Symbolism and Politics:
The Construction of the Louvre, 1660-1667
by
Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi
The word palace has come to mean a royal residence,
or an edifice of grandeur; in its origins, however, it
derives from the Latin palatium, the Palatine Hill upon
which Augustus established his imperial residence and
erected a temple to Apollo. It is therefore fitting that in
the mid-seventeenth century, the young French king hailed
as the "new Augustus" should erect new symbols of deific
power, undertaking construction on an unprecedented scale
to celebrate the Apollonian divinity of his own reign. As
the symbols of Apollo are the lyre and the bow, so too
were these constructions symbolic of how artistic
accomplishment could serve to manifest political power.
The project to enlarge the east facade of the Louvre in
the early 1660s is a well-known illustration of this form of
artistic propaganda, driven by what Orest Ranum has
termed "Colbert's unitary conception of politics and
culture (Ranum 265)." The Louvre was also to become,
however, a political symbol on several other levels,
reflecting power struggles among individual artists, the
rivalry between France and Italy for artistic dominance,
and above all, the intent to secure the king's base of power
in the early days of his personal reign.
In a plan previously conceived by Cardinal Mazarin as
the «grand dessin,» the Louvre was to have been enlarged,
embellished, and ultimately joined to the Palais des
Tuileries. The demolition of houses standing in the way
began in 1657, and in 1660 Mazarin approved a new
design submitted by Louis Le Vau. Le Vau's prominence
as King's First Architect, and his previous success with the
imposing College des Quatre Nations, made him a natural
choice; his design of Vaux-le-Vicomte, however,
represented an untimely success. The arrest of Fouquet in
80 JEANNE MORGAN
ZARUCCHI
1661 was one of the king's first steps in consolidating his
personal power, and the fact that Le Vau was among
Fouquet's supporters made him a threat to that power, as
well as to the ascendancy of Colbert.
When Colbert
became superintendent of buildings on January 1, 1664, he
therefore acted to undermine Le Vau's influence by
initiating a competition for a new design, although
construction of the walls had in places reached the height
of three meters (Hautecoeur 144).
Le Vau's design, according to a plan dating from about
1663, 1 had nevertheless several important features that
would influence the project's eventual outcome. First, it
incorporated a peristyle, or row of columns, that would
run the length of the entire exterior facade of the palace.
The similarities between this peristyle and the colonnade
later designed by Claude Perrault have led some critics to
champion Le Vau as the supposed "true" author of the
colonnade; (H. Sauval 62; T. Sauvel 323-347; Whiteley and
Braham I: 285-296, II: 347-362) deferring that question for
the moment, however, the most important aspect of the
column as a design feature is its classical character. Both
Le Vau's and Perrault's designs thus incorporated a visual
symbol suggestive of a temple, evoking the palatine
association.
Second, Le Vau's plan called for the enlargement of
the existing structure, rather than for its demolition and
eventual reconstruction. This approach was not only less
costly, it possessed the symbolic advantage of preserving
the foundations upon which the present palace had been
built, and in a sense, perpetuating the notion of dynastic
kingship. As Colbert expressed to the king in a letter of
September 1663:
(...) rien ne marque
des princes que les
les mesure a l'aune
ont elevees pendant
davantage la grandeur et l'esprit
batiments, et toute la posterite
de ces superbes maisons qu'ils
leur vie (Clement 268).
Colbert's aim was that the new Louvre should not eradicate
the king's ancestral home, which already represented «le
SYMBOLISM
AND POLITICS:...
81
plus superbe palais qu'il y ait au monde et le plus digne de
la grandeur de Votre Majeste,» but that it should be
enhanced in such a way as to surpass what had been
accomplished previously, and to become the measure by
which the public would judge «le plus grand roi et le plus
vertueux (Clement 268).»
Despite these attractive features of Le Vau's design,
Colbert remained unwilling to promote the interests of a
political rival, whose own position of power made him
unlikely ever to accede to the wishes of a newly-appointed
superintendent of buildings. 2
In addition, from an
aesthetic standpoint, Le Vau's design was relatively
conservative in nature, and may have been deemed lacking
in the sumptuousness and grandeur to which Colbert
aspired. In the opinion of the 18th-century critic JeanAymar Piganiol de la Force:
Le Vau etait le plus habile Archeitecte qu'il y eut a
Paris, mais je m'explique:
c'etoit un de ces
Architectes de tradition, comme ils sont presque
tous. II avait parfaitement profite de ce qu'on lui
avoit enseigne, et de ce qu'il avoit vu pratiquer,
mais nulle imagination, nulle invention au-dela
(259).
