery ad- mirably managed. The work is the work of a master. It is now in the Luxembourg. At the Salon of 1872, the first Salon after the war, appeared his " Spar- tacus " which created a furor, as it appeared to rep- resent in a measure French sentiment of the day. The youthful Spartacus, standing almost, as it were, within the embrace of the body of his crucified father, vowing vengeance, seemed typical of the attitude of the French people towards their conquerors. The tragic grouping of the colossal slave hanging from his cross whose heavy corpse seems ready to crush the young man, companion of his miseries, who stands stiffly on his legs, grasps the pendant hand of the martyr and vows vengeance, did not at the time seem exaggerated. The work was rewarded by fi .fir^t class
242 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
medal and made Barrias one of the most popular of French sculptors. Barrias' next work to attract gen- eral attention did not appear until 1878. It is called the " First Funeral" (Fig. 140) and brought him the MidaXUe d^hanneur. Though the reference may be to our first parents the teaching of the group is more generic. It is a man and a woman whose son has been killed. The father, bearing the beautiful inert body stiffens his muscles so as not to let fall the dear load and contracts his features so as not to give ex- pression to his grief. Pressing his lips so as not to cry out, and his eyelids so as not to weep, he cannot take his eyes from the dead one's eyes. And the mother, leaning against her husband, weak, tottering, with her tender and gentle hands lifts the head of her first born to give him the farewell kiss. No outburst of sobs, no violent gestures, no facial distortions. But sad silence; the poignant tranquillity of profound grief. The simplicity of the composition and the re- strained action are equally remarkable.
Barrias' most conspicuous work is the enormous monument to " Victor Hugo " (Figs. 141 and 142) in the Place Victor Hugo, erected in 1902 the centenary of his birth. The poet in an attitude of meditation is seated on top of a towering rock surrounded by waves about which standing, seated, and flying are three allegorical figures his works recall. Directly back of his seat is "Fame" (Fig. 148) with out- stretched arms, wings and legs, blowing a long trumpet There is lack of harmony between these figures and the figure of the poet. Below these allegories is a severely classic pedestal with four bas-reliefs, two by
^
1:^
Fig. IJ'i.— Aub.'-. Democracy. (Paris)
CE We^VK pRAHP p- ' '
^^^^
Fig. 13S.— AuW. GambetU. (Paris)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 24S
Barrias, two by Andr^ Allar, of scenes from his life. The whole composition reminds one of the fantastic disorderly and inharmonious monuments of German capitals.
Barrias, while not to be ranked with the greatest of French sculptors, produced many interesting and charming works. In the Luxembourg are " Nature Disclosing Herself" (Fig. 144), in polychrome marble with the exception of face, arms and bust ; and "Mozart" (Fig. 145) as a child tuning his violin, a charming composition. At the Saint Germain des Pr^s is his fine statue of " Bernard Palissy." At Courbe- voie, La Defense de Paris exhibited in 1880. France a majestic figure with the mural crown on her head stands erect in front of a cannon. In her right hand a drawn sword; in her left, a standard. At her feet has fallen a wounded soldier who still has strength to hold and load his gun.
A somewhat similar group was made for St. Quentin in 1882. His Jeanne d'Arc at Rouen is no more sat- isfactory than the many other attempts to idealize the maid of Domr^my. He represents her as a sturdy maiden standing in armor with a bare head and in a singular attitude. French sculptors seem to think it part of their life's work to produce some kind of a representation of the sainted heroine.
Of his numerous funereal monuments no one is more pathetic than the extended statue of the " Duchesse d'Alen^on " who was killed in the burning of the Bazar de la Charity. It was made in 1904 for the crypt of the Basilica of Dreux. All of his butts, of which over fifty hftTt iMta utaloguadi «ri UMlltat likmiaHH and of
244 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
admirable execution. He made numbers of small works for manufacturers of bronzes, in which he was espe- cially happy with children. He had such ability, such abundance and variety of ideas, and did so well every- thing he undertook, that it may only have been acci- dent that prevented the accomplishment of some one grand work that would have put him in the same rank with Carpeaux, Fr^miet and other true sons of genius. Of other sculptors who were in the maturity of their powers before the termination of the Second Em- pire a few more must be mentioned. For convenience they will be mentioned in the order of their birth,
PIERRE CHARLES SIMART (1806-1857: P. deR., 1888; Med. 1st cl., 1840; ^,1846; L, 1852), was bom in Troyes. He early developed such talent that he was sent to Paris by his native city. In Paris he studied in succession under Dupaty, Cortot and Pradier and became severely classic in his taste. After his return from Italy about 1840, and on orders from the state, he executed two figures in high relief for the Hotel de Ville : " Sculpture " and " Architecture '* ; and two colossal statues for the Barri^re du Trone, now the Place de la Nation : " Industry *' and " Justice." Two years later, also on orders from the state, he exe- cuted two statues for the library of the Chamber of Peers : " Philosophy " and " Epic Poetry." Between 1846 and 1852 he executed the grand bas-reliefs on the tomb of Napoleon at the Invalides, and the colossal statue of the ** Emperor " at the end of the vault. One of his last works, executed for the due de Luynes was an attempted restoration of the " Minerva ** of
r
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 2*5
the Parthenon, The duke furnished not onlj the gold and Ivor; for the statue, but all the archeological information of a learned and inquiring mind. The statue is in the castle of Dampierre about forty miles southwest of Paris, home of the Lujnes family. Simart's death was the result of an omnibus accident.
JEAN BAPTISTE AUGUSTE CL^SINGER
(1814^1888: Med. Srd cl., 1846; 1st cl., 1847; 1st d., 1848; #, 1849; O. iff, 1864), was bom at Be- san^on and died in Paris. His father was a sculptor and conducted a school of sculpture at Besanfon where his son commenced his studies. The son moved to Paris and became a distinguished artist. He executed a num- ber of excellent statues ; one of " Louise de Savoie," now in the garden of the Luxembourg ; one of " George Sand " whose daughter he married. He excelled also in animals. He had admirers and detractors.
Two artists of the name of THOMAS distinguished themselves as sculptors ; one, EMILE EUGENE, who was bom in Paris in 1817 and died at Neuilly in 1882; and the other, Gabriel Jules, who was bom in Paris in 1824 and died there in 1905.
Emile Eugene distinguished himself by his busts and stili more by his religious subjects. Two of his statues, " St. Peter " and " St. Paul " are in the Church of Saint Sulpice. His classical subjects seem to have dis- appeared. Some of his works were consumed with the burning of the Hdtel de Ville.
Far better known is GABRIEL JULES (P. de R., 1848; Med. Srd cl., 1857; 1st cl., 1861 and 1867
246 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
E. U.; «i, 1867; L, 1875; Ist cl., 1878 E. U. ; Med. d'Hon., 1880; O. ^, 1888; Med. d'or 1889 E. U.) also appointed professor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1884 to succeed Dumont. He was equally success- ful in all branches of his profession. His statue of "Virgil," executed in 1861 for the Ministire d'Etat is thought to be one of his finest works. His statue of " Mile. Mars " at the Com^die Fran9aise is a work of the highest merit. He won the Med. d'Hon. in 1880 with a statue for the " Cathedral of La Rochelle " of Mgr. Londriot.
AUGUSTE CAIN (1822-1904: Med. 8rd cL, 1861; Rap., 1868; Med., 1864; 8rd cl., 1867 E. U.; ill, 1869; Med. 2nd cl., 1878 E. U.; O. ^, 1882), was born and died in Paris. He devoted himself to the reproduction of animal life. He was a diligent and conscientious artist and produced a large number of works, principally of colossal dimensions and for public exposure. The number of orders he received and exe- cuted for the city of Paris prove that his style is ad- mired by the Parisians. He certainly had every op- portunity for developing his genius. His style can be judged by two large groups on each side of the entrance to the Jardin des Tuileries from the rue Castiglione: one represents a " Lion " and a ** Lioness *' (Fig. 146) quarreling over their prey and the other a fight be- tween a "Lion** and a "Rhinoceros** (Fig. 147). Other works by him are at the Trocadero, in the Lux- embourg garden and at Chantilly. He also executed the statue of the " Duke of Brunswick *' for the monu- ment at Gknevai Switserland. Hit worki posMtt nona
Fig. 134. — Aube. Boucher. (Garden of the Louvre)
Fig- 136.— Boisseau. Fleurs du Priotemps.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 247
of the fine qualities which distinguish the works of Barye.
MATHURIN MOREAU (182»-19— : Med. 2nd cl., 1855 E. U.; 1st cl., 1859; Rap., 1861 and 1863; lii, 1865; Med. 2nd cl., 1867 E. U.; 1st cl., 1878 E. U.; Gold medal, 1889 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1897), was bom in Dijon. He was one of the most popular and prolific artists of his times. He seemed to be able to put his hand to everything, and with equal success.
His works do not excite the idea that he was moved to their execution by the pressure of any inward ar- tistic force, but that he thought out the subject, or accept«d it, and did the best that could be done with it by a very clever artist who was an accomplished master of technique. His works may be seen at the Luxembourg, at the Petit Palais, and at the Hotel de Ville, His Let ExUis (the Exiles) was in the Garden of the Tuileries. He executed the bas-reliefs on the doors of the church of St. Augustin, a very fine work. The Med. d'H. of 1897 was for a statue of Pierre Joigneaux (Fig. 148) erected at Beaune. One of his last works is a' statue of the city of Cologne for the Gare du Nord. Still living in 1911.
GUSTAVE ADOLPHE DESIRE CRAUK (1827- 1906: P. de R., 1851; Med. Srd cl., 1857; 2nd cl., 1859; Istcl., 1861 and 1868; «, 1864; Med. 1st a, 1867 E. U.; O. *, 1878; C. *, 1898), was bom at Valenciennes and died at Meudon, near Paris. He was « long-lived and induitrioui artitt. He distinguiahed
248 MODERN . FRENCH SCULPTURE
himself in various branches of his profession. His best known, and most highly praised work is a monument to " Coligny " (Fig. 149) of 1899, standing back of the Oratoire du Louvre and facing the Rue de Rivoli. The monument consists of a figure of Coligny standing on a pedestal and two seated figures beneath him on each side of the pedestal, one representing Country^ the other Religion. The figure of Coligny is noble and dignified. He is in the costume of the period. His left hand is on the hilt of his sword. His right hand he carries to his heart as if his resolution was firm. His expression is earnest, careworn and determined. The allegorical figures are conceived in the same simple and noble style. Country has a casque on her head, holds a sword in her right hand, a wreath in her left, while a military cloak falls from her shoulders. Re- ligion seems as if in mourning. Her garments are thick and flowing. A veil falls down over her fore- head. Her right hand is to her heart as she turns her head up towards Coligny, in her left is held the wreath of martyrdom which she seems to be offering to the hero. Between the figures and in front of the pedestal is an open Bible. On one page is a quotation from the Psalms : " The righteous shall be in everlast- ing remembrance." On the other side a quotation from Hebrews : " For he endured as seeing Him who is in- visible." It is one of the most impressive monuments in Paris. The artist was inspired by the character of his subject. Other public monuments in Paris by Crauk are: "Omphale," of 1801, in the Court of the Louvre ; " Victory " crowning the French flag, of 1864, in the Square des Arts et Metiers; Le Soir^ of 1870,
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 849
in the Avenue de I'Observatoire ; and several in F^re- Lachaiae. Le Soir is one of four along the Avenue de I'Ohservatoire ; "Morning" by Jouffroy; "Noon" by Perraud; " Evening" by Crauk, and " Night " by Gumery. La Jevnesie et I'Amour (Fig. 150) is at the Luxembourg.
EMIL£ CHATROUSSE (1880-1889: Mds. 1863, 1864, 1665; », 1879), pupil of Rude and of Pujol, was one of the most prolific and popular sculptors of the Second Empire and of the early years of the Re- public. His La Lecture, of the Luxembourg is a good specimen of his best style. His Les Maiheurt ds la Guerre, Petit Palais, is a specimen of his worst style. His works are admirably executed; are more pleasing than strong.
FREDERIC AUGUSTE BARTHOLDI (1884- 1904: Mention Honorable, 1869-61 and 1868; «, 1864; 0. Hf, 1682; C. «, 1887; M. d'H., 1895), was bom at Colmar, in Alsace (then French) and died in Paris. He is known to the people of the United States by his colossal statue of " Liberty Enlighten- ing the World " which (dis)grace8 New York Harbor. The statue was made for the Suez Canal and was called " Progress " (Fig. 151) ; but was refused by the canal authorities. The owners of the statue then obtained authority from the French government to organize a tottery, out of which they made money enough to re- imburse themselves and to permit the presentation of the monster to the United States under its new name. Of better artistic value is the statue in Union Square,
250 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
New York, of " LaFayette *' offering his services to the United States. His group of ^^ Switzerland Succoring Strasburg " at Bale justifies his reputation. The most admirable of his works is the Lion de Belfort of which there is a copy in the Place Donf ert-Rochereaux ; for- merly Place de I'Enfer, near the Mont Pamasse cemetery.
JEAN PAUL AUBfe (1887- : Med. 2nd cl., 1874 and 1876; 8rd cL, 1878 E. U.; i^i, 1888; Med. d'or 1889 E. U.; Gd. Prix, 1900 E. U.; O. lii, 1910), was bom at Longwy (Meurthe-et-Moselle) on the eastern border of France. He developed slowly and was nearly forty before he became known. Among his well known works are a group called the '^ Glorifica- tion of Charity " for Mme. la Comtesse Boni de Cas- tellane, for her Hotel de la Charity, 28 rue Marboeuf ; a group of silver and rock crystal called " France Inviting Russia to Visit Paris," executed in memory of the visit of the Russian sovereigns, now in the Petit Palais, and above all his monument to ^^ Gambetta " of 1888. Gambetta, who was bom in 1888 at Cahors in the south of France of an Italian family and who died mysteriously in 1882 at Ville d'Avray near Paris, was, during the active years of his life one of the most conspicuous of Frenchmen. His escape from Paris in a balloon during the Prussian siege attracted to him the eyes of Europe. He was an ardent repub- lican and did as much, perhaps, as anyone, to establish the French republic on a firm foundation. He was eloquent and energetic, headstrong and erratic, a man of extremes, who had many of the faults and failings
Fig. 158.— Mercie, Gloria \icti.s. (Hfltel de Ville)
Fig. 159.—
Mercie. Quand Momo. (Belfort and Garden of the Tuileries)
Fig. ICiO. — Mercie. Mt-issonier. (Garden of tlie Ixmvre)
Fig. 161,— Mercie. Louis Philippe and Queen. (Dretix)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 251
which prevent Frenchmen from developing the highest type of manhood. His monument, one of the largest in Paris, and occupying a most conspicuous position, seems in keeping with his character in which dignity, order, harmony and stability were lacking. On top of a very high pyramidal pedestal with an ornate capital, is a bronze group of a nude young woman, signifying "Democracy" (Fig. 162), astride a winged lion. In front and at the base of the pedestal is a colossal gnarled group of " Gambetta " (Fig. 168), a soldier, a sailor and a laborer, surmounted by a winged, nude male figure carrying a monstrous French flag. Gam- betta in a double-breasted coat and loose overcoat is standing principally on his left leg. His right arm is stretched out to his right, and his head is turned in the same direction. He is supposed to be harangu- ing the French people. His left arm falls over the shoulder of the soldier, who, falling over a cannon still grasps a broken sword in his right hand, while turn- ing glances of admiration up towards Gambetta. On Gambetta's right crouches the sailor. He, while look- ing up at Gambetta with a similar glow of devoted admiration, reaches for a sword which lies just below Gambetta on a lower step of the plinth. The laborer is back of these three. With a musket on his right shoulder he is coming to the front under Gambetta's outstretched arm. Lower down and on each side of the monument, are two colossal nude bronze figures; one representing Truth ; the other. Strength. Directly in front are two smaller bronzes. At the time it was erected the monument was severely criticised. It has found few defenders.
252 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
His monument to " Boucher '* (Fig. 164) in the out- side garden of the Louvre has also been criticised. Boucher is perched on a rock in a reclining position. Between his knees he holds with his left hand an ob- ject on which he is supposed to be painting. His left elbow rests on the rock. His head is turned to the right while he observes some distant object. In his right hand he holds a brush which, in his attitude, he could not possibly wield. By the side of the rock stands a little cupid holding a palette directly under Boucher's right hand.
EUGENE DELAPLANCHE (1888-1891: P. de R., 1864; Meds., 1866-68 and 1870; i^i, 1876; Med. d'H., 1878; Med. 1st cl., 1878 E. U.; O. lii, 1886), was bom and died in Paris. He was one of the many sculptors who were highly appreciated during the Em- pire and subsequently, but whose works to-day seem to lack the higher qualities of art. Many of them are apparently excuses for the display of skill in modeling the female nude. His La Musique^ La Yierge au Lys (Fig. 155) and Eve aprh le pSchi at the Luxembourg are good specimens of his work. La Musique has been highly praised by competent critics.
VICTOR PETER (1840- : Med. 8rd cl., 1879; Bronze Med. 1889 E. U.; Med. 2nd cl., 1898; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; i^i, 1890; Med. 1st cl., 1905). Peter seems to have taken a long while to get started. He was thirty-nine before he took his first medal and that was a third class one. It was ten years more when his second medal arrived and that was only a
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 253
bronze one at the E. U. of 1889. Nine years more passed before he captured a second class medal in 1898. Since then his progress has been rapid ; a Med. d'or in 1900 at the E. U. and a Med. 1st cl. in 1906 at the age of sixty-five. His first class medal was granted for a funereal monument for the painter Elie Delaunay. He has been quite as successful with animals as with men and combines the two admirably. He has also excelled as a medalist. His works may be seen at the Hotel de Ville and at the Grand Palais. At the Grand Palais are two large bronze equestrian groups on each side of the entrance on the Avenue d'Antin. One is by Peter. He seems at present to be devoting himself to medallions, in which he is very successful.
EMILE ANDR£ BOISSEAU (1842- : Med., 1869; 2nd cl., 1880; 1st cl., 1888; i^i, 1886; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1899; O. i^i, 1900; Jury, 1900 E. U.), was bom at Varzy (Niivre) and studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under Dumont and Bonnassieux. He is especially known for his poly- chrome works. At the E. U. of 1889 he exhibited a group called Les fits de Chlodomie^ in which marble is variegated with onyx, bronze, silver and precious stones. His group called La Defence du foyer (The Defence of Home), exhibited in 1884, was greatly admired, was purchased by the state, and was exhibited in the Champ de Mars. It is now, or will be, in the Petit Palais. It is bold, but exaggerated and theatrical, lacking in sim- plicity and dignity. Some of his less pretentious sub- jects (Fig. 166) are more pleasing. His Cripuscvle in the Palais de PElys^ is an admirable study of the nude.
