ourselves to a few names: Carrère and Hastings, Wilson Eyre, John Russell Pope, Delano and Aldrich, Howard Shaw, Mellor, Meigs and Howe, Charles A. Platt, Cross and Cross, Walker and Gillette, Grosvenor Atterbury, the local schools of Southern California, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, etc.

With domestic architecture we may associate the Club, of which very fine examples are to be found in New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

Finally, the collaboration of architect and engineer has given some very fine results in Bridge Construction (Manhattan, Carrère and Hastings; Hell's-Gate, Henry Hornbostel).

2. FRANCE

As we have said, the Classic Revival in France, beginning about 1775, and developing alongside of the art called Louis XVI, has for its motive an absolute return to Classic antiquity. It sets before it an ideal of austerity, strength, grandeur, tempered neither by national tradition nor the necessities of the plan. It is pure ideology applied to architecture. But the Revolution that followed left to the architect little opportunity to give material form to his ideas : it is principally from engravings, from the competitions of the school (Grand Prix 1780 to 1810) that we are made aware of these tendencies. Yet these ideas did leave their impression on architecture: the Madeleine, the Bourse, the Panthéon, l'Arc de Triomphe (Chalgrin, 1806).

The official architects of the Empire, Percier (1764 to 1838) and Fontaine (1762 to 1853) (represented in the Louvre and the Arc du Carrousel) were also the designers of interiors and of furniture that enjoyed worldwide influence.

This Classic ideal has never lost its hold, but soon ridding itself of pure archaeology returned to those logical traditions that are at the bottom of the French temperament. The result was such, that H. H. Statham could say: "As regards secular buildings, the Paris of the middle portion of the nine

teenth century can show some of the most unquestionable successes of the (modern) period."

In spite of the Gothic Revival, which created more controversies than works, the years of the nineteenth century are rich in works of the first importance. Duc constructed the modern portions of Palais de Justice, Labrouste, toward 1850, created the Bibliothèque Ste. Geneviève, a work displaying a most remarkable cohesion of exterior, interior and construction. It is also in this edifice and in the Salle de Lecture of the Bibliothèque Nationale (1859) that we see the happiest attempts prior to those of our own day at the use of steel, both as an element of construction and of decoration. Hithorff in the church of St. Vincent de Paule and in the Gare du Nord (still in use), Duban in the École des Beaux Arts, Baltard in the church of St. Augustin, all attempt the use of the new materials of construction in suitable forms.

The new buildings of the Louvre, 1852 to 1865 (of Visconti and Lefuel), the Opéra (of Charles Garnier, built 1860 to 1872), if they are of a less pure taste than that of the best French tradition, show nevertheless an admirable command of composition, of planning, and of large decorative effect.

In the period after 1870, we may note the reconstruction of the Château de Chantilly by Daumet; the manner in which metal is used in the Exposition of 1889 Machinery Building (Dutert), Dôme Central (Formige), and finally, toward 1900, the Grand Palais des Beaux Arts (Deglane, Thomas and Louvet) and the Petit Palais (Girault), the lycées (preparatory schools) (Vaudremer).

Religious architecture, beyond some mediocre adaptations of the Gothic, counts but few names and few works: Vaudremer (St. Pierre-de-Montrouge, Notre Dame d'Auteuil); Abadie (Sacré Coeur de Montmartre); Bossan (l'église de Fourvières, Lyon) and Esperandieu (Cathedral of Marseilles). These are the principal examples.

Among works of importance must also be mentioned the

Medical School, the Musée Galliera (Ginaint), the new Sorbonne (Nénot), the new Paris Hotel de Ville (Ballu and Deperthes), the Gare d'Orléans (Laloux) and the works of Gaspard André at Lyon.

Contemporary production in cities already replete with public edifices, is necessarily more restricted than in the United States. Frequently old buildings are put to modern uses (Museum of the Louvre, of Lyon, of Toulouse, etc.), or converted into ministries and official residences. It is the price countries like France, Italy, Spain have to pay for the ancient treasure they wish to preserve. Here, art, having become sophisticated, has lost something of the simplicity of the great works. It is hard to say whether certain tendencies toward reaction, such as the new Theatre des Champs Elysees (Perret Frères) will prove really fertile. Some, like the Art Nouveau of 1890 to 1910, had a short career.

3. ENGLAND

The unity of modern architecture is made apparent by a review of its examples in different countries. Everywhere the same causes and the same effects are revealed in the art of the period. What resulted in France from the supplanting of Louis XV and Louis XVI art by the Classic Revival is reproduced in England. "The inheritors of the traditions of Jones and Wren died out, and were succeeded by scholars and archaeologists.

"In the first half of the century they were contriving the best churches, houses, railway stations compatible with obedience to Doric or Ionic rules; in the second half, their incubus was the precedent set by the cathedral builders of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, modified and complicated by examples taken from various architectural centers on the continent of Europe!"1

The Classic Revival has left us the Bank of England

1Sir Walter Armstrong, Art in Great Britain and Ireland.