Colbert therefore determined to solicit designs from
other architects, and in so doing, created a furor. Every
architect and artist of note entered into the competition,
including the King's First Painter, Charles Le Brun.
Perhaps the most prominent among the rival French
architects was Francois Mansart, who had previously
designed Val-de-Grace. Mansart was a genius, but not a
practical one, being renowned for his tendency to make
costly changes even after a work was in progress.
According to the caption of a 17th-century portrait of
Mansart in the Bibliotheque Nationale:
Malgre la superiorite de son merite, ce celebre
Artiste avoit beaucoup de peine a se satisfaire lui
meme; et on Pa vu recommencer souvent ce qu'il
avait bien fait, dans l'espoir de le faire mieux
encore. [...]
Mansard refusa de se charger de
82 JEANNE MORGAN ZARUCCHI
Fexecution des nouvelles facades du Louvre, parce
que M. Colbert voulut exiger de lui qu'il ne
changeat plus rien a son Plan, quand, une fois, il
auroit ete arrete. 3
In this case, then, Mansart's unwillingness to defer to
Colbert's authority, coupled with the prospect of
ballooning cost, effectively removed him from the
competition.
According to Charles Perrault (tr. Zarucchi 54-55), it
was at this point that Claude Perrault also submitted a
design to Colbert, incorporating the crucial colonnade.
The design evoked a suitably classical grandeur; it
preserved the existing edifice; and most importantly from
Colbert's standpoint, Claude Perrault was an amateur, and
therefore not part of the artistic power structure to which
Colbert found himself in opposition. Perrault was also a
member of a bourgeois family well-known to Colbert, not
only because of Charles but because of Colbert's long
acquaintance with their brother Pierre, the Receiver
General of Finances for the city of Paris. As the brother
of a tax collector, Claude was unlikely to take umbrage
over financial constraints.
If both Le Vau's and Mansart's plans were to be
rejected, however, the acceptance of a design by a man
who was not even an acknowledged architect was a
political impossibility. In the words of the modern critics
Laprade, Bourdel and Lafond, his contemporary rivals «ne
devai[en]t avoir que mepris pour Claude Perrault, surement
considere dans la corporation des architectes comme un
pretentieux personnage, incapable de composer quoi que ce
soit (59).» On a more profound level, however, the issue
at stake was the rivalry for a project of immense symbolic
importance, one which at the time was viewed as the single
most important architectural undertaking of the century.
Regardless of the merits of Perrault's design, Colbert could
not have dared to jeopardize his own precarious authority
by snubbing the entire artistic establishment in favor of an
unknown. Charles Le Brun, after all, had engineered the
SYMBOLISM AND POLITICS:...
83
removal of Colbert's predecessor as superintendent of
building, Antoine de Ratabon.
Colbert's solution was to broaden the competition to
include architects from outside of France, and among
these, there was one name that stood apart from the rest:
the world's most renowned sculptor and the protege of
Pope Alexander VII, Gian Lorenzo Bernini.
Although
Bernini was not the only Italian to be approached, the
others including Carlo Rainaldi and Pietro da Cortona, he
was by far the most celebrated, and at the age of 66, was
regarded to be at the pinnacle of his career. After delicate
negotiations to secure his release from papal service, and
the promise of gratifications that would ultimately total
over one hundred thousand livres, Bernini was selected to
be the most fitting architect for the Louvre of Louis XIV.
The invitation of Bernini was a highly symbolic
gesture, and one that reflected the king's youth, Colbert's
inexperience, and the fact that in the early days of the
personal reign, these two architects of state had not yet
formulated their mission to create a French national
identity, founded upon the persona of the king. In looking
to an Italian designer, they avoided the controversial issue
of selecting one Frenchman over another, but with the
resulting negative implication that no French architect was
good enough for a project of this magnitude. Bernini may
have also appeared to be an ideal choice because of his
earlier design of the elliptical colonnade in the piazza of
St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, a temple-like row of
freestanding columns that echoes both Le Vau's and
Perrault's designs for the Louvre.
Colbert, however,
reckoned without the fact that the great Bernini would not
be told what to do, and certainly not by the glorified clerk
of a young king less than half his age. Only after
enormous expense, lengthy delays, and the humiliation of
being forced to pander to Bernini's formidable ego would
Colbert and the king ultimately realize the costliness of
their error.
