625 



Viollet-le-Duc's mind was too keen and too active for him not to pass 

 on from this conclusion to theories for the reform of modern art. 

 He proclaimed the necessity of a new style which should be as original 

 and as logical as the Greek or the Gothic. It is, however, from the 

 point of view of the archaeologist that one must judge him here, and 

 one is compelled to admit two defects : in the first place he undertook 

 too much to be able always to go back to the original sources in order 

 to verify his data. In his admirable encyclopaedia of French archi- 

 tecture are many errors as to details, corrected by M. Anthyme Saint- 

 Paul in 1880. Happily these inaccuracies do not militate against the 

 clarity and the justice of his admirable general ideas on the subject. 

 In his restorations the same haste brings about the same defects, 

 and here they are more serious; his confidence in the architectural 

 principles which he deduced too often urged him to make his re- 

 storations in a spirit that is dogmatic rather than historical: he 

 rebuilt edifices as they should have been, instead of restoring them 

 to what they actually had been. His disciples were beguiled by 

 his example, with results that the historical student must deplore. 

 Even worse, charmed as they were by the beauties of unity and logic, 

 Viollet-le-Duc and his disciples often obliterated from buildings early 

 repairs which might have been heterogeneous, but which had their 

 own beauty, and which in any case were of historic value. 



Quicherat, on the contrary, was the apostle of truth rather than of 

 beauty. He was too much of a skeptic to carry his preferences to the 

 point of enthusiasm; too little a friend of the human race to permit 

 himself to become a popularizer and prosclyter; his spirit was not 

 that of the artist, but that of the savant. Disregarding popular 

 approval, he devoted his labor and his zeal to the attainment of 

 historical accuracy. He was a patient analyzer, one who put all 

 documents to the test of a most careful scrutiny, and who never 

 generalized beyond the limits of prudence. He was the creator of 

 an admirable school and method, both of them exerting a beneficent 

 influence that is still felt. 



Possibly the essential difference in character of these t\vo men, to 

 whom we owe the education of the scholar and that of the artist 

 in France, has had something to do with the antagonism which still 

 exists between archaeologists and architects. 



Contemporary with these two masters, but much less important 

 than they, one must place the well-known name of M. de Caumont. 

 the popularizer par excellence of the archaeology of the Middle Ages. 

 From 1880 to 1870. from the depths of his retreat in Xormandy, he 

 continued to exorcise a most mischievous influence. May I be per- 

 mitted to say that the reason that he succeeded in popularizing the 

 subject is that his conception of it. in contrast to that of Yiollct- 

 le-Duc and Quicherat. was essentially a commonplace one? Thanks 



