Art. 7.-FRENCH RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE.

1. A History of French Architecture from the reign of Charles VIII till the death of Mazarin. By Reginald Blomfield, A.R.A. Two vols. London: Bell, 1911. 2. The Architecture of the Renaissance in France. By W. H. Ward, A.R.I.B.A. Two vols. London: Batsford, 1911.

3. A History of Architectural Development (The Architect's Library). By F. M. Simpson, F.R.I.B.A. Vol. III. London: Longmans, 1911.

THE issue of a book by Mr Blomfield on the French Renaissance is an event in the world of Architecture. The same wide-spread and well-merited appreciation which met his work on Renaissance Architecture in England will certainly be extended to the volumes under notice. The form in which he has cast his work may not commend itself generally; he has not given a continuous narrative in chronological order, nor detailed descriptions of particular buildings, nor summaries of the chief French architects in biographical sections. His book is largely a collection of essays, some of which'The Italians in France,' 'The Master Builders,' 'NeoClassic Architecture in the sixteenth century,' and 'The Jesuits in France'-are in themselves valuable treatises; but, admirable as his exposition is, this plan has certain defects. For instance, the large class of readers, looking for succinct accounts of great buildings like the Louvre and Fontainebleau, will look in vain, and will have to range through centuries of time and hundreds of pages. No doubt Mr Blomfield's plan is the better for literary treatment of the subject, as allowing a greater breadth of outlook and a more effective presentation of arguments. And this presentation is greatly assisted by a number of excellent illustrations-process-plates of existing buildings, reproductions of engravings of some of those which have perished, and, best of all, a selection-only too small-of Mr Blomfield's own charming drawings.

The other two books on our list need not delay us long. Mr Simpson's third volume concludes his 'History of Architectural Development.' The author, considering Italy as the fons et origo of the Neo-Classic style, devotes

the greater part of his book to its architecture. As only about a quarter of it is allotted to France, his survey of French architecture is necessarily little more than an abridgment; but, however cogent the demands of brevity, surely Jean Bullant deserved more than four lines. This volume is well up to the standard of its predecessors, lucid, well-arranged and accurate save for a few trifling slips. Laurana was a Dalmatian, not a Florentine; and the style of architecteur' seems to have been first applied to a certain Pierre Paule in 1534, and not to Serlio in 1541. Mr Ward's work represents much labour and research; it is copiously illustrated and divided into 'styles,' to each of which the name of a king has been given in somewhat arbitrary fashion. The return of Charles VIII from Italy (1495), the liberation of Francis I (1526), and the beginning of the religious wars (1562), mark the epochs of French architecture far more exactly than the accession of a particular monarch. For purposes of reference this system may be useful, but, from excessive subdivision, it is fatal to literary form. Each 'style' is virtually a book by itself, and not always clear and coherent in arrangement. Still Mr Ward's book fills its place as a manual, and will prove valuable to the student. His estimates of social and political forces, and of their effect upon architecture at various epochs, are sound and sufficient. The book is brought down to 1830-Mr Blomfield's closes at the death of Mazarin (1661)—and thus allows a consideration of the growth of Rococo, and the subsequent Greek reaction during the Republican fervour at the end of the eighteenth century.

In his historical survey and in matters of building science Mr Blomfield is a safe guide. He is not merely brilliant in his survey; he is intimate and comprehensive, and lays under contribution the Comptes des Bâtiments du Roi,' documents of great value and interest, which have hitherto escaped the notice of English writers. These refer to works undertaken during the sixteenth century, and give in minute detail the procedure of building in these times. On paper the system of departments and checks seems as if it ought to have been efficient; but when a king is paymaster, the leaks are sure to be frequent and costly. At least this was De

l'Orme's experience when he overhauled the royal accounts after the death of Francis I. In questions of taste those who disagree with Mr Blomfield will have to admit that he does not state his views without giving adequate reasons. And there is never any doubt as to what his views are. He is strong in his dislikes and preferences. He is perhaps hardly just to the early master-masons who built Chambord, Chenonceaux and Madrid (near Paris) and remodelled Fontainebleau and St Germain ; and he cannot forgive them for not having been taught by trained instructors. Yet these men were of the same breed as those who reared the incomparable piles of Reims and Chartres; and they failed over their early efforts in the Neo-Classic style because the task which confronted them was an unfamiliar one. Generations had toiled over pointed arch and vaulted roof before the builder's hand gained skill enough to compass the triumph of the great cathedrals; and it is scarcely just to throw such hard words at the occasional imperfections of men set to build after a style which was as antagonistic and unfamiliar to their ideals and training as a Latin composition, after the manner of Tacitus, would be to an elementary school master. They failed because they had not grasped the constructive principles of Renaissance design. Mr Blomfield's indignation would be more justified were these early builders commonly rated as equals of Lemercier and Mansart; as it is, they are raised to undue eminence by writers such as Palustre and his followers.

