The repeated desire to connect architecture with music and with other subjects, seems to make more sense if one considered the Arts and Sciences, in general, appropriate to their time. Such an affiliation was advocated by J-F. Blondel (1737-8): “Je conviens qu’il est assez difficile de
décorer présentement d ’une maniéré qui ne se ressente pas du goût du siecie, de même qu’il
seroit mal-aisé de ne pas écrire dans ie goût de son tems et de sa N a t i o n . . . s (a notion which
much later would come under the definition Zeitgeist). With this concept in mind a marginal
issue seems nonetheless worth noting. It concerns the literary form which some treatises on architecture took. Those written as teaching courses were, in general, systematically organized with headings and sub-headings following a logical sequence. There were, however, a few that in their form showed an affinity with the literary forms of their time, as remarked by J-F. Blondel. Literary forms, in general, are touched on in the next chapter.
One such example was by Michel de Fremin whose small volume Mémoires critiques
d ’Architecture (1702) is in epistolary form. Although memoirs and correspondence are not
really compatible forms, both were fashionable at the time, whether intended for private reading or for publication. The letters in Fremin's work were addressed to no one specific or named, and most ended with “je suis &c...". His first letter feigned a true correspondence: “Que d'esprit &
que d’art dans la lettre que vous m ’avés fait l'honneur de m'ecr/re...”.ii6 In subsequent letters
he also made allusion to having a correspondent. Despite the effort of maintaining this pretence he found it necessary to give a reason for subjecting his information to this form of delivery:
“...pour en rendre ia lecture plus aîsée: l’on y a fait souvent des repetitions, parce que l’on a
compris que ce Livre devant être leu par des personnes d ’un genie un peu court...ce style là
afin que si d ’abord ils n ’avoient pas conçû une chose ils la comprissent p ar la repetition...”.^^7
Whilst this did not say much for his opinion of his readers, it certainly freed him from the constraints of a strict, systematic method of organizing his material. The illusion of a correspondence, as in such conceits as “Je suis bien-aise que vous ayez lû avec plaisir ce que
je vous ay écrit sur la natûre du p l â t r e . . . t e created a certain intimacy between writer and
reader. The form is meant to engage the reader, in a sense to make him the fictional correspondent, so that he becomes an active or involved participant in the disclosures. After all, he sets out to have his house built and Fremin is only giving him some friendly personal advice. Consequently, the recipient of the advice and the relationship between writer and reader as well as the material discussed bear significance in this work.
Le Guide de ceux qui veulent bâtir, which Le Camus de Mezières published in 1781, resembles
Fremin’s work on two counts. First, they both set out to warn their readers of mishaps which they might encounter in the process of having a house constructed. Second, they both write in epistolary form. Le Camus de Mezières gives a different reason, from that of Fremin for opting for this mode of expression, and he spells out its underlying implications: “Je me suis servis du
style épistolaire pour tâcher d ’affoiblir l’ennui que de longues discussions occasionnent
ordinairement...Dans une Lettre on passe d’une question à une autre; c ’est une conversation
familière, les idée se succèdent, elles sont liées naturellement, & il semble dificile de les
déranger...j’ai parlé, comme on peut faire, avec un am i que l’on considéré, & auquel on est le
His chapters, each entitled “Lettre...” and numbered are not addressed to anyone, but are frequently signed “ye suis..” He involves his reader throughout, however, with some intimation
of amicable ties with such expressions as “ Vous êtes vif & entreprenant, jeune & riche; ie plaisir
de bâtir vous convient mieux qu’à tout autre"^2o or; “Vous demandez que je sois votre guide, rien de mieux; comtez sur mon exactitude...
J-F Blondel’s L ’Homme du Monde éclairé p a rle s Arts (1774) is a more complex and intriguing
epistolary work which sets out to cover fundamental issues in the field of architecture. This work went beyond the simple, one-directional correspondences of Fremin and Le Camus de Mezières. Blondel feigned a correspondence, cum novel, primarily between the comte de
Saleran and the comtesse de Vaujeu; other correspondents were the marquis de Lugai, the
Prince de ***, the chevalier de Deviile and the marquise de Galeas. The comte on occasion
referred to himself as an amateur: “Je ne connois d’ailieurss que très imparfaitement cet Art
[architecture], dont l’étude exige à ce que la vie entiere d ’un homme né très-inteiligent.” To
help the comtesse further he then suggested: “Pour suppléer à ce que j ’omet, avez recours au
“Recueil de l’Architecture Française”; dont je vous ai parié. He also refers her to Biseux (1743)
with the caution: “dont les pians sont aussi ingénieux, que les façades extérieures sont
imparfaites...”.^22 The comte has no hesitation in advertizing the ability of one J-F. Blondel on various occasions: “Vous auriez plus d’avantage [than in d’Aviler’s dictionary] à vous procurer un
Cours d ’architecture en neuf volumes in 8°...li rassemble toutes les leçons données p ar M.