254 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
MARIUS J. ANTONIN MERCIE (1845- P. de R., 1868; Med. 1st cl, 1872; i^i, 1872; Med d'H., 1874 and 1878 E. U.; 0. *, 1879; Gd. Prix, 1889 E. U.; O. *, 1889; L, 1891; G. C. of Prof., 1900; J., 1900 E. U.)9 was born in Toulouse. He so distinguished himself at the public schools of Toulouse that he was sent by the city to Paris to continue his studies. He entered the Ecole des Beaux Arts and studied under Jouffroy and Falgui^re. He captured the Prix de Rome when he was twenty-three. From Rome he sent a statue of " David " (Fig. 167) which was regarded as so admirable that at the Salon of 1872 it secured him not only a first class medal, but the Ligion d*Honneur. It seemed to recall the elegance of Donatello. In 1875 he produced the group called Gloria Victis (Fig. 168) , which brought him the Med. d'H.y made him famous from one end of Europe to the other, and established the reputation he has ever since enjoyed. A magnificent figure of Fame sweeping through the air seizes the body of a dying soldier and bears him from the field of combat. Coming, as it did, immediately after the Prussian war, it was met with ex- cited sympathies. To-day it stands in the court of the Hotel de Ville and at this distance of time may be better appreciated for its artistic balance, the extraordinary treatment of the dying youth and the grand expres- sion of the cuirassed woman. The youth's arm is in the very act of falling. His broken sword clashes against the woman's corslet. Her calm glance gives assurance of hope and faith. A grander monument, one better adapted to the times when it was created, has never appeared. If any one doubts the power of
Fig. 162.— Mercie. Gounod. (Fare Moiiceau, Paris)
Fig. 1C3.— Mercie. Alfred de Mussel. (Paris)
Fig. 164. — Mereie. Jeanne il'Arc. (Domremy aiiil Rouen)
Fig. 105. — Suinl-Marceaiix. Genie guar<lant le secret de la tombe. (Mua^ du Luxembourg)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 255
sculpture let him place himself in the court of the Hotel de ViUe.
Another work of similar import and equally popular is his Quand meme (Fig. 159) executed for the city of Belfort in 1882 of which a copy stands on the site of the former Palais des Tuileries. An Alsacian mother seizes the musket falling from the hands of her wounded son and stands on the defense against the enemy. The composition is in the highest degree dramatic and pathetic, yet with wonderful skill, kept within bounds. There are many of Merci6's works in and about Paris. His statue of ^ Meissonier " (Fig. 160) in the garden of the Louvre is a superb monument of magnificent egotism, yet Meissonier did not think of himself more highly than his contemporaries thought of him, nor than posterity judges him. Mercie avoids the mistake of placing his hero on his feet. Fr^miet's statue of Meissonier at Poissy is lifelike and characteristic but with its very short legs it has a little of the liveliness of a gnome.
There are several monuments by him at Pfere-La- chaise. The one to ^^ Cabanel " should be examined. Over what is called the Guichet du Louvre — the en- trance opposite le Pont des Arts — there is a superb High Relief. One of the frontons of the new Sorbonne was entrusted to him. By him is an enormous statue of ^^ Fame " at the Trocadero ; official, but satisfactory. His tombs of "Louis Philippe" (Fig. 161) and his ** Queen ^ at Dreux are among the very best of their sort. Dreux should be visited by every lover of art. It is only an hour and a half from Paris and contains many interesting monuments of the Orleans family.
256 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
It is worth while stopping over at Lausanne in Switzer- land to see Mercie's statue " William Tell *' ; it is such a strong and admirable manifestation of the lyrical attributes of the ideal patriot.
Whether Mercie has added, or not, to his reputation by his last two principal contributions to Paris monu- ments, is a question. The two are the monument to "Gounod'' (Fig. 162) of the Pare Monceau of 1902, and the monument to " Alfred de Musset " (Fig. 163) in front of the Theatre Franyais, of 1904. The Gounod monument consists of a high pedestal on which is a bust of the artist. At the base of the pedestal is a small, old-fashioned organ on which a little upright, winged cupid is playing. To Gounod's left and stand- ing on clouds are his three chief heroines, Margaret, Juliet and Sappho, Juliet in the middle, with her left arm about Margaret's neck and her right hand raised towards Grounod, at whom she is gazing. Sappho has her right hand on the pedestal and in her left holds a lyre. Gounod looks rather sternly in front of him. Academic criticism is that the three women are not sufficiently distinct and individual.
Mercie's " de Musset " has been the object of all kinds of criticism and ridicule. De Musset, in modern dress and with a heavy cloak pulled partly in front of him, is seated on a stone bench and seems faint and falling. Back of him and to his right stands a female figure with some kind of a dressing-gown wrapped about her. She rests her left hand on his left shoulder and with her right, seems calling his at- tention away from his o?m miseries. As the group is placed the hand points into the Theatre as if
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 257
therein he might find consolation. Of late Mercie's time is taken up with busts, in which branch of his art he has no superior. In his " Jeanne d'Arc " (Fig. 164) made for Domremy, of which u replica is at Rouen, Jeanne herself is overshadowed by a colossal statue of " France," crowned, armed and robed with clotb of fieur-de-li/s. Jeanne, too, bears an enormously long sword which France has just put into her hands and which it would require a giant to wield.
CHARLES RENE DE SAINT-MARCEAUX
(1845- : Med. 2nd cl., 1872; Istcl., 1879; Med.
d'H., 1879; «, 1880; Med. d'or, 1880 E. U.; O. «, 1889; J., 1900; I., 1905), was born at Rhcims; studied under Jouffroy. It often happens that an artist exe- cutes some one work which so captures the public eye that he is known by it rather than by his many other meritorious productions. The name St. Marceaux al- ways recalls his Genie guardant le tecret de la tombe (Fig. 165) (Genius guarding the secret of the tomb) of 1879, which brought him the Med. d'Honneur, was purchased by the state and is one of the prominent works of the Luxembourg Museum. The Genius is seated upon a pedestal upon one comer of which rests the funereal urn. He bends down and over it; his arms clasp it; he looks defiantly to his left, conscious of his ability to guard his trust. The wreath about his brows holds a garment, which like a veil flows down his back and coming in front falls down between his knees. The figure is grandly conceived and executed. It is solemn and impressive. It would seem as if quick action had
258 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
been necessary for the protection of the um and had been successfully accomplished.
Nearly as well known is Saint-Marceaiix's statue of "Daudet" (Fig. 166) in the Champs Elysees. Daudet is represented in modem attire, seated on the top of an abrupt rock. He has a shawl over his knees; is in a meditative attitude and has a sick or plaintive expression. Well known are his monuments to ** Presi- dent Faure " at Pire-Lachaise and to ** Dumas Fils ** at the Cimeti^re Montmartre. His monument to ** Dumas Fils " in the Place M alesherbes is a fine com- position. So is his statue of *^ Bailly " at the Jeu de Paumet Versailles. Some of his good things are at Rheims. His last work of importance called Sur le chemin de la vie^ exhibited in 1907 has been severely criticised. St. Marceaux joined the dissidents and continues to exhibit with the Soc, Nat. des Beaux Arts.
ANDRE JOSEPH ALLAR (1846- : P. de R., 1869; Med. 1st cL, 1878 and 1878 E. U.; ^, 1878; Med. d'Hon., 1882; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; O. #, 1896; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; I., 1906), was bom at Toulon, was sent to Paris by his native city to complete his studies and has ever since practiced his art success- fully. His ability and style are well illustrated by a group at the Luxembourg called the "Death of Alces* tis " (Fig. 167). Alcestis, seated in a chair, is dying, while two children are clinging to her in affection and apprehension. The group is academic in conception. The action of the children is natural and realistic. The group seems an effort to please all parties and must
Fig. 166. — Saint-Marceaux. Daudet. (Paris)
Fig. 107.— Allar. Death of Alcestis. (Musee du Luxembourg)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 359
have succeeded as it secured for AJlar the Med. d'H. of 1882. Other works of similar character are " Thetis " bringing arms to her son Achilles ; " The Abduction of Psyche," " Isis Unveiling Hei^^elf," ^^^^^V By him are also fountains in Toulon and Marseilles.^^^
JEAN ANTOINE INJALBERT (184S- : P. de R., 1874; Med. 2nd cl., 1877; 1st ci., 1878 E. U.; «, 1887; Gr. Prix, 1889 E. U.; 0. «, 1897; J., 1900; I., 1905; C. ■$■, 1910), was born at Bcziers in the southeast of France and studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under Dumont. He is a reliable artist and may be depended upon to do everything satisfactorily. His best works are at Montpellier and are ornamental and decorative (Prefecture). Some of his works are also at his native town Boziers (Musee — La Tentation, haut relief). He executed in 1878 a "Crucifixion" for the Cathedral of Rheims which brought him the highest praise and the highest award. Eugene Guil- laume wrote of it : "A more living and finer model is not to be seen. The smallest details of the body are treated with a delicacy and a subtlety that reminds one of the best productions in the nude of the Flemish school." In Paris by him are the four female figures on the Pont Mirabeau and the fronton of the Petit Palais. His " Hippom^ne " is at the Luxembourg and shows one phase of his skill. His busts are rare and of the highest order. Injalbert is also a seceder and belongs to the new Society.
PAUL ALBERT BARTHOLOME (1848- :
iS, 1895; 0. «, 1900; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.), was
260 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
bom at Thiverval, not far from Paris. He at first studied painting under G^rome and exhibited in 1879 and subsequently. Not achieving success he ceased ex- ^biting in 1886. He reappeared in 1891 at the new Ion and as a sculptor. In 1895 appeared the work which made him famous. It was purchased by the state and the city of Paris and was erected in Pire-Lachaise. It is called Le Monwnent aux Morts (Fig. 168). The artist is said to have been moved to its conception by some personal affliction. The monument consists of a wide two-story tomb of Egyptian architecture. The upper story recedes leaving a ledge. In the upper story is an opening over which is inscribed in large let- ters Aux Morts (To the Dead). Entering the opening from either side are a man and a woman; the man from the right. They are nude with the exception of garments which seem falling from their loins. The woman has her right hand on the man's left shoulder. Only their backs are seen. They are young and seem to be fearlessly entering into the mysterious gloom of death. On the ledge^ each side the opening, and facing ity are rows of mourners, young and old, male and female, scantily clad and in every attitude of ab- ject woe; overcome by helpless, faithless and hopeless grief, seven on each side. The line of their heads de- scends on the right, ascends on the left. Beneath the opening and under the ledge is a wider, deeper and narrower opening. In it are laid out the corpses of a man, woman and child. Above them a crouching woman with spread-out arms looks down with inex- pressible grief. It would be impossible to conceive of a stronger exhibition of the horror of death. It
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES S61
should be put away in a charnel house and not ex- hibited in a Christian cemetery. The groups of mourners are so strong as to be revolting. The at- tenuation of drapery is denied them. wF^
There are funereal monuments by Bartholom^ at the Cimetiire Montmartre where grief is less brutally expressed. A few works of a different style are at the Luxembourg. For the last few years he has been engaged on a monument to " J. J. Rousseau " for the Pantheon. He will always be known by the Monument aux Morti.
Bartholom^ is also of the new Society.
THEOPHILE BARR AU ( 1848- : Med. 8rd cl., 1879; 2nd cl., 1880; Med. d'argent, 1889 E. U.; Ist cl., 1892; *, 1892; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.), was bom at Carcassonne and studied in Paris under Falgui&re and Jouffroy. He was very successful in administer- ing to the French taste for the nude. His work called Poitie FranfatMe, by many regarded as his best, was purchased by the state and presented to the Museum of Carcassonne. His group of Matho et Sfdaambo, exhibited in 1892 and again at the E. U. of 1900, procured him a first class medal in 1892 and a gold medal in 1900. It was purchased by the city of Paris and is now in the Petit Palais. His works are bold and strong but lack refinement.
He must not be confounded with GEORGES BAREAU (1866- : Med. 8rd cl., 1898; 2nd cl.,
1895; 1st cl., 1897; «, 1897; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1906; O. «, 1906), who is nearly
262 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
twenty years his junior. Bareau was bom at Paim- boeufy at the mouth of the Loire, and has distinguished himself in a variety of ways. His works show thought , and sentiment as well as beauty of form. He is per- haps best known by his bronze statue of ^ Jacques Cartier " erected on the ramparts of St. Male in 1905, during the Franco-Canadian festivities. His compara- tive youth gives promise of greater works to come.
ALPHONSE AMEDtE CORDONNIER (1848- : Med. 8rd el., 1876 ; 2nd cL, 1876 ; P. de R., 1877; Ist cl, 1888; i^i, 1888; Silver Med., 1889 E. U.; Gold Med., 1900; O. ^, 1908). Cordonnier is celebrated for having taken two medals while still a student and before taking the Prix de Rome, His great work is at Lille, near which city he was bom, and is to celebrate the defense made by the city against the Prussians in 1871.
JEAN ANTOINE MARIE IDRAC (1849-1884: P. de R., 1878; Med. 8rd cl., 1877; 1st cl., 1879), was bom at Toulouse and died in Paris when only thirty-five. He was an artist of great promise. His Mercure invent e le Caducie (Fig. 169), for which he received a first class medal is at the Luxembourg; an interesting and spirited composition.
ALFRED BOUCHER (1860- : Med. 8rd d., 1874; 2nd cl., 1878; 1st cl., 1886; ^, 1887; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1891; O. ^, 1894; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.; C. ^, 1906), was born at Nogent sur Seine (Aube). He so distinguished himself at the
Kig. 17*. — Marquesle. Mother and Child. (Miisoe ilu Luxembourg)
Fig. 173. — Marqueste. Cupidon. (Musee du Luxembourg)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 26S
primary schools that his department sent him to Paris where he studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under Guillaume and Paul Dubois. His first great success was achieved in 1886 with a bronze group called Au But (Fig. 170) (To the Goal) ; three nude runners with one foot each on the gr9und are just at the goal and intensely struggling; a most difficult theme exe- cuted with the greatest skill. The group is in the garden of the Luxembourg. His greatest honor was in 1891, with a statue named A la terre (To the Earth) ; a muscular laborer with a large spade is about upturning the ground. The interest inspired by this work must have arisen from the interest taken at the time in labor. In the following year he produced a work which has occasioned at least as much comment. It is called Le Repos (Fig. 171) (The Repose), and represents a nude young girl asleep on a hard and narrow sofa with her head on a small and hard pillow. There is nothing hidden or veiled. Form is presented as realistically as art can present it; absolute, un- compromising ^nudity without excuse of sentiment, char- acter or even superior beauty. " Nudity " should be the title. Should such nudity be publicly exposed is a question that cannot help being suggested to every Anglo-Saxon beholder. The work is in the Luxembourg.
LAURENT HONORE MARQUESTE (1850- : P. de R., 1871; Md. 8rd cl., 1874; 1st cl., 1876; 2nd cL, 1878 E. U.; ^, 1884; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; O. ^, and L, 1889; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.; C. ^, 1908), was bom at Toulouse; studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under Jouffroy and Fal-
264 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
gui^re and captured the Prix de Rome when he was twenty-one. His life has been a long, easy and pleasant series of successes. There is nothing grand about his works. They are principally attractive studies of the nude, with very little character or sentiment. There is one exception: an amply clothed group in which a mother is teaching her child to take its first steps (Fig. 172). This and other ex- amples of his skill are at the Luxembourg. He has a large allegorical figure called ^^ Geography " at the new Sorbonne and another called " Architecture " at the Palais des Arts Liberaux at the Champ de Mars. He finished the very fine equestrian statue of ** Ctienne Marcel " for the Hotel de Ville left unfinished by Idrac. His last great work is the fronton of M. Dufayel's magnificent private residence on the Champs Elysees. His La CigaHe, Cupidon (Fig. 178) and his " Eve " are regarded as his best nudes. He is a pro- fessor at the Ecole des Beaux Arts and enjoys respect and affectionate regard. His ** Victor Hugo " ( Fig. 174) is by many regarded as superior to Rodin's.
ED. EMILE PEYNOT (1850- : P. de R., 1880; Med. 8rd cl., 1888; 2nd cl., 1884; 1st cl., 1886; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; ^, 1891; Med. d'or, 1900; O. fl&, 1908), was bom in Villeneuve sur Yonne, near Sens. Peynot has distinguished himself by a number of grand monuments none of which, unfortunately, are in Paris. Lille and Lyons have both been favored. At Lyons the order for the group " To the Glory of the Republic," erected in 1894, was only won after a close competition with some of the best of living sculptors.
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES S6S
The monument to " Camot " at Fontainebleau is by him. Many of his works are in the east of France where he seems to be especially admired. Two or three of his works are at the Luxembourg.
LtON PAGEL (1861- : P. de R., 1879; Med.
8rd cl., 1882; 2nd d., 1888; Med. d*or, 1889 E. U.; 4i, 1898; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; 0. 9f, 1908), was bom at Valenciennes. He has particularly distin- guished himself by his busts. At the E. U. of 1900, where he obtained a gold medal, he exhibited busts of " Chevreuil," " J. Cavelier " and " Le Greffeur," which had been previously exhibited and purchased by the state. With them were shown two large high reliefs for the Basilica of Montmartre : " Faith " and " For- titude.'* By him is a small statue of " Silvestre " at the Commie Fran^aise; La Vierge dea Marint at the Sacri Cteur; Lettret at the Sorbonne; La Loi et La Juttice for the new Cour des Comptes at the comer of the rue Cambon and the me du Mont Thabor, and a statue of " Sculpture " in the Place du Carrousel. Fagel is regarded as a very safe and excellent artist, though he does belong to the school of the seceders. He Is an officer of public instruction.
GUSTAVE FRlfeDEHIC MICHEL (1851- : Med. 2nd cl., 1875; 1st cl., 1889; Gold Med., 1889 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1896; ^, 1897; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.; 0. 9i, 1905), was bora in Paris, where he has since lived. He has distinguished himself in a variety of ways (Fig. 176). His busts rank with the best. A good specimen is his bust of the painter " Troyon,"
266 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
at Versailles. His statue called Peiuie (Thought), which obtained for him the Med. d'H. in I8969 is a^ the Luxembourg. Near the Hospital Tenon, to the east of P^re-Lachaise, is his celebrated jproup of L'Aveugle et la Paralytiquey which won him in 1888 a bourse de voyage. Of late years he has principaDy confined himself to busts. His decorations of the Pont de Passy should be seen. Michel is one of the best of living sculptors.
ANTONIN JEAN CARLES (1868- : Med.