Bernini's five-month sojourn in France, from June to
October of 1665, was chronicled in two principal sources:
the diary of Paul Freart, Sieur de Chantelou, the French
84 JEANNE MORGAN
ZARUCCHI
noble who escorted Bernini throughout his travels, and the
memoirs of Charles Perrault (tr. Zarucchi 58-79). 4
Numerous anecdotes recount Bernini's disparaging attitude
toward the French, which he took no trouble to conceal.
What was even more disquieting for Colbert, however, was
the fact that Bernini was impatient with the practical
details of project supervision.
According to one tale
corroborated by both Chantelou and Perrault, the Italian
stonemasons, who were unaccustomed to a colder climate,
built a wall that collapsed at the first frost (Chantelou 126;
Perrault, tr. Zarucchi 64). In the opinion of Perrault,
Des ce moment sans doute Monsieur Colbert vit
qu'il s'etoit mal adresse, mais il crut peut-etre aussi
que par ses bons avis il remettroit le cavalier sur la
bonne voie, et qu'en lui montrant ses fautes, il lui
feroit faire quelque chose d'excellent; mais il ne
connaissait pas encore le cavalier (Perrault 65).
Colbert and Bernini had in fact two distinctly different
intentions regarding the Louvre, and in a larger sense, two
concepts of art itself. Colbert envisioned the artist as a
servant of the king, and artistic achievement as a testament
to royal majesty; Bernini, on the contrary, viewed himself
as a divine instrument, above the reach even of kings. As
Bernini wrote to the Duke of Modena in July 1665:
J'ai done fait un dessin qui (...) produit un palais
qui sera le plus beau par la richesse et la grandeur,
et aussi par l'esprit qui Fa inspire; moi qui suis peu,
je dois peu estimer mon oeuvre, mais je l'apprecie
comme due aux lumieres que Dieu m'a accordees.5
The first design that Bernini conceived for the Louvre
was very different from the St. Peter's colonnade. Its
round central pavilion and concave arcades reflected the
dynamic movement and curvilinearity characteristic of the
Italian Baroque, a movement of which Bernini was the
acknowledged master. That ambitious plan, however, lost
sight of the Augustan symbolism of the palace.
Furthermore, implementation of the design would
necessitate the destruction of much of the existing east
SYMBOLISM
AND POLITICS:...
85
wing.
Such a move would be not only horrendously
expensive, but also damaging to the symbolism of dynastic
continuity.
After correspondence with Colbert, a second plan was
developed, of which the original drawings have not
survived. 6 According to a contemporary sketch, however,
the plan retained some of the concave curvature of the
first, and it was on the strength of this modified version
that the King determined to invite Bernini personally to
France. Serious problems remained, however, foremost
among them being that even the modified plan would
require tearing down much of the existing wing.
It required the intervention of the King himself to
induce Bernini to change his plan to a less radical one that
would complete the existing structure, rather than replace
it. As Bernini wrote in the same letter to the Duke of
Modena, «Sa Majeste m'a dit avec grand genie que la
depense lui importait peu, mais qu'il lui deplairait de
detruire ce qu'avaient fait ses ancStres (Mirot 213).»
A
third plan was therefore developed, eliminating the
curvature, and enlarging the proportion of the royal central
pavilion. Colbert continued to voice objections, however,
and was cited by Chantelou as complaining that:
le dessein du cavalier Bernin, quoique beau et
noble, etait neanmoins si mal con?u pour la
commodite du Roi et de son appartement au
Louvre qu'avec une depense de dix millions, il le
laissait aussi serre dans Fendroit qu'il devait
occuper au Louvre qu'il etait sans faire cette
depense...(Chantelou 264)
There is no doubt that Bernini was undermined by
some degree of behind-the-scenes collusion between
Colbert and the Perraults.
Charles' Memoirs recount
several private meetings with Colbert at which he pointed
out flaws in the Italian's design. In addition, Colbert
himself had made numerous technical objections to Bernini
that reflected a thorough understanding of architecture,
and although he assured Bernini that he had not submitted
86 JEANNE MORGAN ZARUCCHI
the plan to any architect for review, the art historian Cecil
Gould contends that this was a bit of casuistry on Colbert's
part, since Charles or Claude Perrault, neither one of
whom was an architect by profession, must have been
consulted (Gould 19-20).