Every treatise on the Revival in France begins with a dissertation on the invasions of Italy by Charles VIII and his successors. The first expedition (1494) marks the end of a political epoch with more than ordinary precision, and as such is generally recognised by historians, who seldom pay much attention to art. But in the history of French architecture that date is as important as it is in the history of States. The Italian influences, which then began to make themselves distinctly felt north of the Alps, necessitate for the art historian who discusses this epoch a careful study of Italian conditions. He must have more than a general idea of the art which glorified Italy at the end of the fifteenth century; he cannot even confine himself to the architectural triumphs which Arnolfo, Brunelleschi, Alberti, Michelozzo, Peruzzi and

the Sangalli had already achieved. He must be able to recognise the traces of Byzantine, and even of Saracenic influences from the East, and those of the Gothic spirit which, though on the whole unimportant, asserted itself in Lombardy and sporadically elsewhere. Socially it must be noted that in the worst periods of medieval rapine and anarchy the public life of Italy was regulated by the survival of the Roman municipality; that from this germ sprang the free city; and that, when peace and order once more reigned, men began to rebuild habitations after the model of the Roman fabrics that survived. But the Italians did not remain mere copyists; even the earliest buildings were developments, in the best sense, taking something from new on-coming influences, and shaped in conformity with contemporary needs. The dome and the basilica form everywhere appeared in church-building. The Byzantine seal is visible on St Mark's at Venice, St Antonio at Padua, and on many churches on the Adriatic coast. Investigation of these tortuous and not always interesting byways must not be shunned if we desire rightly to appraise the modifications which had come over the Græco-Roman style at the time when it was taken as the model of the Renaissance architecture of France.

The conditions which led to the passage of the new spirit across the Alps had been long in preparation. In regard to their social and political institutions the Italy which gave, and the France which received, the impulse destined to produce the magnificent achievements of the French builders, were widely divergent. In Italy feudalism gained but little hold; in the most advanced portions of the country the regulative principle of life was the corporate idea. The town-hall of the free city held the men who guided its policy; the voice of the podestà was the echo of the voice of the citizens who toiled in workshop and vineyard; the sanction of laws was determined by local public sentiment. In medieval France, on the other hand, under the feudal system, the supreme influence of the crown was but little restrained by the national Estates, while the lord in his battlemented castle, and the bailiffs and provosts of the Crown, who, under the guise of guardians of public order, had gradually usurped the rights of the municipalities, acted

as minor despots on their own ground. Under St Louis the nobles were almost independent of royal legislation; and it was not until the triumph of the policy of Louis XI that the supremacy of the Crown was fully established. Thus in Italy we find municipal life perpetuating local liberties and multiplying division, while in France the monarchy, superseding feudalism, led the way to national consolidation and absolute government.

In spite of these divergencies, the new forces disengaged by the Revival of Learning worked upon Arts and Letters in France more directly and spontaneously than in any other country. Since the overthrow of the Western Empire, Italy had been made the victim of invasion by all her neighbours. An election to the Holy Roman Empire was generally followed by the irruption of a motley horde of 'lanzknechts,' nominally the bodyguard of Cæsar on his way to coronation, but in reality differing little from the earlier troops of Huns and Lombards. Diversity of race and language and of previous culture made the infiltration of Italian sentiment and ideas into Germany far more difficult than into France; but, for some unknown cause, municipal government, which both regions had inherited from Rome, flourished more vigorously to the east than to the west of the Rhine. The incursions of the Spaniards were mostly directed towards the south, but Naples was hardly a part of Renaissance Italy; the artists she produced were few and indifferent, and the finest examples she possessed were the tombs with which certain Tuscan sculptors had adorned her churches. From France came the conquering and civilising Normans of the eleventh century, to be followed later by the brutal host of Charles of Anjou. How far these expeditions tended to draw the two races together it is hard to decide; but in any case, when the Revival came, France was undoubtedly the most sympathetic of all European lands to its informing influence. In race and language she and Italy were closely akin; of the surviving remains of Roman architecture she owned some of the finest examples. That an intimate association already existed between contemporary students is proved by the appearance in 1280 of Brunetto Latini's 'Tesoro,' written in French.

During the anarchy and destruction of the Hundred