2nd cL, 1881 ; 1st cL, 1886 ; Gr. Prix, 1889 E. U. ; #, 1889; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.; O. «i, 1900; Med, d'H., 1906), was bom at Gimont (Gkrs), came to Paris and studied under Jouffroy, Falgui^re and Hiolle. He first distinguished himself by works in which grace and delicacy of form were more the object than portrayal of character or sentiment. His " Abel '' and " Youth ** at the Luxembourg are specimens. He then developed a larger, and more heroic style, of which his ^' Return from the Hunt " in the garden of the Tuileries and his " On the Field of Honor " at the Chateau de la Boissiere are specimens. He is known in this country by his statue of " Minerva " of the " New York Herald " office and his bust of " Amelie Rives." His busts are remarkably successful. In 1906 he obtained the Med. d*Honneur by a monument to ** Zacarie Olympic Herrot " (1888-1899), a French officer whose brother, one of the founders of the Grands Magasins du Louvre, left him an enormous fortune. Herrot resigned his commission and for a while was sole direc- tor of the commercial establishment. In 1886 he
Fig. 174.— Marqueste. Victor Hiig.i. (Paris)
Fig. 175.— Michel. La Paix. (Paria)
Kig. 176. — \erlet. Guy de Maupassant. (Pari' Monceau, Paris)
Fig. 177.— F. M. Cliarpentier. Coup de Venl. (Paris)
Fig. 178.— Gauquie. Watteau. (Garden of tlic Luxembourg)
Fig- 179,^piiech. La Sireue. (Musee Uu Luxembourg)
Fig. 180.— Puech. Monument to Charles Perraiilt. (Paris)
Fig. 181, — Sicar<!. George Sand. (Musee du Luxembourg)
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 271
ing composition. The bust of Watteau is on a pedestal which rests on the top of an irregular curved balcony which slopes down to the left of the bust. On the right of the bust and on top of the balustrade is seated a young girl in the dress of Watteau's period. With her left hand she puts a bouquet directly under the bust, archly reserving a rose for herself, and gaz- ing with coy admiration into the artist's face. Of the many composite busts in Paris, no one is more pleasing. His contributions to the Salons of 1904-5 and 1906 are of the same gentle and attractive style. He is the author of the " Candelabra " on the Pont Alexander HI, and of the groups of '* Boys playing with Fish.*' His works give as much pleasure to strangers as to Parbians.
DENYS PUECH (1860- : P. de R., 1884; Med. 8rd cl., 1884; 2nd cl., 1889; 1st cl., 1890; 9<> 1892; 0. «, 1899; Gr. Pris, 1900 E. U.; I., 1905; C. #, 1908), was born at Gavernac (Aveyron). He was sent to Paris by his department and studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under JoufFroy and Falgui&rc. His progress was rapid. He took the Prix de Rome when he was twenty-four and the same year captured a third class medal. He is especially remarkable for his charmingly delightful and sympathetic busts which were accepted at the Salon from the time he was twenty- one. He has also from time to time produced works of the imagination which have been highly admired: La Seine in 1887; La Mute d'Andri ChSnier in 1888; La Sirine (Fig. 179) in 1890; L'EtoiU du Smr in 1891. The Seine and the Etoile du Soir are most
272 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
charming, delicate and graceful studies of the nude. The Sir^ne and the Muse d'Andr^ Ch^nier are singular compositions. The muse is seated on the ground with her ];ight leg under her left thigh. She holds and kisses the decapitated head of the poet which she has wrapped about with her long and abundant hair. The ^ Sirine is a large and muscular creature with fish ex- tremities and huge towering wings. She holds on her broad left shoulder a diminutive youth with rumpled hair and apprehensive eyes. She gazes up at him with ( looks of desire while he looks ahead wondering what I terrible fate awaits him. The Muse, the Sir^ne and the Seine are in the Museum of the Luxembourg. Lately Puech has been principally employed on funereal monuments in Pire-Lachaise, and on other monuments (Fig. 180) about Paris and in other cities. At Pire Lachaise his monument to '* Chaplin *' is remarkable. Of the monuments about Paris those at the Luxem- bourg of " Leconte de Lisle " and of " Sainte Beuve," should be seen. Also the monument to '* Franfois Garnier '' at the Observatoire ; to " Jules Simon *' at the Place de la Madeleine and to ** Gavarni '' at the Place Saint Greorges. Outside of Paris are monuments by him at Brest, Alen^on, Mulhouse and at places in the department where he was bom.
FRANgOIS RAOUL LARCHE (1860- : Med.
8rd cl., 1890; 1st cL, 1898; ^, 1900; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; Med. d'H., 1910; O. ^, 1910), was bom at St. Andr6-de-Culzac (Gironde). He competed for the Prix de Rome in 1886 and came out second. He did not compete again but was accorded the Bourse de
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 278
Voyage in 1890. His works are various and voluminous. Many of them are meaningless nudes. La Prairie et le Rvitteau (The Meadow and the Brook) in the Lux- embourg, is a specimen. So are hia statues of *' Poetry " and " Music " at the Grand Palais. The Med, d'H. of 1910 was given for a plaster nA>del of a group representing the " River Seine and its Branches," purchased by the state to be erected in marble. The " Meadow and the Brook " is a singular composition. The meadow is a large, nude, appar- ently not very youthful or attractive woman seated on the bank of a small stream over which her crossed legs are stretched. The Brook is a frightened boy whom she has seized as he attempts to stride over her. With her right hand she pulls him towards her by the right elbow. Her left is about his neck to which her mouth is fastened just below his right ear, in the neighborhood of the jugular vein, through which she is supposed to be sucking his life. An unpleasant conception, realistically treated.
Larche has been successful in decorative art, espe- cially in table ornaments,
FRANCOIS LfiON SICARD (1862- : P. de R., 1891; Med. 2nd cl., 1894; 1st cl., 1897; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; 9i, 1900; Med. d'Hon., 1905; 0. «, 1910), was bom at Tours. He so distinguished him- self in his youth that the city sent him to Paris where he studied under Cavelier and Barrias. It was only after many competitions that he finally conquered the Prix de Rome in 1891- Since then his success has been rapid. He captured a gold medal at the E. U. of 1900
274 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
with a statue of ^* Agar " now at the Luxembourg; a statue of the ^^ Good Samaritan/' purchased by the state for Tours ; a statue of a ^ Bather " ; a bust of his wife and a statue of ** Cardinal Meignon," nov | in the archbishop's palace at Tours.
The Jlf^d. d*H, was accorded in 1906 for his statue \ of "George Sand" (Fig. 181) one of the very finest portrait statues of modem art. The lady is repre- sented seated on a rock. Her right arm is stretched down nearly vertically, with the hand resting on the I rock. The left hand appears at about the level of the | waist gracefully holding a small book while the end \ of the shawl is about the wrist. Her head is turned to the front while her person extends out to the right. Long flowing garments carry the lines still further to the right, giving the monument a pyramidical outline with comparatively straight lines on the left and sweep- ing lines on the right. The pose of the figure and the lines of the monument are most dignified, gentle and graceful. The face, an accurate likeness, is framed by the thick flowing tresses the lady loved to wear. The whole monument is aglow with her spirit.
GEORGES GARDET (1868- : Med, 8rd cl., 1887; 2nd cl., 1889; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U. ; ^, 1896; Med. d'H., 1898; 0. ^, 1900; Grand Prix 1900, E. U.). Next to Barye, Gardet is the best sculptor of animal life of the modem French school. If he lacks Barye's deep intuition of the grandeur and savagery of animal existence he uses animals pleasantly and humorously as does La Fontaine, to illustrate human follies and passions. His Lion Amoureux (Fig. 182)
Baccliantc. (Paris)
n
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTUKJES 275
and his Loup et I'Agneau (Fig. 188) are illustrations of La Fontaine's fables of the same names. His Chtent Danoit at Chantilly are delightful creatures. His Combat^de Pantherei at the Luxembourg is suffi- cientljr realistic and cruel. There are works by him at the Chateau de Vaux le Vicomte, at other French ch&teauz and at the Ch&teau Laecken near Brussels.
His reduced decorative groups are numerous and charming (Figs. 184, 186 and 186). To produce effects he often makes use of metals and of variegated stones. His Med, d'H. of 1898 was given him not so much for the works he exhibited at the time as for his long and successful devotion to his art. In 1900 when he obtained a Grand Prix, he exhibited plaster casts of some of his best works ; his Pantkh-et of the Luxembourg, his lions and his tigers which belong to M. Sommier and are in his ChMeau de Vaux ; and some minor works.
VICTOR JOSEPH JEAN AMBROISE (1867- : Med. 8rd cL, 1896; P. de R., 1897; Med. bronze, 1900 E. U.; 2nd cl., 1908; 1st cl., 1905; #. 1906), was bom at Toulouse. He has executed busts of " Harpignies " and of " Ziem " which belong to the state, and has been honored with a commission to erect in the Panth^n a monument to Voltaire.
AUGUSTE RODIN, the sculptor who, by the origi- nality of his thought and expression, is most conspicu- ous among the French sculptors of to-day, was bom in Paris in 1840. His works have been the object of Afd^t discussion. In a studio erected by him in the
876
MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Place de PAlma, two hundred of his works give the general effect of his style. One of his latest works is the statue of *^ Victor Hugo," to be seen in the Garden of the Palais-Royal. #
Beside his many works in Paris there are monu- ments by him in Calais, and a statue of ^ Claude Gel^** at Nancy. He has also executed monuments for the United States, and for Chili and the Argentine Republic.
(Mr. Eaton waa tmable to fimah his study of Bodin is inoomplete.)
work as he had intended, and
CHAPTER VI
PABI8 MONUMENTS AND MEMORIAL STATUES
THERE are a few public buildings in Paris where sculpture, if not essential to the architectural effect, is such a contribution to the general effect as to form part of it. That such an unification of the two arts as was presented by the Greek temple and the Gothic church will ever occur again is doubt- ful; certainly not so long as practical architecture is 80 much more in evidence than sentimental archi- tecture. Still, how far each art can be benefited by the other will always be an interesting speculation if only an abstract one. While how far one has been benefited or injured by the other in any particular building is a pleasant and entertaining problem. In- teresting examples for its discussion are the Opera House commenced in 1861, and the Grand (Fig. 187) and Petit (Fig. 188) Palais of 1900. Such ques- tions, however, can only be incidentally approached or suggested in this treatise which may merely call atten- tion to the sculpture on or in buildings, without directly considering their artistic relations to the buildings.
The Opzea House
After two competitions which were held during the
fall of 1861, GARNIER was accepted as architect.
Building was commenced in August, 1861. The in-
278 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
auguration took place Jan. 6, 1876. Regular repre- sentation began Jan. 8, 1875.
The sculptural decorations were of course consigned to the most prominent sculptors of the ^ay. The most conspicuous works are the four groups which decorate the two projections of the first story of the fa9ade. From left to right they are Harmony^ InstrumefUal Musk, Dance and Lyric Drama and are thus described by Gamier ("Le Nouvel Op^ra de Paris," par M. Charles Garnier, Vol. II, pp. 278 and ff.). Minute descriptions are not vain. They help in appreciation if carefully followed.
UHarmonie. Groupe. Pierre. H. 8 m., 80. L du Socle 1 m., 76. Par M. Jouffroy (Fran9ois).
Three figures.
Harmony is on a mound at the bottom of which are two palms and two wreaths. Her wings are out- stretched. Entirely draped, she lifts her right arm as if declaiming. With her left hand she holds against her breast a palm and a wreath. To her right is Poetry, also draped. Her right arm hangs by her side. In her left hand she holds a paper she is read- ing. She is in profile backed against the principal figure. To the left is a draped figure seen to the front — Music. The left elbow and the right hand rest on a high lyre while the left hand holds up a flute. Behind the figures are a number of attributes. On the right are a tragic mask, a hunting horn, cym- bals and a rustic flute; on the left a guitar, a tam- bourine and a tympanum.
Instrumental Music. Groupe. Pierre. H. 8 m., 30. L. du Socle 1 m., 75. Par M. Guillaume (Eug^e).
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 279
Seven figures.
The genius of Music is on a mound, standing erect on her left leg; her ri^t leg is slightly bent; the upper part of her body is nude; her wings are ex- tended; her right hand is uplifted and holds a roll as if she were leading an orchestra. In her left hand she holds a lyre. At her feet is a branch of laurel. On the ri^t, a draped woman plays the violin. Her head is turned and her eyes are lifted to the arm of the genius who marks time. On the left, a draped woman, her head crowned with an antique diadem, plays on the double flute. On the first plane two winged children unroll a streamer on which should be written the first measures of the orchestra of *' William Tell." The child on the right is seated on the plinth with his legs crossed and his face to the front. The other one is on the mound and is looking at the first one.
On each side and behind each of the two women is a child. The one to the left is leaning on a fluvial um. The one to the right, with pufl^ed cheeks, is be- hind a bunch of palm leaves from which is hanging a piece of sonorous wood, the first of musical instru- ments. These two children personify the harmonies of nature: the one the noise of a spring; the other, the noise of the wind.
La Dame. Groupe. Pierre. H. 8 m. 80. L. du Socle 1 m. 75. Far Carpeauz (Jean Baptiste).
Nine figures.
In the center the genius of Datue, who is nude and is spreading his wings, is shaking a tambourine with his right band and exciting the dancers with his up-
280 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
right left hand. In front of him, two nude dancing women hold one another by the left hand. The one on the right, her body in profile and thrown back, is laughing and holding up in her right hand a garland which hangs down and seems to partially enclose the composition. The one on the left is seen to the front. Between the dancer on the right and the genius two dancers appear in the background: one sustains the dancer in front by the back, her fingers pressing into her flesh. The other one, nearer the genius, her body hardly visible, advances her head as if she wished to join the group and puts her left hand on the left shoulder of her companion. More to the right, and also in the background, is seen the merry head of the god of gardens whose sheath is against the wall. This part of the composition does not correspond to Gar- nier's description. It is difficult to make out what is here represented. It looks like another dancing woman. Behind the woman on the left, another in profile, danc- ing on her left leg, gives her left hand to the dancer in front and her rl^t hand to another woman in the rear who is hardly visible.
In front of the genius, and among the legs of the dancers, is a laughing, tumbling cupid. He holds up a fooPs bauble with his right hand and rests his left on his quiver which is on the ground by the side of his spanned bow. On the ground in front is a wreath. Behind, to the left, is a mask hardly more than sketched. Parts of the group are not finished. On the right leg of one of the dancers the marks of the workman's tools are visible.
Towards the end of 1869 a ministerial decree or-
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 281
dered that the group should be removed from the place it occupied to a place within the building. A new group of Danse was ordered of Gumery (Charles Alphonse)^ who finished it just before he died. His group was composed of three figures. Danse, wingedj clothed with a short tunic, the left foot on a mound, the right foot in front, holds in one hand a thyrsus: in the other a tambourine. The head is held up in a movement full of animation and gayety. On each side dances a half nude nymph. The one on the left, almost to the front, has her right hand on her hip, her left hand on her head and her left leg behind. The one on the right is in profile, stands on her left leg and lifts the right one.^
The Lyrical Drama, Groupe. Pierre. H. 8 m. 15. L. du Socle 1 m., 76. Par, M. Perraud (Jean Joseph).
Vengeance, her breast half nude, her wings expanded, a torch in her elevated left hand, in her right hand brandishing an axe of which the blade is hidden by her head which is crowned with serpents, tramples under foot the body of the traitor stretched out with the back of his head towards the front of the plinth, his left arm stretched out, the right drawn in, a wound in his breast. On the left, on a lower level, a naked man with energetic figure, his left foot on the out- stretched arm of the traitor, lifts up with the left hand the drapery which hides him, while holding with the right hand the sword of the gladiator who has just struck him.
To the right Truth, also on a lower level, draped, the body in profile, the head to the front, the left hand
^ See Appendix, pp. S36-8S8. * Hub group is now at Angen.
282 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
to the breast which is partially nude, holds in the right hand a mirror in which is reflected the image of the guilty. The background is occupied by a pedestal.
In front of the four divisions between the five cen- tral entrance^ are single statues each 2 m. high.
Beginning at the left is:
VIdylle, Statue. Pierre. H. 2 m. L. du Socle 0 m. 80. Par M. Aizelin.*
Half nude, with her left hand she holds a garland of flowers and gathers to her breast the folds of her tunic. In her right hand she holds the pastoral rod. At her feet and to the left is a pastoral pipe.
La Cantate. Statue. Pierre. H. 2 m. L. du Socle 0 m. 80. Par M. Chapu (Henri Michel An- toine), p. 282.
With her head crowned with laurels, draped, with the exception of the arms and the right breast, her face to the front and her glance upward, she is posed on her right leg with the left leg bent backwards. With her left arm to her breast and her right arm falling by her side, she holds with her two hands an unrolled manuscript from which she seems reciting.
Le Chant. Statue. Pierre. H. 2 m. L. du Socle 0 m. 80. Par MM. Dubois (Paul), p. 218, et Vati- nelle (Ursin Jules ).^
1 Eug^e AiEelin (1821-1902: Med. Srd cl., 1850; 2nd d., 1861 and 1864; ^ 1867; Med. d'argent, 1878 E. U., Med. d*or, 1889 E. U., O fit, 1892), was bom and died in Paris. Celebrated for the grace and delicate beauty of his female figures. Regarded as a second Pradier. Some ol his works show a different and less pleasing style; his Judith at the Luxembourg, for instance.
s Ursin Jules Vatinelle (P. de R., 1819; Med. 2nd d., 18S1). Cannot find out anything about him. — Ed.
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 288
A draped woman, w!th her face to the front, holds a paper in her right hand. The left hand is held up with a calm gesture.
Le Drame. Statue. Pierre. H. 2 m. L. du Socle 0 m. 80. Par M. Falgui^re (Jean Alexandre Joseph), p. 220.
A draped woman, crowned with laurels, with a thoughtful expression, rests her two hands on a tet- tudo (?) standing on the ground.*
Above these four statues are medallions of four musicians in profile. From right to left they are Btick and Pergolete with their faces to the right and Haydn and Cimaroia with their faces to the left. The four are by Gumery (Charles Alphonae), p. 285. In the story above and over the seven windows are seven round openings and in each a bust Beginning at the left these busts are of Rogtmi (1792-1868), Aiiher (1782-1871), Beethoven (1770-1827), Jtfozori (175&- 1791), Meyerbeer (1794-1864), Halevy (1799-1862), Spontim (1774-1851). There is another one, around the right comer of the building, of Quinatdt (1685- 1688) . These busts are by MM. Chabaud ' and Evrard.
Above the projecting parts of the facade and above the groups already described, are four round-headed tympana containing groups in high relief; and above these, at the two ends of the cornice, are two colossal
1 It must be remembered tlut all these subjects were prescribed bj^ the tui^tect with hia injunction* th»t their lines must accord with the wrdiitectursi lines and proposed effects of the building.
I Louis Fflii Chabaud (18S4-I9M: P.deR.,lB48: Med. 9rd d.. ISfiS, 18A7, IBS9 and 1B6S), was bom at Venelies, Bouches-du-RhAne. His P. de R. and half of his other prizes were taken under "grantre en mt- iaSht." In ]SM he distinguished hinueU hy ■ b«a-Telief on the aboli- tioa cf ■lavery.
