IN the preceding chapter we have described only that branch of the Louis XIV. style which culminated and came to an end in the wild efflorescence of the Rocaille pnase, wnicn, however, had also dominated the reign of Louis XV. We have now to study another style, evolved side by side with it, at first comparatively humble, but which gradually became its equal in importance, and eventually superseded it. We allude to the decorative style most inappropriately called that of Louis XVI., seeing that its finest period was when Madame du Barry was in favour. There was, indeed, no revolution in public taste - there are never any sudden changes in the history of art - not even a return to the old simplicity which would have been explained by the weariness of excessive complication of design, but simply the success of a school that had remained more in touch with academic traditions, a success brought about to some extent by the lack of men of preponderating talent (for where there is no particular method there are no disciples), and also the result of certain accidental circumstances which we will mention without any attempt at classifying in order of their importance.

In 1719 Herculaneum was discovered beneath the ashes of Mount Vesuvius; in 1748 important excavations were begun on its site as well as on that of Pompeii, and the antiquities brought to light aroused great enthusiasm amongst artists, especially architects. In 1746 Madame de Pompadour suc-ceeded in obtaining for her brother, then nineteen years old, the reversion of the post of Directeur-Gendeal des Batiments du Roi, but at the same time she took the wise precaution of preparing him for that important position by making him travel in Italy for three years - from 1749 to 1751 - under the guidance of the architect Soufflot, the engraver Charles Nicolas Cochin, and the Abbe Leblanc. We know too well the aversion of Cochin to the exponents of the Rocaille style to doubt that he urged his pupil Francois Poussin to follow the path of nature and simplicity. About the same time an impulse was given to the study of archaeology, for the Comte de Caylus set to work to describe the engraved stones in the cabinet du roi, whilst Bouchardon made drawings of them.

The "Recueil d'Antiquitds" of De Caylus was published between 1752 and 1767; the Abbe Barthelemy, keeper of the Cabinet des Medailles, became known through his essays on coins and medals, and began to collect the materials for his celebrated "Voyage du Jeune Anacharsis en Grece"; in 1754Winck-elmann gave to the world his "Gedanken uber die Nachahmung der Griecheschen Wer-ken" (Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Art), succeeded in 1764 by his "Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums" (History of Antique Art), and in 1766 by his "Monu-mente Antichi Inediti."

Plate XLVIII. SMALL DESK. By Riesner. Reign of Louis XVI.

This is enough to prove that the spirit of what is called the Louis XVI. style was in the air long before the accession of that monarch, and we will now show that the taste for that phase of decoration really preceded it. In certain works of Charles Andre Boulle, for instance, the distinctive curve is entirely absent, except in certain details of applique copper work, which are, however, of a very sober character, so that the clearly defined outlines of the woodwork at first sight recall compositions half a century older. A typical example of this is the low marqueterie bookcase in the possession of M. le Comte de Castellane. A faithful follower of Boulle, Cressent produced some pieces of furniture, notably his cabinet of medals of the Bibliotheque Nationale, which only need to have a few of the lines straightened to become true specimens of the Louis XVI. style, and some of his best armoires are of a very simple angular design. When we come to Slodtz, who was equally enamoured of Italian exuberance of fancy and of severity of style, not even the slightest effort of imagination is necessary, and some designs for woodwork, such as those preserved in the cabinet des estampes, intended for furniture for the Ministere de la Marine, cannot fail at once to call up a vision of the final evolution of the century.

The ebenists of the day were among the first to adopt the new fashion; the cabinet for medals of Joubert in the Bibliotheque Nationale has the thick-set structure characteristic of so much of the work produced in the time of Louis XVI., although it was made but the year after the birth of that prince, and many tables and small bureaux dispersed in various collections, which were made during the same period, might easily be attributed to a later date. Lastly, it is interestingtoremember that when Louis XVI. ascended the throne many of the buildings in what is called his style had already been erected in Paris, notably the Garde-Meuble and Ecole Militaire of the architect Gabriel and the Monnaie of Antoine.

Plate XLIX. ARMCHAIR covered with Beauvais tapestry. Louis XVI. South Kensington Museum.

It is, however, the furniture collected at Versailles and at Louveciennes by Madame du Barry in the five last years of the reign of Louis XV. which is most interesting from our particular point of view; for it can be looked at as a whole, and with its aid we can prove, as suggested above, that it consisted almost entirely of examples that were the glory of the Louis XVI. style. The celebrated favourite, who has been calumniated by all manner of unfounded stories, had the faults and good points of the child of the people she was. She was extravagant, fond of show, and ignorant. It must also be admitted that in the arrangement of her houses she adopted the latest fashion in vogue amongst the most advanced artists and amateurs of the Court, which brings us to the logical conclusion that when, in 1769, Louveciennes was given to her, furniture of simple structure had displaced that in the Rococo style. At that particular moment there was a kind of eclipse of great decorative artists; Jacques Caffieri, Meissonnier, and the Slodtzs had long been dead; Philippe Caffieri, though greatly advanced in years, continued to work according to the traditions of his father, but without his fame; and Riesener had but just signed his first work.