50 
der Louis XT. fill farther declined 
during the reign of his fucceffor. Tne 
fculpture of the gate of St. Denis is the 
only produ&tion of the art worthy of notice 
during the reign of Louis XIV. when it 
appeared at a lower ebb even than the 
others. The Seétion likewife remarks, 
that the want of freedom in the concep- 
tions of the fculptors greatly contributed 
to produce that effet; as a proof of 
which we find, that Le Puget preferred 
the free exercife of his genius at Mar- 
feil'es to the fubjeftion of Verfailles. But, 
as it has already been obferved, it was 
during the reign of Louis XV. that 
fculpture arrived at the loweft tate of de- 
gradation. From this ftate it was, how- 
ever, raifed during the reign of his ‘fuc- 
ceflor. The revolution which had been 
/ commenced in painting was feconded by 
different fculptors, who fheok off a humi- 
liating yoke, and their independence was 
announced by the ftatues of Voltaire, 
Bofluet, Pafcal, La Fontaine, and partt- 
cularly the Femate Bathing (by M. Ju- 
lien), which might juftly be efeemed the 
workmanfhip of a Grecian artitt. 
Such was the ftate of the art in 1789 ; 
but fculpture fuftained great injury by 
the deftruftion of the inftitutions and 
great fortunes by the Revolution. » From 
this order of things, however, which 
threatened it with utter ruin, proceeded 
the greateft encoursgement it has receiv- 
ed for a century; this was the re execu- 
tion of all the fculpture of the Pantheun, 
concerning which the Report of the Sec- 
tion contains an interefting Notice. 
If the numerous pubiic competitors 
fince 1789 have not produced monuments, 
the fault muft not be attributed to the 
art; for defigns and fketches, of diftm- 
guithed excellence, have been exbibited at 
thofe competitions. The Seétion of Sculp- 
ture, therefore, declares, that the art has. 
not declined; tbat it pofiefles the fame 
means of production as in 1789, aug- 
mented, as in paintihg, by the youthful 
talents which have fince appeared with 
credit. The means of encouragement 
and improvement are the fame as have 
been mentioned refpecting painting. 
In the Report made by M. HEuRTIER,» 
‘in the name of the Section of Architec- 
ture, he fays, that the tafte of the French 
for that art was manifefted prior te the re- 
vival of the arts in Europe ; and in proof 
of this affertion he mentions the churches 
of the 12th and 13th centuries, fuch as the 
cathedral of Amiens, and many others.— 
But, without urging this claim cof prio- 
rity, which dces not conduct to the re- 
Proceedings of Learned Societies. 
[ Feb. I; 
fults that are required, itis, however, ins 
conteftable, that, in the 16th century, this 
nation had a generztion of archite€ls who 
excelled their matters in a ftill higher de- 
gree than thofe in the other departments of 
the arts. It is fufficient to mention, for 
the glory of that period, its great monu- 
ments, and the artifts by whom they were 
erected ; the palace of the Thuilleries, by 
Philibert Delorme; the Louvre, by Pierre 
Lefcot and Jean Goujon ; and the Lox- 
embourg, by Debroffe. 
The fecond generation exifted under 
Louis XIV. and is ftill more diftinguith- 
ed ; many of itssmonuments would have 
excited the envy of Athens and Rome.— 
Such are, for example, the beautiful tri- 
umphal arch of the gate of St. Denis, the 
orangery of Verfailles, and the colonnade 
of the Louvre, which alone would do ho. 
nour to any age, and which forms the 
noble periftyle of the temple of arts, {ci- 
ences, and literature. 
But architecture again declined, and. its 
genius was not again roufed till towards the 
middle of the long reign of Louis XV. in 
1732, by the beautiful Doric colonnade of 
the vettibule of St. Sulpice. It burft like 
lightning amid the darknefs of night ; it 
was like the dawn of a new day. Almott 
at the fame time Soufflot erected the 
Pantheon, Antoine the Mint, Goudoin 
the School of Medicine, Peyre and De- 
wailly the Theatre de l?Odeon, Chalgrin 
the church of Saint Philippe du Roule ; 
Heurtier the periflyle of the Theatre Ita- 
lien, Boulée the hotel de Brunoy, in the 
Champs Ely{ces; at the fame time that the 
worthy David Leroy devcted his fortune 
and his life to the propagation of the 
principles of, and tafte for, Grecian archi- 
tecture. ) 
This was the flate of architeéture in 
1789. From that period till the year ro 
it cannot afford any fatisfactory refult.—- 
It is not in the midft of a political revolu- 
tion that anart which requires tranquillity . 
and great expences'can be expected to 
make much progrefs. If vaft defigns were 
fometimes projected, thofe who conceived 
or fuggefted, together with thofe who 
promoted them, had difappeared before 
their execution could be commenced, But 
many of the architects who ereéted the 
menuments which have juft been mention. 
ed, ftill exit in the full vigour of their te- 
lent ; others, who have not enjoyed the 
fame opportunities of acquiring diftinc- 
tion, are known in the School to be per- 
fect: mafters of their art ; and, as we!l in 
the competitions-as in private undertak- 
ings, we have witneffed the difplay of emi- 
nent 
& 