284 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
groups. The four groups in high relief are so evi- dently prescribed and decorative that they cannot be | considered works of free sculpture. In the tympanimi on the right — H. 2 m. 26. Larg.. 9 m. Pan M. Gruy^re ^ — are two figures representing Painting and Sculpture. In the center is an escutcheon on whidi is engraved : ** Painting, Sculpture." On each side is seated in profile on the ground a draped woman with her back to the escutcheon, her legs partially stretdied out and her face partially turned to the front. On the right. Painting holds a palette in her left hand partially hidden by her left knee. In her right hand which rests on the ground she holds brushes. At her feet is a cupid. Sculpture, on the other side, hdds a chisel in one hand and a mallet in the other. At her feet is another cupid and near him a bust.
In the other tympanum, the grouping is substaa- tially the same. The two women represent ArchiteehiiM and Industry. Instead of cupids they have genii at their feet. The woman on the left is draped, holds in her right hand a compass and in her left a roll. Tlie genius at her feet has a gilded flame springing fran his forehead and carries a torch of which the flame is also gilded. The other woman is partially nude. She wears a necklace. In her right hand is a shuttle: in her left a hammer. Both of these objects are gilded. Her genius, also with a gilded flame on his forehead, offers her a gold cup. Near him is a beehive and a driving-wheel.
^ Theodore Charies Gruy^ (1813-1886: P. de R., 1889; Med. Sid cl., 1886; 2nd d., 1843; Ist cl., 1846 and 1857; ^ 1866; Med. Snd cL. 1867 £. U.)» was born and died in Paris. But little known apart from these works.
»
\
|
^^ |
||
|
1 |
Fip- ISO— J. L. Ceronn,'. Taiiagra. (Muaee du Luxembourg)
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 285
Between these two, and on the attic itself, are many smaller groups, but all of a purely decorative char- acter. On top, and at each end of the attic, is a colossal group distinctly visible from in front of the building.
These groups by Gumery ^ (Charles Alphonse) are 7 m. 50 (about 25 ft.) high, and rest on pedestals which are 5 m. 60 (about 18 ft.) long.
The one on the left is called Harmony^ and consists of three figures. Harmony is a female figure stand- ing erect and draped with the exception of the right arm and breast. Rays proceed from her head. She lifts her right arm in a noble gesture and holds the lyre with the left. At her feet are outwardly crouched in profile two semi-nude, winged, female figures each holding a trumpet on her knees.
The other group, called Poetry^ is similar in com- position and but slightly different in detail. The figure of Poetry is entirely draped, holds a long scepter with the elevated left hand, and in the right a crown and a roll: while each woman holds a crown in her hands. On the gable over the Proscenium are three colossal bronze groups. In the center and at the summit of the gable Apollo^ Poetry and Music, Height to the top of the lyre, 7 m. 60. L. du Socle 4 m. Par M. Millet 2 (Aim^).
Apollo, standing upright to the front, with slight drapery falling behind from his shoulders, holds the
1 Chailes Alphonse Gumery (1827-1871: P. de R., 1850; Med. Srd cl., 1855; 2nd cl., 1857, 1859 and 1863; Ist cl., 1867 £. U.; ifi, 1867.
* Aim6 Millet (1819-1891: Med. Ist el., 1857; lii, 1859; Med. 1st cl., 1867 £. U., O. lii, 1870; Med. 1st d., 1878 £. U.), was bom and died in Paris.
286 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
lyre in his two hands and above his head. On his left is Poetry, seated outwards in profile, with her head turned slightly to the front. She is completely draped, holds up a stylus in the right hand with which she is about to write on tablets that she holds in her left hand, resting them on her left knee. On the other side of Apollo is Music in a similar position with her face a little more to the front. Both hands rest on a tambourine which she holds on her right knee. She is clothed in a split tunic. Her legs are bare: her feet shod with cothurni.
The bronze Pegasus groups at either end of the gable are by M. Lequesne.^ They are each 5 m. high and on pedestals 2 m. 60 long. In each, Pegasus rears and is restrained by a woman. In the left group the woman restrains with the left hand while elevating the right hand, so that more of her back is shown. In the other group, more of her front is seen as she still restrains with her left hand, while her right is down by her side.
There is a profusion of sculpture all over the build- ing within and without, but the works already men- tioned are those where sculpture shows a greater de- gree of independence.
The Grand Palais and the Petit Palais
The demolition of the Palais d'Industrie on the Champs Elysees to make way for the new Avenue, Alexandre III ; the opening of the Avenue ; the build- ing of the Pont Alexandre III to connect it with the
1 Eugtee Louia Lequesne (P. de R., 1844; Med. 1st d., 1851 and 1855 E. U.; IM855).
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 287
Esplanade des Inyalides and the building of the Grand and Petit Palais on either side of it, were grand events in the artistic world of Paris. The buildings were in- tended not only to add to the splendor of the Inter- national Exposition of 1900 and to celebrate the new Russian Alliance, but to be permanent homes of art; the larger palace to take the place of the Palais d'ln- dustrie, the smaller one to contain works of art be- longing to the city. The architectural problems and difficulties and the history of the enterprise, may not be discussed in this article, which must be limited to a brief description of the sculpture selected to orna- ment the bridge and the buildings. The committee having the buildings and the bridge in charge, together with the architects, selected the subjects in a measure and distributed them among the foremost sculptors of the day. So far as practicable, the same course was followed as in the building of the Opera House. Owing to shortness of time very few of the works designed were finished in time for the Exposition. But all were subsequently completed.
Owing to the number of competitors and the close- ness of the competition, it was finally decided to give the building of the Grand Palais to three architects. The principal fa9ade on the new avenue was assigned to Deglane; the opposite side, on the Avenue d'Antin, to Thomas; while the interior and the ends on the Champs Elys^s and the Cours la Reine were given to Louvet. The principal fa9ade consists of a colonnade of Ionic columns 240 m. long and 20 m. high, broken in the center by a lofty portico with projecting pylons on each side of it. Between the pylons are four double
1
288 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
columns between which are the three main entrances to the building. On top of the pylons and in front of them are groups; while in front of the double columns are single statues. None of these works are very remarkable, but they are interesting as showing the prevailing style of French sculpture at the begin- ning of the present century. On the left pylon is a group called VArt by Raoul Verlet, p. 267, and on the right one a group called La Paix by Lombard.^ In front of the left pylon, a group called AdnAr(Ui(m by Gasq ; ^ in front of the right pylon, a group called rinspiration by Boucher, p. 262. The four single statues in front of the double columns are, from left to right: V Architecture by Carlos, p. 266; La Pent- ture by Camille Lefebvre ; * La Sculpture by Cordon- nier, p. 262; and La Mutique by Labatut.** These are nudes distinguished from one another only by the instruments they bear. The groups also are mainlj studies in the nude without distinction or character.
1 Edward Henri Lombard (1865- : Med. 2nd d., 1880; P. deR^ 1883; Med. d*arg., 1889 £. U.; ^ 1894; Med. d*or, 1900), was bora at Marseilles. He was made a professor at the Eoole des Beaux Arts in 1900.
s Paul J. B. Gasq (1800- : Prix de Rome, 1890; Med. 2nd a. 1893; Med. 1st d., 1896; lii. 1898; Med. d'or, 1900), was bom at Dijon and has especially distinguished himself by his busts.
• Camille Lefebvre ( : Med. 3rd cL, 1884; 2nd d., 1888; Med. d*arg., 1889 E. U.; Med. d*or, 1900 £. U.; 4s 1901), was bom in Pkiis. He is to be distinguished from
Hippolyte Lefebvre (1863- : P. de R., 1892; Med. 2nd d., 1896; 1st d., 1898; Med. d*or, 1900; M. d*H., 1902; ^ 1902), who was bom in Lille and whose group of the JeuneM Aveuglet for whidi he obtained the Med. d*Hon . in 1902 is one of the attractions of the Luxembourg Museum.
* Jacques Jules Labatut (1854- : P. de R., 1881; Med. Sni d.. 1881; 2ndd., 1884; d arg., 1889 E. U.; Istd., 1893; li^ 1804; Med.d'arg. 1900 £. U.), was bom at Toulouse, CaUm tTUtique (ViUe de Paris), Rayitumd VL comte de TouUnue (Capitole de Toulouse).
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 289
Along each side of the colonnade, and starting be- tween the first and second column, are distributed four statues. Those to the left are: Roman Art hy Clau- sade;^ Greek Art by Beguine;* Egyptian Art'hj Suchetet;' and Asiatic Art by Barrau. On the right are: Art of the Middle Ages by Boutry;* of the Renaissance by Enderlin;*^ of Lovis XVIII by H. Lefebvre,' and Contemporary Art by Charpentier. None of these works are particularly attractive, but are good specimens of artistic anatomy and pose.
At the two extremities of the colonnade and sur- mounting the comers are grand and effective colossal quadriga by Recipon,^ one symbolizing Harmony over-
^ I. LouiB Clauaade ( : Med. 2ad d., 1894), bom at Toulouae
about 1860, died about 1900. Very little to be found about him.
* L^nard Michel mguine (1855- : Med. 3rd cl., 1883; 2nd d., 1887; d*arg., 1889 £. U.and 1900 E. U.; Ist d., 1902; ^ 1904) was bom at Uxeau (Sadne et Loire). His prindpal work is a monument "A la m^moire des enfants de Bourbon-Lancy morts pour la patrie." Bourbon- Lancy is a little town about two hundred miles southeast of Paris, not far from where B^guine was bom.
* Auguste Sudietet (1854- : Med. 2nd el., 1880; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; ^ 1895; Med. d'or, 1900 £. U.) was bom at Vendeuvre BUT Barse (Aube), not very far from Lyons, where are some of his best works.
« Edgar Henri Boutry (1857- : P. de R., 1887; Med. 2nd d., 1891 ; Med. bronze, 1900 £. U.; 4K 190S) was bom at Lille, where he resides devoting himself to tjeaching his art.
• Louis Joseph Enderiin (1851- : Med. 3rd d.. 1880; 2nd d., 1888; Med. d*or, 1889 £. U.;'4K 1902) was bom at Alsdi, near BAle. He is both sentimental and serious, dassical and solid. His groups of children are edebrated: BaUnUea d^ Enfants, a bronze at the Square de Grenelle; La Munque, at the Hdtd de Ville. He is also the author of the monu- ment to Pasteur at the Institut Pasteur. An excellent, reliable and popular artist.
• See note, p. 288.
7 Georges R^pon ( ; Med. 8rd d., 1890; lii, 1890; Med. d'arg.,
1900; Med. Ist d.. 1901) was bom in Paris in 1860. His father Paul Edmon lUdpon was a distinguished designer for bronze and predous •tooM . IIm doora of the Madtlftine an by him. The son at first d#-
290 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
coming Discord; the other, Immortcdtty outpacing Time, The action of the horses is very spirited. The groups make a fine impression.
The entrance from the Champs Elys^s is sur- mounted by a bas-relief by Theunissen ^ entitled The Arts and Sciences Paying Homage to the New Cen- tury, On either side of it is a group: Night by Sicard, p. 278, and Aurora by Soulfes.'
Over the principal entrance from the Avenue d'Antin is a large gilded group by Tony Noel,^ of Apollo and the muses of Music and of Dance, and on each side are equestrians by Falguifere, p. 220, and Peter, p. 262.
These are only the principal ones of the numerous works of sculpture which adorn the building. To de- scribe them all would require a volume. By compar- ing them with the sculpture of the Opera House, the growth and changes in the art may be clearly seen. The sculpture of the Petit Palais and of the bridge is of the same character; ornate, showy, overdisplay
voted himself to painting, but since 1889 has ezodled in sculpture, par- ticularly in portrait sculpture. His groups on the Giand Fklaia are regarded as the greatest of his woiics.
1 Comeille Henri Theunissen (186^ : Med. 8rd d.. 1891; Stod d., 1896; 4*, 1902) was bom at Ansln (Nord). Most of his woricB are in the north of France. The chief of them is the moiAmient at St. Quentin commemorative of the city's defense against the Spaniards in 1557.
s F^lix Soul^ (1857-1904: Med. Sudd., 1889; 1st d., 1892; li, 1896) was bom and died at Eauze (Gers). **I£s works are distinguished by a beautiful simplicity of line and a great elegance of form" (Laiousse). One of his works, Vefdhemeid fflphigSniey is at the Luxembourg.
* £dm6 Antony Paul No«l, known as Tony Noti (1845-1909: P. de
R. 1868; Med. tod cl.. 1872; Istd., 1874; lii. 1878; «ndcl.. 1878 E.U.;
Gr. Prix, 1889 E. U.; Jury, 1900), was bora and died in Paris. By him
also is a statue of Houdon at Versailles and a group of CHadiaieurs near
.the Palais des Thermes. Most of his works are in private ooUectkniB.
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 291
of the nude where drapery would add to artistic eflfect, absence of dignity or character.
Over the entrance to the Petit Palais, is a large composition by In j albert, p. 259, supposed to repre- sent the city of Paris surrounded by the Muses and supporting the Seine, triumphantly uniting the Ocean and the Mediterranean. On the right of the entrance is a group of the four seasons by L. Convers ^ and on the left a group of the Seine and its banks by Ferrary.^ The meanings need explaining. They could not be divined. Others would do as well. The nude is the only conspicuous feature. High up above these groups, on top of the pylons enclosing the entrance are two works by St. Marceaux called the " Genius of Painting '* and the " Genius of Sculpture.'* To Hector Lemaire and Desvergnes ^ was committed the decora- tion of the rear of the Petit Palais. Fr^miet, Steiner,*
1 Loiiu J. Conven (1860- : P. de R., 1888; Med. 3rd cL, 1802; 2nd d., 1894; Med. d'or, 1900 E. U.; ^ 1900; Ist d., 1909) was bom in Paris. By him may be seen at the Institut a group of La Ligende H le PomS. In 1910 he produced a group called Inspiration and Harmony which has been purchased by the state for the new Conservatoire National de Munque et de Declamation.
* D^sir^ Maurice Ferrary (1852-1904: Med. 8rd d., 1879; P. deR., 1882; Med. 2nd d., 1886; Med. d'arg., 1889 E. U.; 4s 1891; Professor & I'Ecole des Beaux Arts) was bom at Embrun (Hautes Alpes) and died at Neuilly sur Seine, near Paris. His DecapiiaHon qf SL John is accepted as lus best woric. He was fond of fashioning multi-colored statuettes and artides of jewelry which brought him more pecuniary reward than arUstic commendation.
* Charies Jean Q^ophas Desvergnes (1860- : P. de R. 1889; Med. 8rd d., 1895; d*arg., 1900 E. U.; 4s 1908) was bora at Bellegarde (Loiret). His high relief in the church of N6tre Dame de Bonne Nouvelle of Paris caUed HumanitS ConsoUe is justly admired. He has latdy exhibited very pleasing smaU groups and statuettes for home ornamentation to which the present style of French sculpture is weO »dapt>ftd.
« d^mont Leopold Steiner (1853-1899: Med. M d., 1984; Mefi
292 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Granet,^ Lenoir,^ Michel,' Coutan ^ and Marqueste all contributed to the decoration of the Pont Alexandre III. The mind becomes deadly tired of such super- abundance of ornamentation: such lack of solidity and dignity in both architecture and sculpture.
The comparatively young sculptors of the Grand and Petit Palais are all skillful and talented artists, capable of giving artistic expression to suggested ideas though not prolific in grand ideas of their own. They understand and preserve admirably the technic of their art, an art which, fortunately, does not admit of the vagaries, eccentricities and exaggerations which are permitted French painting.
The Gaeden op the Palais-Royai-
There are interesting modem sculptures in the Garden of the Palais-Royal, notably the statue of CamtUe Desmotdins^ by Boverie (1905), erected on the spot where, on July 12, 1789, DesmouHns called the people to arms two days before leading them to the
d*or, 1889 E. U.)> By him in the Jardin du Luxembourg ia a group called Berger d SUvaint alao a statue of Ledru-RolUn in the Mairie of the XI Arrond.
1 Pierre Gnnet (1845(?)-1910: Med. 2nd d., 1874; Med. d*or, 1889 E. U. and 1900 E. U.; ^ 1900) was bom at Ville-neuve d'Omoa (Giionde). He was an artist of energy and assurance. His bronse busts were admirable. He had two at the Salon of 1910, the year of his death.
> Alfred Lenoir (1850- : Med. 2nd d., 1874; Ist d., 1875; iod cU 1878 £. U.; li^ 1886; Med. d*or, 1889 and 1900 £. U.; « O. 1900).
* See page 265.
* Jules F^lix Coutan (1849- : P. de R., 1872; Med. 1st d., 1876; lii, 1885; Med. d'or 1889 E. U.; li^ 0.1889; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.; I., 1900) was bom in Paris. Many of his works are in Paris and in several dtiet of France.
PARIS MONUMENTS, MEMORIAL STATUES 293
capture of the Bastille. It gives life-like expression to his fervid eloquence.
MusEE Gallie&a
The Mus^e Galliera is another building which is to be visited for its sculpture. It was erected between the years 1878 and 1888 by the Italian Duchess of Galliera and was intended to hold her collection of works of art. When she died in 1888 it was found, however, that she had left the palace to the city of Paris, but her collection to her native city, Grenoa. Since entering into possession the city has used the building as a museum principally for tapestries and marbles, but also for bronzes, cameos, enamels and minor works of art.
The entrance consists of three arcades with statues of La Peinture by Chapu, p. 282; U Architecture by Thomas, p. 245 ; and La Sculpture by Cavelier, p. 217. In the center of the vestibule is a group of Daphnis et Cloi by Gilbert,^ and surrounding it, statues by Vital-Cornu, Roufosse, B^guine, p. 289, and Fontaine.^ Scattered about the building are good specimens of Boucher, Rodin {Victor Hugo)^ Dalou, p. 238, Barrau, Pezieux, Mathurin Moreau, Valton, Turcan, Gardet, p. 274, etc.'
Art students must not neglect the Mus^ Galliera.
* Ernest Charies Demosthtee Gflbert ( : Med. Srd d., 1873; tod d., 1875; lii, 1879; Med. d*or. 1889 E. U. and 1900 E. U.) was bom in Paris.
* Emm. FonUine (Med. Srd d., 1893; Snd d.. 1896; Med. d*arg., 1900 E. U.; Ist d., 1904; 4K 1910) was bom at Abbeville.
* See Additional last of Modem Sculptors, p. 348.
294
MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Additions are being so frequently made to its collec- tion that complete descriptions cannot be long-liyed.
The Luxemboubo
Tanagra (Fig. 189), by J. L. Jerome, at the Luxem- bourg, is one of the many statues that should be seen.