Biondei, Architecte du Roi, & Professeur au Louvre, Leçons que j ’ai suivies plus d ’une fois avec
fruit & avec très-grand plaisir...”,^23 or: “Recueil en 8 volumes in folio...De ces 8 volumes, les 4
premiers sont...très-bien faites, p ar J. F. Biondei, Architecte du Roi, aujoud’hui Professeur
Royal au Louvre, dont je vous ai parlé plus d’une fois, avec l’estime qui lui estdue...”.124
J-F. Blondel gives his reasons for writing his work in this form: “...Rendre sensible ce qui doit
être estimé; réduire à sa réalité ce qui a pu usurper l’estime; exciter l’indolence des gens du
monde, en leur offrant les avantages de l’instruction, sans exiger les peines de l’étude; fournir
aux femmes ie prétexte d’une application, en paroissant leur offrir un amusement; les mettre à
portée de s ’acquitter envers les Beaux-arts, en leur faire connoissance avec eux.”^25 He seems
to have had the distinct intention of interesting women in his field, even if his attitude sounds somewhat patronizing: “...Les femmes doivent s ’instruire: c ’est un besoin qui ne peut jam ais
être satisfait sans qu’ii n ’en résuite un grand avantage pour eiies...peuvent eiies croire qu’ii
suffise d’être joiie, pour intéresser véritabiement ies homm es...’’.‘ize
Though the main correspondence between the comte and the comtesse covered architectural
teaching, the introduction of additional figures made it possible for the comte to engage in some
personal intrigue, reveaiing his feelings for the comtesse to other correspondents. Hence the
reader is not only privy to the formal relationship between the two when in direct association, but is also introduced to the inner feelings which the comte is willing to divulge to third parties.
Blondel thus creates an emotional scenario as background to his educational course.
Aside from their pretext of not tiring the reader with too much knowledge, the writers knew that works written in the first person in emulation of novels were more digestible to members of society, who were not used to being addressed directly and even less used to being instructed.
With a renewed interest in Classical architecture in France came a desire to create a French Order whose decorative use would glorify France. It was first proposed by de l’Orme (1568) who worked on the royal buildings for Henri II, and who believed that if other nations had Orders connected to their name, so could the French. De l’Orme was influenced by Serlio’s earlier work at Fontainebleau, for François I, and by his published interpretation of Vitruvius. Other French interest in the Classical tradition of architecture is evident from Ian Martin’s translation of Vitruvius’s Ten Books on Architecture in 1547, and his translation of Alberti’s Ten Books on
Architecture in 1553. In 1632 Le Muet translated Vignola’s rules of the five Orders, and in 1645
the first book by Palladio on the Orders, supplemented with some additional doorways and window-openings. In 1685 d’Aviler’s translation of Scamozzi’s Sixth Book on Architecture (there
were ten) which contained the five Orders was published and in 1691 he included Vignola’s rules with his own Cours d ’architecture supplemented by some details from Michelangelo’s
buildings. In his own Cours d ’architecture, d’Aviler elaborated on the planning of the more
prestigious French residences.
(1623) in which, as in Savot’s text (1624), the stress was laid on the design of residences in which decorations of the Orders played little part. Le Muet and Savot seem to have sown seeds which were to flower only after the formation of the Académ ie Royale d ’Architecture and
particularly in the following century. Le Muet’s plans bore only a vague similarity to Serlio’s plans of private houses. Le Muet’s and Serlio’s residences shared the use of courtyards, however, Serlio’s plans display a symmetry which Le Muet’s buildings did not follow. D’Aviler’s Cours
d ’architecture, more comprehensive than Le Muet’s or Savot’s works, dealt with residential
planning as well as with the Orders.
W hereas Italian treatises concentrated largely on the Orders, construction, materials, proportions of rooms and specific elements such as doors, windows, fireplaces and stairs, that is on décoration and construction, French treatises expanded greatly on internal house planning
or distribution. And the shift of focus in the formal teaching of French Classical architecture is
noticeable from the subtitles of the Cours d’architecture by F. Blondel and J-F. Blondel. The first
(1685), is “I ’Origine & les principes d’architecture & les pratiques des cinq Ordres suivant..."
while some eighty later, the second (1771-7), is "Traité de ia décoration, distribution et
construction des bâtimentd'. In the latter, distribution — especially of habitable buildings, the
branch of architecture which the French believed their own — was treated on a par with the Orders and with construction.
This renewed inquiry into Classical architecture whose rules provided measures to gauge the Harmony of this art (though they seem to have differed with different architects), also gave rise to a common interest for architects in their professional pursuit and for patrons in their general education or education agréable. This shared interest was significant for the result of hôltels
Chapter II
HOTEL PARTICULIER :