APPENDIX
Hegel
HEGEL (Georges Wilhelm Frederick) was bom at Stuttgart Aug. 27, 1770, and died in Ber- lin Nov. 14, 1830. His philosophy is founded on the philosophy of Schelling (Frederick Wilhelm Joseph) bom at Lionberg in Wiirtemberg Jan. 27, 1775, died at Ragatz, Switzerland, Aug. 24, 1854.
Hegel begins as follows the third part of his work on aesthetics; that is the part devoted to arts con- sidered separately and, in a measure, independently of one another.
The first part of our investigations related to the general apprehension and to the true existence of beauty both in nature and in art; the truly beautiful and the truly artistic; the ideal, in the undeveloped unity of its fundamental existence apart from any special meaning and apart from its various ways of manifestation.
This concise, native unity of artistic beauty unfolds itself in the second place into an abstraction of artistic forms of which the meaning corresponds to the mean- ing of the conception, and which the artistic spirit must produce from itself and fashion into beautiful and divine and human appearances.
What is lacking in these two propositions is realiza- tion In exterior elements. For although we have not
296 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
only considered the ideal by itself, but also in its three manifestations of symbolic, classic and romantic art, we have only considered it in its relation to the com- plete expression of the meaning of something within and subjective, and its representation on outer ap- pearances. So this realization is only of value in showing the inner production of art in the circle of general world-wide manifestations, and how they differ.
It is the nature of the beautiful to make itself objective in a work of art for immediate observance by the senses for sensible apprehension. In fact it is only in this form of its existence that beauty becomes a beautiful thing, the ideal. So must we, in the third place examine this sphere in which the work of art makes itself manifest in the element of the sensible, — for it is only in this way that the work of art be- comes really concrete, an absolute, independent and in- dividual unity.
Inanimate matter made beautiful by form. As the human body is the most beautiful of forms, the nearer the form given to inanimate matter approaches to the human form, the more beautiful the inanimate matter will become.
Hegel on Sculpture, Vol. II, p. 866
Sculpture considered in general realizes the wonder that spirit is entirely incarnated in matter and so forms its exterior appearance as to be present in it and to recognize in it the appropriate form of its own inner self. What we have to consider in this apprehension is first the question how spirit is able to represent itself in material that has extension but
. APPENDIX 297
is without life; and second how must inorganic mat- ter be manipulated in order to represent spirit in beautiful and lively form. What we must principally apprehend is the unity of the two orders, the ordo rem/m extemaram and the ordo rerum idearum, or the union of mind and matter ' — the first beautiful union of soul and body in so far as the hidden spirit of sculpture shows itself only in bodily presence. In the third place this union corresponds to what we have already learned to be the ideal of classic art forms So that it results that the plastic of sculpture is the special art of the classic ideal.
The Essential Scbstance of Sculptcke
The element in which sculpture realizes its ideas is, as we have already seen, the first and still general creation of space-filling matter (matter that fills space that has three dimensions, and that is in its primitive condition, before being touched by the hand of man), to which no other art action has as yet been applied than the general dimension of space and such space forms as may combine these dimensions in beauty. This abstract side of palpable material corresponds best as to its character to the activities of the ob- jective spirit in so far as spirit has not yet distin- guished between its own general substance and its corporeal existence and therefore has not yet conceived of subjective and independent existence.
Here two points are to be made. Spirit as spirit is always subjective, an inner knowledge of itself, I.
* From Spinon, "Eth. n. prop." 7.
298 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
This I, however, can separate itself from the knowing, willing, representing, feeling, and accomplishing which constitute the general and everlasting substance of the spirit, and confine itself to its own individuality and personality. Then it is, that absolute subjectivity ap- pears independent of the truly objective essence of the intellect and is only related to itself as formless spirit. By means of self-sufficiency, for instance I can, on one side consider myself as entirely objective and be content with myself on account of a moral act. Nevertheless as self-sufficient I withdraw myself from the character of the act and as an individual, as this I, separate myself from the general character of the intellect in order to compare myself with it.^
To the inorganic nature of the intellect as artis- tically manifested in architecture the intelle<!t itself is opposed because it is only a work of art that can contain and represent the substance of the intellect. (What Hegel means by this sentence is not clear.) Ch. Benard translates it as follows : " To inorganic nature, the first manifestation of intellect as it appears artis- tically fashioned in architecture, the intellect itself is opposed. It hereafter must be the true foundation of works of art and o( artistic representations. Archi- tecture can only offer a vague and imperfect symbol.''
What they both probably mean is that there is so much that is material and merely useful in architec- ture that it affords little opportunity for the display of purely artistic principles. Yet this can hardly be because nowhere better than in architecture can be
^ This should be preceded by Hegel's introductioQ to sculpture, Vol. n. p. 358.
APPENDIX 2»9
better displayed the beauty of proportions and the grandeur of mass; while Christian faith, hope and all Christian aspirations and sentiments are better ex- pressed artistically in Grothic architecture than in any other art. It is entertaining to try to follow the ideas of writers on esthetics, but it must be remembered that art ideas are too subtle for language and that art apprehensions are too individual to be made generic.
The necessity of this progress (from architecture to sculpture) we have already discussed. It lies in the apprehension of the intellect which differs in its sub- jective oneness from its objectivity. The intellect shows its inner self to a certain extent in architec- tural handling but without entirely subjecting the ob- jective and making it the adequate expression of the intellect which should only make itself appear. Art therefore withdraws itself from the inorganic which architecture, though bound by the laws of weight, is trying to bring nearer to the expression of the intel- lect, and retires within itself in order to reappear in a higher truth and unmixed with the organic. On the way of the return of the intellect to itself and away from mass and matter we meet sculpture.
The first step, however, taken in this new region does not indicate the return of the intellect to its inner subjectivity as such, for in that case the repre- sentation of what is within would require an ideal representation, but intellect only indicates itself so far as it can be expressed in bodily form and has in bodily form its homogeneous existence. The art which would indicate this standpoint of the intellect will be called
300 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
upon to make evident the appearance in material of individual intellect, and in some evident and particular material, — as even speech. Speech is a sign of the evidence of the intellect, but an objective one whidi instead of making use of a concrete material, employs sound, movement, the tremors of a body and the ab- stract air, as manifestation of intellect. Immediate incorporation on the other hand is matter occupying space; stone, for instance, wood, metal, clay, in full possession of the three dimensions. The form, how- ever, which is proper to the intellect is its own par- ticular existence by means of which sculpture makes the intellect apparent in roomy totality.
In this respect architecture and sculpture occupy the same standing in so far as they use sensible things as sensible things, matter In its material and sensible form. But sculpture differs from architecture in that it does not use the inorganic as something opposed to the intellect, to be formed into a suitable surround- ing which, however, has its use outside of the intellect, but reproduces the intellect itself with its appropriate- ness and its independence in a bodily form appropri- ate to it and to its individuality. It unites intellect and form and presents them as one and inseparable. The position of sculpture thus frees itself from the object of architecture which is only to serve as an outer nature and surrounding for the intellect, and assumes its free and independent position. In spite of this difference a work of sculpture remains in es- sential relations to its surroundings. A statue, a group, much more a relief, cannot be made without consideration of the position it is to occupy. You
APPENDIX 801
cannot first execute a work of sculpture and then consider where it is to be placed. But even in its conception it must be considered in connection with the dimensions and local site of given surroundings. From this point sculpture has particular relations to architectural spaces. The first object of sculpture was the production of temple images to be erected within the ceJhe as in Christian churches painting deco- rates the altars. Gothic architecture also shows the connection between sculpture and its own elements. Temples and churches are not the only places for statues, groups and reliefs. Halls, staircases, gardens, public squares, triumphal arches and single columns are adapted to, and improved b;, sculpture. Apart from these accessions every statue must have its ped- estal. So much for the relations and differences of architecture and sculpture.
If sculpture be compared with other arts, poetry and painting seem the two to be considered. Both single statues and groups present spirit in full bodily presence, that is man as he actually is. Sculpture therefore seems to possess the truest method for pre- senting spirit, while both painting and poetry seem in comparison unnatural. Painting instead of em- ploying the physical dimensions of space which bound man's person and all natural objects, only makes use of a surface, while speech in a still less degree repre- sents the actual as it only gives such a representation of it as can be conveyed by sound.
In fact, however, the opposite of this is true. While sculpture seems to monopolize the expression of na- ture, the hard material used in the process is not
502 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
fitted for the exhibition of spirit which expresses itself in words and deeds. In the expression of spirit sculpture must rank behind poetry. In the fine arts plastic exactness is of course of great value, for liying form is presented to the eye. Poetry, nevertheless, can describe man's outer appearance, his hair, forehead, cheeks, shape, clothing, pose, etc., even if not with the exact precision of sculpture. Moreover, where poetry fails, the imagination can supply. Poetry does not require exact precision in its representations; but, above all, it shows man in action with all his motives, the uncertainties of his fortune, his surroundings, with his sentiments, his speeches, the disclosures of his feelings and his exterior happenings. These things sculpture cannot give at all, or only in a very imper- fect manner. Sculpture cannot give the subjective self in its particular existence and feeling, much less as can poetry in a succession of manifestations. Sculp- ture can only give what is general in the individual — human generalities — and only as they can be ex- pressed in bodily form, and then only as they appear for a moment without successive, living, progressive action. In these respects sculpture is also inferior to paint- ing. For the expression of spirit imparted in paint- ing by the color and the lights and shadows given to the countenance, not only gains in material exactness in a purely physical sense, but also gains a greater correctness and vitality of psychological and patho- logical appearance. One might think therefore that to be more effective sculpture had only to add to its advantages in the way of the dimensions of space the further advantages oflFered by the art of painting;
APPENDIX 808
and that it miut have been through obstinacy, poverty or ignorance of execution, that it was led to limit itself to one side of reality, the side of material form, and to keep itself away from the other, just as out- lines and engravings may be regarded as mere make- shifts. Such arbitrariness, however, is not to be men- tioned in true art. Form, as the object of sculpture, is, in fact, only the abstract side of concrete, manly life. It forms no variety of particular colors or move- ments. But this is no accidental want, but a limita- tion of material and of method of representation re- quired by the conception of the art.
For art is a product of the spirit, and of the higher and thinking spirit. Every work of art has as its object a certain content and therefore a particular method of artistic realization different from all other methods. It is with art as with the different, sciences: geometry only occupies itself with space; law with right; philosophy with the explanation of the ever- lasting idea and with its independent presence in things. And these separate sciences differ in themselves and in their development so that no one of them fully represents the truly concrete existence as understood by ordinary consciousness. Art, as a creation of the spirit, goes step by step and divides things which in their nature are divided in thought, though they may not be divided in reality. Art holds fast to its divi- sion in order to develop each in accordance with its peculiarities.
Therefore among those materials occupying space which art makes use of, the mind must distinguish and hold apart life as contained within certain dimen-
804 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
sionsy and the abstract form of the body from the livelier and more striking particularities of the bodj which appear in the diversity of color. Sculpture stops short at the first notion and regards man's form only as stereometric body and as only occupying cer- tain dimensions in space. Of course the work of art that has anything to do with the senses must have an immediate tendency towards something that per- mits particularities. But the first art that occupies itself with man's person as the expression of spirit confines itself to the general expression of natural ex- istence; to simple appearance and existence in light, and without considering the relations of light to shadow which lead to color. This is the point sculp- ture occupies in the evolution of art. As the plastic arts have not the power possessed by poetry of pre- senting in one form and together all artistic impres- sions as a totality, they therefore must keep these impressions apart while the totality goes to pieces.
As a result we have on one side objectivity which, so far as it is not the representative of spirit, is in contrast to spirit, mere inorganic nature. This ob- jectivity, this inorganic nature, architecture transforms but only transforms into an indicating symbol which has no spiritual significance in itself. To this objec- tivity is contrasted the other extreme, that is subjec- tivity; the soul, sensations in all the particularities of their movements, dispositions, sufferings and all their inner and outer movements and deeds. Between the two we recognize a distinct individuality though not yet the spiritual individuality, deeply sunken in the center of the subjective consciousness, but an in-
270 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
obtained his mSdaUle d*H. on a group of wrestlers pur- chased by the state and erected at Avignon, not far from Charpentier's birthplace. His Grand Prix of 1900 was obtained on the " Wrestlers," a few busts and some single figures (Fig. 177). Of these, two: La Chanson (Song) and L^IUusion (Illusion) are at the Luxembourg and show that beauty of form and ges- ture, rather than expression of sentiment or thought, was the artist's aim.
JEAN AUGUSTE DAMPT (1858- : Med. 2nd cl., 1879; 1st cl., 1881; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; ^, 1889; O. ^, 1900), was bom at Venarcy (Cote d'Or). He studied first at Dijon and then at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under JoufFroy and Dubois. He has dis- tinguished himself in a variety of ways. He carves in ivory as well as in marble. Many of his works are in bronze (cire perdue). He loves variegated marbles and the incrustation of jewels. He also carves in wood and has made pieces of furniture which are re- markable for their grace and their entertaining origi- nality. Works by him are in the Luxembourg and in the Petit Palais.
HENRI DESmE GAUQUIE (1858- : Med. 8rd cL, 1886; Bronze, 1889 E. U.; 2nd cl., 1890; 1st cL, 1895; Silver, 1900; ^, 1900), was bom at Flers- le-Lille (Nord) and studied under Cavelier. He has a playful, captivating style which pleases. He easily accomplishes the things he undertakes. His monu- ment to " Watteau " (Fig. 178) of 1896 in the garden of the Luxembourg, pleases everybody. It is a charm-
y
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 269
Gold Med., 1900; O. ^, 1906), was born in Toulouse and died in Paris. He first studied at the £cole des Beaux Arts of Toulouse ; then in Paris under Jouffroy, Falgui^re and Merci6. He delighted in small groups in which metals and marbles were blended with precious and variegated stones. In these he made himself famous. Ivory and onyx was another of his favorite compounds. He demonstrated also that he was quite capable of grand sculpture when he chose. Specimens of his works are at the Luxembourg. As a decorator he was most successful. Arabic art and story im- pressed him deeply, as seen reflected in his works. To be near the source of his inspiration he often visited Tunis and the north of Africa.
There are two* artists of the name of CHARPEN- TIER who have distinguished themselves as sculptors. Alexandre Louis Marie, born in Paris in 1856, and Felix Maurice, bom in BoU^ne (Vancluse) in 1858.
ALEXANDRE LOUIS MARIE (1856- :
Grand Prix, 1900; ^, 1900), has distinguished him- self in a variety of ways; as a medallist, as a de- signer for furniture and jewelry, as well as a sculptor. By him is the monument to " Charlet '* in the Square du Lion de Belfort. In 1905 he greatly distinguished himself by a bas-relief called the ** Happy Family," exhibited in the Salon of the Society des Beaux Arts.
More celebrated is his namesake, FELIX MAURICE (1858- : Med. 8rd cl., 1884; 2nd cl., 1887; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; Med. 1st cl., 1890; ^, 1892; Med. d'H., 1898; Gr. Prix, 1900; O. ^, 1900), who
n
NINETEENTH, TWENTIETH CENTURIES 867
founded at La Boissiere, near Rambouillet, a home and military school for the orphan children of arm; non- commissioned officers; one hundred and fifty are se- lected by the minister of war; eighteen were reserved to be selected by the donor or his successors, and need not be of the anny. The monument was erected at the school by his widow. It consists of a lofty pedestal on which is Herrot's bust. On the pedestal is in- scribed Au Commandant, 0. Herrot. On the upper part of the base stands a large winged, helmcted, par- tially draped figure, representing Country, looking down on one of the young pupils who, in military dress, with his cap in his left hand, stands erect on the lower part of the base. To the right of these and on the upper part of the base, is seated a large, elderly, female figure, deeply veiled, holding a standard. She represents mourning for Herrot. On the other side of the pedestal are two youths in military dress ; one seated, a book on his knees ; the other standing by his side with a musket.
Carlis' work Au Champ tTHonneur, executed for Herrot in 1894, b at the Chateau de la Boissi&re, where Mme. Herrot still resides ; it is regarded as his masterpiece.
CHARLES RAOUL VERLET (18S7- : Med. 2nd cl., 1887; Med. d'or, 1889 E. U.; «, 1898; Gr. Prix, 1900 E. U.i Med. d'H., 1900; O. «, 1900; Professor & l*Ecole des Beaux Arts, 1905), was bom at AngouMme, where and whereabouts are many of his best works. His best known work at Paris is his monument to "Guy de Maupassant" (Fig. 176) in the Pare
268 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Monceau, a typical monument of the kind, of which there are increasing numbers in Paris, where a bust of the party to be commemorated is on a high pedestal and about it are allegorical figures, or statues of per- sons in modern dress, to illustrate the character or deeds of the celebrity. An excellent method except when the accompanying figures are inharmonious or offensive nudes. Verlet's Grand Prix of 1900 was awarded, partly for his monument to ^^ Maupassant,** and partly for a composition called ** Art," which tops one of the pylons of the Alexander III bridge. The monument to Maupassant is interesting and pictur- esque. His bust is on a' high diversified pedestaL At its base is an ornate semicircular bench. On it is reclining a young lady in modem dress. Her feet are stretched out in front of her. Her very ample skirts are thrown out to the side of her and cover the end of the bench on which she is reclining. Her right arm rests on a cushion which covers the arm of the bench. Her left arm is stretched over the base of the pedestal. Her left hand holds a book with her forefinger between its leaves. The idea is that while reading Maupassant, she has paused to reflect upon a passage. Her eyes are reflective and dreamy. She is a capital illustration of the romantic character of Maupassant's works. That the face is a portrait of the lady who ordered and paid for the monument, is reported, but lacks confirmation. No more popular artist to-day than Verlet, no more excellent teacher.
LOUIS AUGUSTE THEODORE RIVIERE (1867- 1912: Med. 8rd cl., 1894; 2nd cL, 1895; ^, 1899;
APPENDIX 305
dividualitjr wherein, if do subjective oneness, there still rules the substantial generality of the spirit with its motives and its characteriBtics. In this kind of repre- sentation which is no longer a mere opposite to the inner self, spiritual individuality shines forth, but not as a living individuality, that is, not a corporeality that is being constantly led back to the central point of spiritual oneness, but as an outwardly representative form into which spirit has indeed been poured, but without so far withdrawing within itself from the separation as to appear as a unit.
Cldny
Cluny was founded in 909 by William the Pious duke of Aquitaine. It grew rapidly in importance and power. Under Odon (879-943) second abbot, it had already reached a position of great importance and became the head of a large number of the Bene- dictine monasteries of France. The authority of Cluny was the only authority recognized all over the territory which is now France. The political author- ity was divided until the reigns of Philippe-Augustc (1180-1228), Louis VIII (1228-1226) and Louis IX, Saint Louis (1226-1270) when the royal power be- came more powerful than the power of the monasteries and the monasteries were compelled to seek royal pro- tection. Under Abbot Pierre !e Venerable (1122— 1156) Cluny had under its jurisdiction over two thousand monasteries, not all in France, but many in Germany and some in Italy.
The great rival to Cluny was the Abbey of Citeaux (near Dijon) founded in 1098 by Robert de Solesmes.
806 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Saint Bernard was Abbot of Citeaux in 1118. By the end of the thirteenth century the order of Citeaux had over seven hundred monasteries and a larger number still of religious establishments for women.
Baeye
From Boiiiiat*8 Contributioa to Barye's Cenienaiy " Barye, I never saw, though I have ever cherished for him a veritable worship. Barye was, and is, one of my grand adorations. How often have I been to the Luxembourg only to see his Jaguar divorani un Lievre! How often have I crossed the garden of the Tuileries only to see the clutch of the Lion au Serpent; that tragic clutch so marvelously analyzed and modeled! Barye was secretive. I have read biog- raphies of him written by men who must have known him well; who held his talent, his genius, in great veneration; and they were justified in their estimate. They give details of his works, of his manner of being and doing and of his character; but not one has revealed his secret; not one points out the source of his genius. He was quiet, taciturn, a silent observer — that I know. He was impassioned by his art. He held it in profound respect. He analyzed, measured, dissected, studied without intermission the bones and all the proportions of his models. This constitutes science ; the admirable and prolific power which enabled him to produce so many chefs d'cswore and which is by no means to be despised. But what I don't know, and would know, is what took place in his soul. Whence drew he his tawny instinct; his divination of cruel and infallible force ; his love of strong shoulders which move so marvelously, so nobly, in their eternal truth!
APPENDIX 807
At what moment of his life did this great man, who started as a graver's apprentice, find the grand sen- timent which constituted his strength and his genius! Where did he first feel the inner vibration, the revela- tion of that beauty which draws man to God and almost makes of him a new creator; which warms and illumines the soul, which communicates ineffable joys and gives birth to a presentiment of the infinite and the eternity of bliss! O dear, great men who have felt these vibrations and have made others feel them!
0 Claude whose setting suns so tenderly caress the golden-crested waves ! O Michael Angelo, whose giants dream austerely and sublimely! O Beatc, revealer of the sweets of heaven! O Rembrandt with thy infinite pity for the little, the humble, and the unhappy ! How moved am I in writing your names: how devotedly
1 thank you for the emotions you have given me! But to return to Barye. In default of those inner
revelations which would give us the starting point of his genius; revelations which seem almost always to be wanting in the biographies of great men; let us not lose ourselves in conjectures but be content with what is known. He says of himself that he entered the studio of Bosio because he was so ** keenly tor- mented by the desire to be a sculptor." He could not have stayed long with Bosio; for we soon find him in Gros* studio. What could have attracted him to a painter? Was there between the two an affinity of inspiration? Was it in the society of the painter of the BatidUe d*Eylau that he conceived the heroic sen- timent subsequently displayed in the ThhSe and the Centaurf Or should we not rather look back to the
308 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Egyptians and Assyrians for the source of the in- spiration of his talents? Their works and the vases of the Etruscans he held in high esteem, contemplat- ing them and studying them till the end of his days.
However profound and lively may be an artist's originality — and these terms are most applicable to Barye — it is difficult even with most acute perspi- cacity to distinguish absolute from derivative origi- nality. Raphael, for instance, though he studied and copied everything about him; though he drew inspira- tion from all he saw, from everything he deemed superior to himself, is still the supremely original interpreter of grace and youthfulness. Would Michael Angelo, the giant, have painted the Sistine Chapel, had Signorelli not preceded him? Could the lord of drawing have invented those groups of Titans without the help of a suggestion? Not to go back so far; would our own marvelous school of landscape painting have had its light and its radiance without Constable? The topic is too important for this short study. Moreover it is not what Barye may have derived from others that attracts attention. It is not as a sculptor of the human form that he particularly excites ad- miration;— however excellent may be his group of the Thisie and of the Centaur; however admirable may be the mount of Roger et AngSlique. What attracts and fascinates us is that which is absolutely his own, that which he exposes as a great and true master, and which will ever remain his unchallenged and in- contestable glory. This, his domain, was the animal kingdom. The animal: true, living, excited, tragic, impassioned, trembling, fierce, cruel, ferocious, timid,
APPENDIX 309
calm in its power, sure of its suppleness, of its speed, of the power of its jaws, and of the certainty of its clutch! Of these things would I have talked with Barje; would have heard from him whence came this love, so true, so profound, so intense.
Those who knew him say that in his features, in the breadth of his jaw, in the expression of his lips and in the form of his mouth, there was something of the animals be wrought. I painted his portrait for my friend, Mr. Walters of Baltimore. I, unfor- tunate!;, had but little to guide me; for I had never seen my subject. I depended upon the suggestions of Mme. Barye and upon photographs. Mmc. Barye and her daughters declared that the picture was an excellent likeness, yet I had not put into it a bit of the ferocious expression of which his friends and his pupUs have often spoken. He spoke little, I know. He must have been cold and excessively reserved. He had the scornful pride of men of worth who are but partially under stood. His passion was concealed within him, hidden away in the depths of his soul. So it is with all great men. The weak show every- thing on the surface. What a marvelous observer! What sagacity of intellect ! What an analyst ! What extraordinary instinct! What admirable intuition of the brute creation! If he produced a stag, a serpent, an eagle, or a jaguar, he did it to the most minute characteristic detail. Nothing escaped him. If he modeled a doe, a fawn, he expressed all the delicacies, the timidities, the fine and elegant graces. The slight- est timid movement was given with an unparalleled justness and charm.
310 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Seeing them you would feel yourself transported to the vast woods where stand oaks of centuries of growth, and you hear far away the monotonous song of the coucou, or the sharp note of the pinnock. Wbo of us has not passed solitary hours in the midst of the grand calm of forests? The noise of a falling leaf, or of the restless grass; the hum of the wings of a fly, the slightest breath amid the tree tops, trans- port you I know not where. While the bright furze, the heather spreading its delicate flowers in the sun, the green leaf which way up cuts its pure outline against the blue sky, give you through the eyes in- expressible joys and rejoicing! And in the midst of this silence a slight noise awakens you from your sweet ecstasy. You see a tawny point emerging from a fern- bank. It is one of Barye's graceful favorites; shak- ing its tail, or pointing its timid ears, ready for flight at the faintest warning. While you, you hardly breathe for fear of disturbing its pleasure.
Barye, I am told, loved Barbizon. There he took his walks in the forest — solitary promenades for re- pose from the hard life of Paris. There he met his graceful models and caught their spontaneous move- ments, their most fugitive expressions. But timid and lowly creatures were only a rest, or a pastime, for him. It is not in rendering them that the intensity of his genius shines forth. What this impassioned man needed was the combats of great beasts, of the great camivora. He longed for infected jungles; woods of thorny mimosa where the large-hipped lion is tracked with its tawny dress illumined with the burn- ing fire-brands of its eyes. His soul craved the vision
r
APPENDIX Sll
of elephants crushing tigers, of the gigantic boa shoot- ing itself vith lightning flash on the passing antelope and smothering it within its mighty rings. He de- lighted in a lioness crouching on a tock — sniffing space, her powerful muscles gathered beneath her, read; to spring upon the passing stag; or in herds of great elephants of antediluvian race, ploughing their way over plains and mountains beneath a fiery sun and overthrowing everything before them in their heavy march. There, there is the paradise of Barje! There is the world where his imagination loved to dwell! There, his true kingdom, a kingdom forever his own! No one before him had power to seize its scepter! No one before him could render the uncon- scious force of the lion with its massive shoulders; or the suppleness, and the cold cruelty, of the tiger and the jaguar.
Look at the group of the Tuileries. A lion is pass- ing; a serpent bars his passage; that terrible paw falls! While the serpent, caught as in a vice, coib about himself, lost in agony, and in a supreme effort, though dying, seeks revenge ; the mighty beast remains unmoved before his perfidious adversary. He hardly deigns to move his gigantic head. His mane but slightly bristles. He only answers with a low growl to the frantic hissings of his enemy. But the claws are working. That wonderful clawing tells the story. Admire it! The hairs arc apart so that those terrible weapons may penetrate without hindrance; may play in the serpent's flesh. Cutting like nippers they have only to dose up, to come together. Then the end! Then the drama will be over! Barye, in spite of this
S12 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
chef d^asuvre^ would do still better. Feeling the desire to render form more simply; to expose beauty of proportions more clearly and at the same time to give less prominence to manual dexterity; he executed the Lum assis which now adorns one of the entrances to the Tuileries. He presents the beast calm and without action. To make the grand divisions more distinct, the hairy coat with its rough finishing is partially dis- carded. The construction is thus made evident. The articulations are plainly given. There is no hesitation in the design which is full and strong. The grand line which, starting at the muzzle, goes to the tail, is superb. - In looking at the bronze you experience a sentiment of force moderated by beauty. The lion is seated on his haunches and looks straight forward. But in this world of savage life, a world so rich and varied and to which Barye is indebted for so many of his chefs d^aeuvrey I give the palm to the tigers and to their family, the panthers and the jaguars. Look at his tiger " qui marche! " It is a pure marvel Often in my youth I wandered to the menagerie and there, attracted and held by the beauty of the great beasts, passed many an hour, close to the cages, lost in the contemplation of those superb felines mechani- cally measuring with their steps the floor of their too narrow prisons. The heavy paw moves with an ad- mirable suppleness. The shoulder blades rise and fall All the limbs move with an ease full of grace and har- mony. One is fascinated, ensnared, and remains rooted, held fast by a thoughtless contemplation. If a dog should pass near the cage, the tawny beast stops abruptly, lifts his strong head and fixes his glowing
APPENDIX «1«
e;es. Then, the emotion passed, he resumes his s&d march; the glow of his eye goes out; he lies down and yawns showing glistening fangs in his cavernous mouth. Poor prisoners, created for bounding throu^ space and for living beneath an ardent sun in limit- less liberty; yet doomed to vegetate in cages in the damp mists of Paris, amid the fogs of the North !
The carver's apprentice, too, undoubtedly many a time played truant. He too passed many contempla- tive hours with his fresh cheeks pressed against the bars of the cages. His heart beat at the revelation of the beautiful as he anticipated the day when he would wrestle with those proud models. He kept his word, and he came off conqueror.
Look at his tiger. Everything is most marvelously rendered; proportions, suppleness of limbs, ampleness of movement, carriage of the head, size and develop- ment of the jaw, roughness of coat, blinking of the eyes. It b complete and admirable. And if from the tiger Barye passes to the panther, puts him in am- bush and hurls him on a stag, it is equally admirable. The panther springs, and falls on his victim with all his weight and with infallible precision, while he seizes him by the throat with his terrible teeth and holds his back and his breast in the large grip of his outspread paws. In addition to these fearful weapons, the savage beast uses his weight to stop and paralyze the spring of the timid animal which, conquered by force, thunder- stnick, crushed by his executioner, lowers his head, and trembling, bathed in sweat, with the death rattle in his throat, utters one last cry of supreme agony!
Last I come to his Jaguar dhiorant un Liivre. I
SU MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
think all agree that this is the chef d^oeuvre of tbe chefs d^ceuvre of this man who produced so many. It is as beautiful as VEsclave of Michael Angelo in the Louvre. In its jaws the jaguar has seized the hare by the flank. The right paw advances and tears the victim's entrails ; while gently settling down, his beUy to the ground with the crawl of a serpent, the jaguar begins his feast in the gloom of his lair. He is already tasting with the joy of a ferocious intensity; ^with a gourmand voluptuousness of blood " as Edmond de Goncourt puts it in his penetrating description. His ears are close to his neck of which the strength is shown by massive muscles. Nervous shiverings run along his spine to the last vertebrae of his tail. His savage eyes converge most terribly and have the fixity of the eyes of a viper. Woe to him who should ap- proach to rob him of his prey! From this marvelous bronze thus conceived and executed there arises a most extraordinary impression of ferocity and savageness. It is genius!
Barye is one of the greatest artists of the century; I do not hesitate to say, of all the centuries. If I had to make a comparison I should think of Balzac. Barye possessed the instinct of the animal kingdom and ren- dered it with a power equal to that which Balzac shows in his impassioned researches into the heart of man which he reveals so strongly. Each has left an in- delible mark. They may be equalled; but I doubt it. They can never be surpassed." ^
' To soMe the immortal spirit reaident in matter, be the matter tm- mate or inanimate, to pwify it of all droes and to make it in its puR essence so plain that all can see it, is the mission €3i art.
Barye, as we speak of perfection, was perfect No man has lived wbo
APPENDIX 815
Caspeaux's La Dante 'naiukl«dfaQm''LeN(iuvelOp£n" b7 Cbsries Gunier
"And now let us pass to the group b; Carpeaux. If I dwell at length on the various phases through whidi this group has passed, it is because there have been many rumors, more or less incorrect, circulated in regard to this subject, and it seems to me that it will not he wholly uninteresting to know the truth about, and all the anecdotes connected with, a work which, in spite of all its faults, is certain to remain as a type of modem statuary.
When it came time to obtain from the Minister ' the orders for the statuary for the new Op4ra, I suggested Carpeaux to execute one of the statues seated in the grand entrance-hall, and Cavelier to do one of the groups for the facade, but Cavelier, who at that time was much occupied with the model of the great and beautiful composition which ornaments the palace of Longchamps at Marseilles, above the cascade, was unwilling to undertake the work which I wished
■0 drew ont of the ■nimal the spirit of the animal and nude it to supeiUj and perfectly evident. In writing of him it ia bard to keep oneself irithiD the bcninda of undenlandable language. In viewing hU woriu, examine long and attentively. It will pay artistically to have every anatomical unit explained. Go with a surgeon. Knowledge and appre> datioD of art come indirectly and are not worth a farthing if they can be reduced to words. That the American, Walters, was among the first to ertimate Barye is uatund enou^; for in France there roam no bison, [or- inidable bean, or clawing tigeMsts; nor do the streams Soat alligatora. There is no harm in having a little of the savage in one's atmosphen.
Barye's men and women are very commoopUce. The actkn o( his hnmai) gronps is other oustrained or exaggerated. Waste no time ex- ffntntiig them.
In oonqtariaon with Barye's animals those by Cain, his succewor, are as lifeleM as pumpkins. No visitor to Paris has failed to see the huge, unhaf^, fri^ moosten of the lYocadeio. — Ed.
816 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
to entrust to him. Therefore he declined the order, hoping, if another opportunity presented itself, to be able to do some work in the future — and, in fact, some time afterwards, he did model the fine statue of Gliick in the entrance hall.
Naturally I regretted the decision of this conscien- tious and loyal artist and I had to endeavor to replace him. Though I knew well that Carpeaux was the terror of architects, I decided to offer the remaining group to him, since I had not. only strong friendship for him, but also great confidence in his talent. He accepted the commission with great eagerness, and the Minister ratified my choice.
The four artists arranged among themselves the di- vision of the groups and the choice of subjects, and, as a result, Carpeaux had the group representing La Danse. I then ordered made in plaster little models of the pedestals which were to support the groups; and of the walls against which they were to be placed. I gave to each artist a rough sketch of the outline, the required dimensions, and a sort of general scheme of composition. The sculptors set to work, and soon brought me their drawings. Those of Guillaume, of Jouffroy and of Perraud were entirely in the spirit of the models which they executed later, and required alteration in only a few minor details. This was not true of Carpeaux. He had composed his group in a manner which was undoubtedly remarkable, but which was entirely contrary to the plan that had been given him, and also unsuited to his subject. A man totally nude, standing and appearing to lean on a heavy club; a woman, also nude and standing as motionless as the
APPENDIX 817
man; a sort of column, resembling a fmiereal monu- ment, and above that, his feet caught in the wall, his body bent forward, and his wings floating like a plume, a sort of demon, his hand against his mouth, and his head touching the heads of the two other persons ap- parently whispering a secret to them. This sketch was astonishing, but not acceptable; the two fore- most figures, upright and motionless, in no way repre- sented Dance, nor did the demon who gesticulated above their heads bear the slightest resemblance to the genius of Choregraphy. On all those who saw the sketch it made the same impression — that of a group repre- senting Adam and Eve tempted by the deviL I still have that sketch before me on my desk ; I admire the ready skill of the artist; but to me it is always a scene from Paradise Lost, a scene before the fall, and one which would certainly serve to frighten away the gracious priestesses of the dance.
CarpeauK was not very greatly astonished by my refusal of his sketch, and I believe that if I hod told him that he had illustrated the first chapter of the Bible, he himself would have refused to execute his first thought. He therefore consented with very good grace to seek another inspiration.
I, on my side, also sought for an idea that might be accepted, and that of a graceful dance around an inspiring genius, pleased me greatly. I made a very bad sketch of this idea, and my friend Boulanger, who arrived while I was at it, made a charming one which fully satisfied roe. I showed these two drawings to Carpeaux who came to the Op^ra the next day, telling him that if they suited him, I should be very pleased
SIB MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
if he would accept the idea. Immediately he took a pen and a piece of paper, and in a moment drew a few marvelous lines, a few curves composed in the most wonderful manner, and behold! five minutes later his whole group was planned. He followed this sketdi closely when later he executed the group which made so much commotion in the world.
Carpeaux then made a drawing from this rou^ sketch, but insisted upon adding more figures, almost at the rate of one each day; so that in a short time there were seventeen in the group. I made him cut it down and return to our first design, which was more simple, though at the same time, full of life. Finally Carpeaux began his model, always with the same ten- dency to augment the number of figures, always with the same insistence on my part that he should con- fine himself to five or six; always with the same pro- pensity to give to his group the most exaggerated dimensions, always with the same determination on my side that he should not exceed the prescribed limits. The struggle was long and heated. The sculptor was engrossed in his work without any regard to its suita- bility for its purpose; the architect beheld the build- ing, but was more or less carried away by the passion of the sculptor. The latter scattering to the left and to the right, below and above, floating garlands, dis- heveled draperies, whirling masses of flowers; the former insisting that the outline at least should be more sober, more dignified, and demonstrating that these delicate ornaments and accessories were certain to break sooner or later. Carpeaux was not brazenly self-willed, and as soon as he was convinced of the
APPENDIX 819
impracticability of certain details of his composition, he was perfectly willing to use more restraint — for a few days at least; for his zeal was sure to run riot again as soon as he was left alone with his model. O the letters we wrote on this subject, and the confer- ences we had! The result was that, in spite of his wishes, I made him cut down the size of his first group by more than a meter, and in spite of miney he increased the dimensions I had given him by more than fifty centimeters.
I do not know which of us, in thus yielding, made the greater sacrifice. I know that, for my part, I had absolutely decided that if Carpeaux refused to listen to me, I would let him have his own way. I thought his model superb; I marveled at his composi- tion; at his clay figures palpitating with life; and in short, I said to myself, "Well, if the monument suffers slightly from the exuberance of the sculptor, that would be a small misfortune; while it would be indeed a great one if I, obsessed with my own ideas, deprived France of a work of art which is certain to prove a chef d^csuvre?^ I thought thus when I saw the model in clay, a model, in my opinion, far superior to the group he executed. But I still think the same, and I do not believe that I had the right to set myself up in opposition to a creation both powerful and per- sonal, and which, in spite of all the critics may say to the contrary, is and will always be, to all, an un- surpassed work of art, and to some a masterpiece.
You do not expect, I suppose — and in any case your expectation would be vain — a description of the beauties or the imperfections of this famous group.
820 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
All the fine qualities and all the faults of the work have been discussed at length by the press and the public. I myself share the almost universal opinion — being slightly irritated at certain vulgar detaik, and very enthusiastic at the movement in the figures, and their living fasdnation. I understand the feelings of repulsion which certain sensitive people have expe- rienced, but I understand better the excess of enthu- siasm which was aroused at the sight of a work at once so modem, so alluring and so characteristic. If I were forced to range myself on one side or the other, I would not hesitate, and it would be among its devo- tees that I should take my place.
This does not prevent me from experiencing many regrets when I remember that this group was unveiled before it was wholly finished. This haste to present it to the public was the cause of certain negligences which of themselves were able to discredit the work of Carpeaux. If the flesh had been executed as well as it was in the model, if more delicacy had been used to soften certain brutal details, the group would have merited less the reproach of vulgarity which has been bestowed upon it, and I verily believe that the hyper- sensitive would have been less shocked than they were at the sight of this flesh, palpitating yet slightly withered, and at those bold strokes of the chisel, power- ful yet slightly barbaric.
A few more months, a few thousand francs more, would have sufficed to perfect a work which was too hastily completed; but Carpeaux either would not or could not accord the one or the other. It was the time when the Emperor's prize — that prize of one hundred
APPENDIX 821
thousand francs, which had been presented but once (to Monsieur Due) — was to be awarded, and Car- peaux, confident of the success of his work, was abso- lutely detennined that it should be finished at the fixed date. It was useless; for this group, through its very character, was destined to be violently discussed. It is evident that the jury, which was to award the prize, could not take upon itself to place in the front rank a work which was as yet poorly classed, poorly ap- preciated, and which, on the whole, in spite of its brilliant qualities, gave openings for too many criti- cisms to be placed above all the artistic creations of the past ten years.
But Carpeaux wished to enter the contest, and as it was his right to do so, it would have been very poor policy for me to try to dissuade him. I there- fore hurried the masons to finish the pedestal and the ornaments for the wall in the background, while Car- peaux hurried his workmen, and on the day set, the scaffolding which covered the group was raised, un- veiling the great work of the sculptor. It was then that I, and the workmen, perceived the unfinished con- dition of certain important parts; and we regretted that such a remarkable group should have been so carelessly executed in several details.
But aside from the necessity of having the group finished by a certain date in order to take part in the contest, the question of money was one of the causes determining the premature cessation of work. The group, in fact, cost Carpeaux dear, for he had to hire a large number of workmen. While his neighbors were paying twelve or fifteen thousand francs by the piece
822 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
as wages, Carpeaux was paying by the day what amounted to at least twice as much; for no workman wished to engage himself to reproduce a group so full of movement and with so much cutting, and presenting so many difficulties. The days passed; the workmen advanced slowly, although Carpeaux was always among them, working himself with compass and chisel. His pecuniary supplies were exhausted and the artist had already received payment in full for a work which as yet was not nearly finished. I was able to obtain from the Minister a supplementary sum, which I re- tained, and with which I paid, each week, the artisans engaged in the work who had refused to continue un- less they were assured of their wages. I put my little purse at the disposal of the sculptor, or rather of his workmen. I got the Minister to make new advances on future works to adorn the Opera. In short, I did everythii^ in my power to assist the artist, who fully deserved this solicitude on account of the straits in which he found himself, which were caused by the unforeseen expenses attached to the execution of his great work. But time passed, each day augmenting Carpeaux's debt, and decreasing his resources, untS it would have been sheer cruelty and injustice to de- mand of this valiant sculptor sacrifices greater than those he had already made. I received from him at this time letters really unhappy over his condition. And after each had done his best in the unfortunate situation in which he was placed, Minister, sculptor and architect, it had come to a stop. Money was lacking on all sides at once, so that even if the contest had not taken place, it is probable that Carpeaux would
APPENDIX • 323
never have completed his work; and even if money had not been lacking, the contest would have prevented him from going any farther. There was no one to blame; above all, the artist must not be blamed if imperious necessity or perfectly legitimate desires would not permit him to bring his work to that state of perfection of which he was capable.
This perfection certainly would not have changed the general aspect of the work, but it would have effectu- ally contributed to the softening of certain vulgar details, and to the disarming of the critics who were immediately aroused by this carelessness of execution.
After all, are the consequent events to be entirely regretted? A more perfect group, without doubt, would have aroused less discussion; it would not have given to its author that extensive popularity already acquired and merited, and Carpeaux, less violently attacked, might not have had that supreme joy of artists of worth — both disparagement and enthusias- tic applause! If the former often wounds severely one's amoyr-propre^ it also makes the artist rebound violently, and after a moment of anger, prepares him for the daily struggle better than any amount of praise. It is this struggle that preserves life, that increases the spirit, and stimulates thought, and I do not think the creator of a work can hope to leave a trace of his passage here below, unless the popularity de- rived from criticism has begun by being as great as the popularity derived from praise. Carpeaux received the two baptisms of milk and gall, and his name will be preserved by posterity.
However that may be, when the statue was unveiled.
«24 -MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
there were immediately heard, side by side, the most passionate eulogies and the most violent attacks. But it was not so much the artistic question which excited the opposing camps, it was rather that of violated conventions and of morality outraged by cynicism. It seemed that, since the odes of Piron and the illustra- tions of I'Aretin no human production had advanced the pornographic idea to such an extent. Erotic old men stopped with complacency before these figures of shameless women; young men smiled or made some low joke when passing before this circle of disheveled dancers; mothers led their sons away from the fa9ade of the Opera, and hypocrites lowered their eyes obliquely in the presence of this orgy of material forms. In fact, it was said, that beside this living debauch, the statues of all the Venuses and even of the Hermaph- rodite were objects of sanctity, and it would seem more natural to place them in a church, than to place this accursed group on the fa9ade of a theatre.
The discussion that took place over this point de- generated into almost a religious discussion, and there were only a small number of people who considered art in connection with Carpeaux's work.
Then letters began to come from all sides; letters that were — it goes without saying — mostly anony- mous, were sent to the Minister, to the Court, to the Senate and to the architect! I possess a complete collection of this correspondence.
All these letters, the work of earnest people, of frauds or of envious men, of artists or of critics, were written in the same strain; demanding the removal of Carpeaux's group, and condemning its composition or
APPENDIX Sas
its execution. It would appear useless and tedious to display these letters, which, since they were either un- signed, or else signed with a pseudonym, do not merit the honor of publication. Nevertheless, I feel that I should give extracts from some of these letters, hecause, written from all parts, and to all the personages who could interfere in the ultimate decision, they show the principal reasons that were alleged with such dogged persistence. Actually, these reasons were accepted by the Emperor, and the Mar^chal Vaillant, then Minister of Fine Arts, who decided, after much deliberation, to have the group removed. But architects are occa- sionally stubborn, and, by gaining time, tliey are able to await events which alter resolutions and commands.
The following is one of the letters ; it is undoubtedly from a liberal suffering under the yoke of the Empire !
Sir: — Without doubt there is a certain beanty in M. Carpeaux's group.
But there are many kinds of beanty and is the Academy of Music — a house of ill-fame?
If M. Carpeauz has not thought it necessary to create for the facade of the first theatre in the world, the ideal grace, distinction and refined style of which the Taglionis, Esslers, and Livrys were charming types, at least he could have given ns something better than this Dance of Death.
Again, if there were any grace of movement or of pose ! — but nothing! nothing! nothing!
After all, does M. Carpeaux know what constitutes style, and refined methods, and good taste?
Let us add at once, that hb is the s^le of our epoch — of the Lower Empire — the decadence of art and of morals, which always are allied.
The style of — the Greeks.
t7tlt«IAtigiut,18()0.
826 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
I do not know exactly what he means by that last phrase about — the Greeks; but it must be something very wicked. At any rate Carpeaux can boast of having had his share; perhaps I, too, received a few splashes.
On to the next!
Ah! This indeed is in the most perfect taste! I have a score of this sort.
The truth about the group at the Op^ra ; (a sign of ex- treme youth).
Carpeaux (being without doubt from la Bi^vre) has re- produced the final quadrille of a ball of laundresses on the banks of that charming river^ the morning of a Friday in mid-lent.
Certified —
Boncorps ArcueiL
I ask your pardon for quoting this delightful note; but it was of a type which was often reproduced.
The following letter is more moderate in form; it is a type of reasonable correspondence and, perhaps, is even just.
Sir: — The group by M. Carpeaux inspires a unanimous repulsion in all honest people^ and even in those who are uninitiated in the art of sculpture. It seems^ when one beholds this unfortunate group^ as though we saw some hideous blemish on the face of a beautiful woman; besides its defects^ its proportions destroy the effect of all sur- rounding objects.
(Here follows a long dissertation on the proportions etc.) Then:
But here^ when one should be charmed by persons ex- pressing through gracious movements -the stately elegances
APPENDIX 827
of the theatre, on the contrary, nude women, rendered hideoas by the heads of satyrs, are guided by a rickety genius, 'panting and exhausted.
Always, if the execution is facile one may be less severe — but this appears to be the work of a suffering creature, and displays all his weaknesses.
Just as no woman is beautiful without modesty, so sculp- ture is an art which is nourished only by beauty and purity ; good taste will always be the good sense of genius.
(There! that is a. fine sentence.)
When this group disappears and is fittingly replaced, the facade of the Opera will again wear the beautiful aspect which appertains to it, and will be, together with the rest of the building, the glory of its author, despite the slanders of enyy, the inseparable companions of Talent.
(That is a little paragraph which seems to ine very well written ; this correspondent certainly has some good in him after all.)
No one is better able to judge than M. Gamier, who has written so nobly and who speaks so well, (I did not make him say this) how at the sight of this unhappy group the contemporaries of Phidias, of Ictinus and of Alcamenus would have shuddered with horror.
(Oh yes! I know this well, and I shudder myself at the thought of that shuddering.)
There is a post-script to this letter demanding the immediate suppression of the group; but this post- script contains many sweet things about me; also it took much courage on my part to leave it out, since I cut out at the same time a homage which would make me believe that I was almost the only man, in fact we ■ may say the only man in the world who still possessed
328 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
any Talent. I would love to believe that, but, as evil chance will have it my admirer did not tell me his
«
name, and that makes me hesitate a little! He may belong to the police!
And then I received this other letter which seems less gracious, and gives me cause for reflection.
Monsieur Charles Garnier —
Since you have had the honor to build the greatest build- ing of the century^ you should at least be worthy of it — and you are not.
(Heavens! How I regret my first correspondent.)
You are not, because, either through complicity or through weakness, you have allowed to be placed on the fa9ade of the Op^ra, a scandalous group, and perhaps yea have even desired it I
I consider you, therefore, as guilty as the man Car- peaux — (** the man " is harsh !) ; for you had the author- ity to refuse this filthy thing, which ought to be shattered to atoms. I have a wife, Monsieur, I have daughters, passionately fond of music, who go frequently to the Op6ra I It will now be impossible for them to do so, for I will never consent to take them into a building of which the sign is that of a house of ill- fame. (That has been said before.)
If your weakness p>ermits you to leave this group in its place, Monsieur Garnier, know well that, whatever your talent may be, a talent I do not wish to deny, (Ah I That does me good) you will merit nothing but the curses of honest men, in thus becoming an accomplice to a detest- able work.
It is not enough. Monsieur, that you should be an archi- tect of note, you should also have a moral sense, and it seems to me that you have lost this moral sense. (No, no, I assure you !)
APPENDIX 329
I beseech you theil^ Monsieur, in the name of that re- spect which you owe to yourself, in the name of outraged morality, in the name of all heads of families, to cause this obscene work to be removed immediately, and you will thus gain the esteem of all honest people. Otherwise, Monsieur, you, the abettor of an infamy, will be overtaken some day by remorse, and your name, until now without stain, will be placed in the shameless mob of the despisers of virtue and morality.
Accept, etc.
Vtb. db a. R. de C.
And SO9 having allowed the group to remain in its place, I am now in the ^^ shameless mob " ! But it is strange! I have not yet been overwhelmed with remorse !
Enough of quotations ! I suppose the official letters which were addressed to the Mar^chal Vaillant, were a little more reserved in their terms. But I am cer- tain their meaning was the same, and that the ques- tion of outraged morality and the disproportion of the group to the building were treated in every letter that was sent.
Nevertheless, the Minister kept silence, and I, to escape for a little the threatening wave of correspond- ence and conversations, all on the same subject, left Paris for a fortnight, trying to forget for a time this explosion of modesty, which also produced numer- ous small explosions of the opposite sort. The dis- turbance appeared to be calming down, at least at St. Jean-de-Luz, whither I had retired. I had heard nothing further, when one day I received this tele- gram which I transcribe word for word:
S80 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
"Pabib— For St. Jean-de-Lux, 88 August. 1860. Garnish^ Architect of the Op^ra.
Saint-Jean-de-Luz. (Basses Pyren^s), Group by Carpeaux injured through careless surveil- lance — general indignation. Letter to-morrow.
Carpeaux.
I ayow that this telegram troubled me greatly. I immediately replied asking details. Hence I discov- ered that same evening that someone had thrown a bottle of ink at the group, and that several figures were badly stained. I received the following day, cir- cumstantial details of the outrage, and I wrote to Louves, my inspector, to cover the group provisionally with cloths, so that we might reflect on what should be done without gathering the crowd, which it ap- peared, was massed before the fa9ade of the Op^ra. But my desire, my instructions even, could not be car- ried out. Carpeaux was absolutely opposed to having his work covered, and wished rather to show to all the act of vandalism of which it had been the object. I did not understand his attitude, though later it could be explained by the sort of absolution which everyone accorded to the group. In the face of this last event, they forgot somewhat the shocking nudity, and they now saw only a great sculptural production threatened with ruin. The artist without doubt appreciated this return to the truth, and finding in this feeling in favor of his work a compensation for the bitter criticism from which he had suffered, he did not wish to bring to a sudden conclusion a movement so favorable to himself.
I returned to Paris, and undertook immediately the
APPENDIX 3»I
removal of the stains. But I appeared too eager to Carpeaux, who, with great discretion, wished to test thoroughly the different methods which had been pro- posed to remedy the accident. I made this study as completely as possiUe, and, helieve me, it was no light task! For from the instant when the bottle of ink was thrown until the moment when the stain was finally removed, there was continuous deluge of letters from a thousand inventors, each recommending a device cer- tain to achieve the desired result. I would never have believed that a blot of ink could spread so far and that a hundred ink-wells would be emptied to efface the damage caused by one!
Naturally, I had to repulse all the processes which I could not test before using, and I confined myself, with the aid of one of my inspectors, M. Sabathier, a civil engineer and an excellent chemist, to discovering between us that which seemed most likely to succeed.
As our experiments might aid others in the future, I think it well to speak briefly of them.
We made a number of experiments on pieces of Echaillon stone of the same composition as that of which our group was made; moreover, as all chalky substances are eaten away by free acids, it was im- possible to use anything containing an acid to remove the ink. Our experiments rested largely on the use of chlorine in solution, of hypochloride of lime, of soda, of potassium, of zinc, of protochloride of tin, etc. See- ing that result of these different agents was only a partial effacement, often leaving ineradicable spots, we had to find some other means to our end.
M. Esquiron, who had already executed for the
8S2 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
Op6ra several special cements, and who was with us in our attempts, recalled the experiments he had for- merly made in bleaching textile fibers and tissues, and the splendid results he had obtained by means of a very unstable salt of hypochloride of aluminium which decomposed rapidly in its elements, without any acid reaction, and of which the solution always remains neutral.
We made several tests with this salt, always adding some hypochloride of soda and lime; then an excess of aluminium hydroxide, the reason for this excess being the curious property of this last body, of ab- sorbing certain salts and of decomposing others, by seizing upon their base. These experiments succeeded perfectly, and we felt that they offered a sufficient guarantee. And in fact, the operation was successful and no trace of the^stain remained. It was thus by the aid of a mixture of hypochloride of aluminium, of soda and of lime with the addition of aluminium hydroxide, forming a thick paste, that the ink was removed. The substance was applied twice, the sur- face being thoroughly washed with pure water after each application.
After the excitement aroused by the appearance and removal of the stain, the enemies and opponents of the group, who had somewhat subsided, recommenced their campaign with fresh vigor — the letters, the stories, the recriminations, began anew, and to such good pur- pose that the Marechal Vaillant, pushed from above, dragged from below, worried from all sides, decided finally in spite of my entreaties, that the group by Carpeaux must be removed, and that it should be re-
APPENDIX SS3
placed by one less objectionable asd better propor- tioned to its site.
There was nothing more to be done. The Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, the Minister, and the sov- ereign himself were unanimous in desiring the removal of the group. However, they commissioned me to choose the artist who should execute the new group, and I obtained their permission for Carpeaux to com- pose a new work to replace his old one. It was also decided that I should find some secondary place in the Op^ra in which to place the unacceptable group, which would find grace in the eyes of its detractors if it were in a less exposed position.
These conditions seemed good to me, for I saw in them a means of evading the commands which had been given. I therefore gave Carpeaux his orders, making him see that if his new work succeeded he would have the advantage of showing that his talent was not con- fined to one sort of work, and that if he was not satisfied with it, he could stretch the making of his model over two or three years, in which time the feel- ings of his adversaries might materially change. There was, moreover, a large aura of money coming to the artist, who, by composing a more simple group, would not this time he worried by the question of expense. AH this seemed to me the best method of quieting the public, of remunerating Carpeaus to a certain extent, and of giving him an opportunity to create another remarkable work, although differing from the other in ' that draperies should conceal the nude figures.
In spite of everything, it was very difficult to make Carpeaux listen to reason for he had been justly
384, MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
w^ounded by the refusal of his group ; but I made him see all the advantages existing in his acceptance; I showed him several places that might suit him, and in the visit which he made in search of this site for his group, I was anxious to agree to the one he picked out — that is, under the arch of the great staircase, which is to-day occupied by the Pythia of the Duchess Colonna. It is true that none of these sites appeared at all suitable to me, and the one that Carpeaux chose was absolutely impossible for reasons of effect, of dimension and of architecture. But that mattered little, there was plenty of time in which to fix on a definite situation, for the Minister agreed that the group should not be moved until its successor was ready to be set up. I pretended to accept Carpeaux*s choice, but I would never have begun to put this consent into execution. Moreover, the transportation of the group seemed extremely difficult, for it was constructed in three pieces, held together by gudgeons and strength- ened by bands which fastened it to the wall. They would run great risk of breaking something when de- taching and moving it, and not for anything in the world would I have undertaken such a task and been adjudged a vandal if a toe or a nose had been de- tached rn route! But, I repeat, one must temporize: I could not absolutely go against imperative commands, so I had to employ some subterfuge, which was, on the whole, very easy; for in the bottom of their hearts, both the Minister and the Director of Public Buildings felt that the measure was harsh and inopportune.
Finally Carpeaux yielded, for the moment at least, and said, as he left me, that he was perfectly satis-
APPENDIX 885
fied, but it seeniB that on the road he encountered Tari- ous people who spoke to him of dignitj, of resiatance, and of a thousand and one things which are all very fine in theory, but rather less so in practice; so that the following morning, as I was on my way to report to the Minister, I read in the " Figaro " a little note from the artist, who blustered, who shut his eyes to his former determination, and finally refused to allow his group to be deposed and to replace it unless the Emperor himself gave htm a formal order to that elTect.
This was a great mistake ; by letting the press have knowledge of what was going on, he threw away all chance of extricating himself from the tangle in which he was caught, and by mentioning the name of the Emperor, he rendered his position still more difficult, for it was the Emperor who, yielding to the solicita- tions of a great number of people, had given the order to the Marechal Vaillant to have the group removed.
I wished to exorcise the impending evil; I went to see Carpeaus. I wrote him a long letter, imploring him to reconsider, and insisting that he come to me at once at the Opera. But Carpeaux merely sent me the following note:
My dear Gaknikb, — After much reflection, I have de- cided to refuse to execute a new work to replace that which the administration suppressed to-day, although they had previously accepted it.
If His Majesty, the Emperor were to give me a formal command, I would naturally be forced to obey.
But, in any case, it would be impossible for me to under- take the work amid existing conditions.
A thousand greetings, . .n n
" •* J. B. Carpbaux.
November 27, 1SS9.
SS6 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
I would not consider myself beaten, and did my best to make him change his mind, telling him that it was. not a question of art which hung in the balance, but rather a question of morality, which would wear itself out in time, and it was just the time which he should gain at all odds. It was useless; he answered me the next day by another letter in which he said, that he would change his mind for no consideration, and that he would not meet me as I had asked him to do.
I was very much put out by the whole affair. I understood perfectly Carpeaux's irritability, and I knew that his refusal came from a sense of personal dignity, for which no one could blame him, and as I would have felt the same way if I had been in his place, I insisted no further, but said to myself that after all, Carpeaux's resistance might have a more useful effect upon the Minister than my interference and my friendship.
It was not so, however; the note inserted in the *^ Figaro " aroused the anger of the Mardchal Vaillant, who considered this public claim slightly impudent; and as he was the stronger, Carpeaux had to yield, so on the 8th of December, 1869, Carpeaux having offi- cially refused to undertake the new commission, he entrusted it to Gumery, who did not have to give proof of his talent.
Gumery set to work, and began his sketch which was conceived in the spirit of the other groups on the fa9ade, and, naturally, I followed this work closely, as I did the work on the model which he executed later. But it was not without a certain pang at my heart that I went to see his sketch and his model. I felt
APPENDIX 537
very much as I might feel when visiting a gentleman who was only awaiting my death in order to marry my wife. Nevertheless, I could not discourage Gumery in his enterprise; his group wa§ well arranged, and had many pleasing lines. Moreover, one had to use tact in dealing with this eminent sculptor, who was very ill, and ravaged by that terrible disease of the lungs which carried htm off the following year during the dreadful days of the siege of Paris. It is always with great emotion that I remember the energy, and the forceful spirit of this friend, who, knowing that the end was approaching, worked with the greatest zeal in order to leave to his wife and children enough to save them from utter poverty. But I assure you that this energy, preserved in a factitious manner, this fever for work, increased by the fever of consumption, was both painful and sad ; and, in the face of the efforts of poor Gumery to finish the work promptly, I often felt distraught, and asked myself if I was not wrong in suggesting to the Minister that he should execute the new group!
Gumery could not live long enough to see it finished — the very model was in part the work of his men, and in spite of the great qualities which exist in this, his last work, one realizes that if Gumery had been in good health, he would have given to his work that powerful and special mark which distinguishes the sculptor of the great crowning piece of the Opera and of the fine statues on the monument of Chamh^ry.
Gumery was not only a statuaire of great worth, but he was also a decorative sculptor, composing grandly and giving to his figures that architectural impression
SS8 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
so valuable, so indispensable even, to the fine effect of buildings. His sculpture, which partook somewhat of the Roman sculpture at its best period, was, neverthe- less modem, life-like and slightly naturalistic. This prepossession for nature, combined with the antique traditions gave to his works an exceptional charm, and made of this eminent artist one of the finest repre- sentatives of our French school. Composing as with a stroke of genius, executing with remarkable skill, Gumery was the most valuable of collaborators, and one might be certain, in engaging his services, to ex- perience neither error in exactitude nor artistic defect.
However, time passed, the events of 1870 overwhelmed us. All work was stopped, and no one bothered about the Opera, converted during the siege into a store- house for provisions and a commissariat station. Car- peaux's group was forgotten, and Gumery 's model, after having been cast in plaster, remained in the studios of the state. Almost two years went by, and one might have thought that Carpeaux's dancers, after all their vicissitudes, were to take up a definite posi- tion on the fafade of the Op^ra. But under the min- istry of M. de Larcy, as a large part of the Chamber, hostile to the Opera on account of its origin, considered the building an expression of political feeling, the ques- tion was taken up once more. Several impetuous light- horsemen, M . de Lorgeril at their head, began to batter the work of the sculptor, and charges, unjust and even outrageous against Carpeaux, were brought up in the tribune. Before an opposition more passionate than just, it was difficult to ask funds from the Chamber for the completion of the building, especially as it had
APPENDIX S39
become, for certain fanatics, merely the Frame for an abhorred group. In order to calm these spirits, it was necessar; to promise the Chamber that Carpeaux's group should be removed and replaced by another; and to prove to them that a model was already exe- cuted, and only awaited reproduction in Echaillon Etone. That I might be honest, which sometimes hap- pens, even with ministers, the reproduction bad to be begun, and I received orders to procure immediately the stones destined to become the new dancers.
The following year, conditions were the same. Be-. fore they would vote us funds, the Chamber, or at least certain members, had to be satisfied on the same point; and my dear and regretted friend BeuU, who at that period bad a renowned influence in artistic questions, urged me to rush the work on Gumery's group, as he was certain that if this much satisfac- tion was given to our opponents, the annual allow- ance for the Op^ra would not be refused again, I hurried the workmen, new men directed by Thomas whom the Minister had appointed to superintend Gumery's posthumous work, and the group was finally finished.
But little by little, indilTerence, or rather the calm after the storm, increased in regard to Carpeaux's work; the feelings of the majority in the Chamber modified. Epigrams became less frequent, and they no longer demanded the removal of the group. Then came the burning of the old Opera. The work <hi the new theatre was carried on with great energy, almost with feverish haste, and the dancers by Cai^>eaux continued to dance on their pedestal f while Gumery'i
S40 MODERN FRENCH SCULPTURE
group waited patiently in a studio on the Ue des Cygnes.
Carpeaux died of a cruel disease; the sympathy which was owed to his great talent developed with the lavishness which had characterized his disparagement. The sculptor, uplifted by his art, became one of the glories of France, and his group one of the great works of our epoch. The death of the brave artist had the usual effect; those who had heaped insults upon him while he lived, could find no words to express their admiration for him now that he was dead. Car- peaux's group became the goal of pilgrimages, where wreaths, bouquets and epigraphs were heaped up to the glory of the dead sculptor. Who would have dared to speak of changing the group? Who would have ventured to suggest its removal? This idea even would already have been regarded as sacrilege and no one would have had the courage to advance it. Car- peaux had already entered the era of posterity which glowed for him with honor and glory.
We may therefore believe, we may hope, that Car- peaux's great work will rest as securely at the Op^ra as Rude's " Departure " at the Arc de PEtoile. And, if some day justice is done, and Gumery's last work is shown to the public, a suitable site will be found for it, which it can occupy with dignity; but this should not be the one for which it was destined, when a false morality, which only laid hold upon vicious people, made them lower their eyes before forms at which they did not know how to look.
Artists do not regard modesty with the same eye is do mothers of families, church wardens and niagis-
APPENDIX 841
trates. Their contmual studies of all natural forms cause them to see nudity where others see onlj naked- oess, and it is only the fig-leaf that shocks them in tmdraped statues. Also, if Carpeaux's group awak- ened in some of them slight feelings of repulsion, it was not because natural forms were visible, but be- cause these forms were, in certain details, slightly crude — it was not the so-called question of morality which touched them, but rather the purely artistic question.
Nevertheless, if certain hyper-sensitive or spiritual artists have cause to regret a lack of taste or delicacy in Carpeaux's work, they are none the less ready to recognize the splendid qualities that distinguish it, and I do not believe there is a single artist, whatever his school, his sentiment, or his temperament, who does not render homage to the firmness of execution in La Dante. One feels at once that one is not in the pres- ence of an ordinary work of art, banale in its faults and merits, but rather before a piece of immense value, powerful in line, large in conception, life-like, which forces the regard to center upon itself, and com- pels admiration to vanquish any displeasure it might
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SCULPTORS
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SCULPTORS
Adaic, Lambert-Sigubert, 140. Aixelm, Eugtoe» 282. Allar, Aadi€ Joseph, 243, 25S-259. AllcgFain, Gabrid Christophe, 128,
192-188. Ambroiae, Vvdor Joseph Jean, 275. Anguier, FranQois, 07, 100-108, 107. Anguier, Michel 07. 100-108. Aub6» Jean Paul, 250-252.
Babxau, Georges, 261-262. Banau, Th6ophile, 261, 280, 208. Barrias, Louis Ernest, 218, 240-244. Bartholdi, Fr6d^c August, 240-
250. Bartholom^ Paul Albert, 250-261. Barye, Antoine Loms, 162, 101-108,
806-814. Beauneveu, Andr^ 44-47. B^guine, L^onaid Michel, 280, 208. Boisseau, Emile Andr^ 258. Boisot, Louis Simon, 151. Boonassieux, Jean, 104, 214-217. Bontemps, Pierre, 75, 76, 87. Bosio, Francois Joseph, 157, 158. Bouchardon, Edm^, 128-180. Boucher, Alfred, 262-268, 288, 208. Boutry, Edgar Henri, 280. Boverie, Eugtoe Jean, 202. Briards Qes), Pierre, 06, 07. Brun, Sylvestre Joseph, 181, 182.
Caitisbi, Jean Jacques, 128, 181,
188, 180. Caillouette, Louis Denis, 188. Cain, Auguste, 246-247.
Cambiay, Jean de, 47, 48. Canova, Antoine, 157, 162. Cari^ Antonin Jean, 266-267, 288. Carpeauz, Jean Baptiste, 104, 100,
201, 202-218, 270-280, 815-841. Canrier-BeUeuse, Albert Ernest, 104,
214, 218. Cartellier, Pierre, 186, 155. Cavdier, Pierre Jules, 165, 104, 214,
217, 208. Chabaud, Louis Fdix, 288. Chaponni^ J. E., 178. Chapu, Henri, Michel Antoine* J18,
2^d^, 282, 208. ^^
Cfiopenlier, Alexandre Louis Marie,
Cha^Kar, Fdix Blaurioe^ 260-
270. Chatrousse, Emile, 240. Chaudet, Antoine Denis, 156, 157. Chinard, Joseph, 156, 157. Clausade, Loms, 280. G^singer, Joan Baptiste Auguste,
245. Clodicm, (Claiide) Michel, 128, 128,
140-142. Colombe, Michel, 56-67, 68, 70, 72. Convers, Louis J., 201. Cordonnier, Alphonse Ani£d6e, 262,
288. Cortot, Jean Pierre^ 158, 160-161,
160, 178, 228. Coustou, Guilkume, 106, 122-125. Coustou, Guillaume, 125-126. Coustou, Nicolas, 106, 122-125. Coutan, Jules Fdix, 202.
846 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SCULPTORS
Coysevox, Antoine, 106, 110-115. 122. Crauk, Gustave Adolphe I>^ir6, 247-M9.
Dau>u, Jules, 218, 2S8-240, 203. Dampt, Jean Auguste, 270. David D' Angers, Pierre Jean, 87,
102, 184-191, 103. Delaplancfae, Eugene, 252. Desvergnes, Charles Jean G^ophas,
291. Drouet de Dammartin, 49. Dubois, Paul, 218-220, 282.* Dumont, Augustin Alexandre, 194,
195. Dumont, Edm^, 151, 194. Dumont, Jacques, Edm^ 195. Dupr^ Guillaume, 95. Duret, Frandsque Joseph, 195, 203.
Endeblin, Louis Joseph, 289. Etex, Antoine, 189, 176-177. Eviard, 283.
Faoel, Lton, 265.
Falconet, Maurice Etiehl4ltol28,
131, 136-137. Falgui^re, Jean Alexandre Joseph,
170, 218, 220-231, 283, 290. Ferrary, Dfsir6 Maurice, 291. Feuchire, Jean Jacques, 177. Florentin, Dominique, 87. Fontaine, Emmanuel, 293. Foyatier, Denis, 194, 214. Fr^miet, Emmanuel, 194, 199, 200-
202,291.
Gabdet, Georges, 274-^5, 293. Gamier, Charles, 277-278, 315-341. Gasq, Paul J. B., 288. Gaulle, Edmond, 165. Gauqui^, Henri D^r^ 270-271. Gechter, Jean Francois Theodore,
180. G^r6me, J. L., 294. Geronimo, 68.
Gilbert, Ernest Charles Demosth^
293. Girardcm, Fftm^is, 106-109. Giraud, Jean Baptiste, 158-160. Giraud, Pierre Francis, Gr^goire,
158-160.. Goujon, Jean, 70-87, 91. Granet, Pierre, 292. Gniy^ Theodore Charles, 284. Gu6rin, Gilles, 103-104. Guillain, Simon, 97, 98. Guillaume, Jean Baptiste Claud
Eug^e, 194, 198-199, 211, 278. Gumery, Charles Alphonse, 249,
281, 285, 336^830.
HiOLiN, Louis Joseph Auguste, 266. Houdon, Jean Antoine. 142-149.
Idrac, Jean Antoine Marie, 262. Injalbert, Jean Antoine, 259, 291.
Jacquib, Ponce, 88. Jacquot, Georges, 181, 188. Jouffroy, Francis, 194, 197, 222,
249, 278. Julien, Pierre, 149, 150. Juste, Antoine, 68-72. Juste, Jean, 68-72.
Labatut, Jacques Jules, 288. Laiti^ Charles Ren^ 181-183. Larche, Francois Raoul, 272-273. Le Brun. Charies, 108, 110, 111. Lefebvre^ Camille, 288. Lefebvre^ Hippolite, 288, 289. Lemaire, Hector, 291. Lemaire, Philippe, Henri, 179. Lemot, Francois Fr^dfric, 156. Lemoyne, Jean Baptiste, 128, 130,
131. Lenoir, Alfred, 292. Lenoir, Marie Alexandre, 90, 102,
113. Lequesne, Eug&ae Louis, 286. Li^, Jean de, 45.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SCULPTORS 847
Lombard, Edouard Henri, 288. Lorain, Robert Le, 106, 109-110, 183.
Mabochetti, Charles, 180-181. Marqueste, Laurent Hohor^ 203-
264,292. Marville, Jean de, 49. Mazzoni, Guido, 09. Merci^ Mariiu J. Antonin, 254-257. Michel Gustav Ft^6ric 265-266,
292. Millet, Aim^ 194, 214, 217, 285. Moitte, Jean Guillaume, 154-155. Moiturier, Antoine le, 55. Moreau, Mathurin, 247, 293.
NoMu Edm4 AnUmy Paul, 290.
Pajou, Augustin, 82, 128, 131, 139,
140. Perraud, Jean Joseph, 194, 197-
198, 249, 281. Perr^I, Jean, 56, 57, 63. Peter, Victor, 252-253, 290. Peynot, Ed. Emile, 264-265. P^eux, 293. Pigalle, Jean BapUste, 128, 130, 131,
133-137. Pilon, Germain, 75, 87-91. Pradier, James, 161, 184. Pr^ult, Antoine Auguste, 194, 214. Prieur, Barth^lemy, 94, 102. Puech, Denys, 271-272. Puget, Pierre, 106, 115-122.
R^ciPON, Georges, 280. Regnaulden, Laurent, 88. Richier, Ligier, 91-94. Riviere, Louis Auguste Theodore, 268^69.
Robbia, Jerome della, 87.
Rodin, Auguste, 193, 208, 229, 230,
275-276, 293. Roland, Philippe Laurent, 156, 185,
186. Rolland, 151. Roufosse, 293. Rude, Francis, 162, 163-176, 178,
179, 183, 184, 193, 199, 228.
Saint-Marceaux, Charles Ren6 de,
257-258, 291. Sarn^zin, Jacques, 97, 98-100. Seujrt^, Ain4 (Bernard Gabriel), 179, I, 183.
le Jeune (Charles Marie
Emile), 179. iicard, Francis Lton, 273-274,
290. Simart, Pierre Charles, 244-245. Slodtz, Michel, 128, 131-132. Sluter, Claus, 49-56. Soul^ F41ix, 290. Steiner, Cl^mont L^opoldr201, 292. Suchetet, Auguste, 289.
TmuNiSBEN, Comeille Henri, 290. Thomas, Emile Eugene, 245. Thomas, Gabriel Jules, 245-246,
293. Turcan, Jean, 293.
Valton, Charles, 293. Vass^, Louis Claude, 150-151. Vatinelle, Jules Ursin, 282. Verlet, Charles Raoul, 267-268,
288. ViUl-Comu, Charles, 293.
Warin, Jean, 95-96. I Werve, Claus de, 51, 54, 55.
J
848 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SCULPTORS
ADDITIONAL LIST OF MODERN
SCULPTORS
(Whoae woriu are to be wen in the Petit Palaia and daewhen^ p. ttS.)
Moncel, Alphonse-Emiiuuiiiel. Mulot, Albert F^lix. Peyre, RaphalSI-CharieB. Peyrol* F. A. ffippoiyte. Roche, Pierre. Sallies, Sylvain. S£goflhi, Jean-Yidor J. A. Vignoii, Claud.
Allouard, Henri Emile.
Brown, Lotus.
Deachamps, Fr6d6iic and L6on-
Julien. Diibray, Vital Etcheto.
Froment-Meurice, Jacques. Moine, Antonin.
Juu ^m
|
■ |
■ |
|
|
! |
||
|
1 |
||
|
M |
||
|
1 |