Despite the maneuvering against him, hoever, it is also
evident that Bernini had failed to understand both the
ceremonial function of the palace and its symbolic purpose.
Certain rooms had to be large enough to accommodate the
royal entourage, but as Colbert objected, in Bernini's plan
the King's bedchamber itself would be too small to
accommodate half of the nobles who were entitled to enter
it (Perrault, tr. Zarucchi 66). The practical Colbert also
worried over street noise from the side facing St.Germain-l'Auxerrois, and according to Chantelou, «la
multiplication des portiques et des colonnes dans les
vestibules lui paraissaient dangereuses, comme etant
propres a dissimuler des gens prets a commettre un attentat
(Chantelou 35; Mirot 222).»
Furthermore, according to Bernini's modified plan, the
exterior of the facade was too plain and sober, reserving
ornamentation for the interior courtyards. Mirot made the
following assessment of Bernini's plan:
Le Bernin avait concu et dessine en Romain. II
n'avait tenu compte ni de la diversite des moeurs,
ni de la difference du climat, ni de la divergence
des gouts. II avait suivi les errements de son pays,
traite sobrement les facades exterieures, leur
gardant cet air de force un peu fruste qui rappelait
encore les palais fortifies du XVe siecle, et avait,
au contraire, reserve toute la grace, toute la richesse
architecturale pour les cours et l'ornementation
interieures (239).
Bernini's vision was thus suitable for a king whose
pleasures were private, and whose public image was distant
and militant. It was not suitable for the young Louis XIV.
SYMBOLISM
AND POLITICS:...
87
When Bernini took his departure in October 1665, it
was ostensibly because Pope Alexander VII required his
return, and there was no public acknowledgment that his
design would be abandoned. His student Matthia di Rossi,
left to supervise the construction, would not officially
return to Rome until May 1667. Colbert acted privately,
however, to move towards the completion of a project that
had been effectively halted for two years. Rather than
lose face by granting supervisory control to one of the
French architects whose plans had previously been
rejected, Colbert appointed a council composed of Louis
Le Vau, Charles Le Brun, and Francois Mansart. That
council was already formed in August 1665, two months
before Bernini's official departure (Hautecoeur 166).
Mansart died in 1666, and his replacement in the
council was Claude Perrault. Claude's personal connection
to Colbert, through Charles, led to inevitable speculation
over his competence, and several critics have argued that
the design attributed to him was actually plagiarized from
the work of Le Brun, Le Vau, or Le Vau's student and
son-in-law Francois d'Orbay. 7
A suggestive historical
footnote is provided by a contemporary portrait of Mansart
and Perrault attributed to Philippe de Champaigne. 8
Perrault is shown boastfully pointing to himself and to a
statue in the background that stands at the foot of a
colonnade. A date inscribed in the lower left, 1656, is
probably erroneous, since Perrault did not replace Mansart
until 1666. The implication is clear, however, that Perrault
was a shameless self-promoter.
Suspicions and rivalries notwithstanding, Perrault was
acknowledged by his contemporaries, including the great
Arnauld, as the author of the design. 9 As pointed out by
Piganiol de la Force, it would have been dangerous folly
for Perrault to have proclaimed himself the author of a
design known by Colbert and by the King to have been
the work of another; moreover, there was no outcry of
plagiarism until after Claude Perrault's death (Piganiol de
La Force 251).
88 JEANNE MORGAN
ZARUCCHI
In a sense, the notion of a colonnade may be viewed as
a collective invention, generated by the palatial symbolism
of the structure. Columns of some sort were featured in
most of the French architects' designs, including one by
Antoine-Leonor Houdin submitted as early as 1661
(Hautecoeur 166), as well as those of Rainaldi, Mansart,
Bernini, and Le Vau. Perrault's version included columns
that were free-standing, and yet that feature was evident
in Le Vau's design, as well as in Bernini's piazza of St.
Peter's.
Several
elements
appear,
however,
to
have
distinguished Perrault's design successfully from the others.
One is the grandeur of the actual entrance to the central
pavilion, in contrast to Le Vau and Bernini, who had both
proposed a small door in a large pavilion; the smallness of
the entry door in Bernini's plan had been criticized by
Colbert as early as 1665, in a letter to the papal nuncio. 10
Perrault's colonnade also echoed the design of a temple
more closely than that of Le Vau, who had added the
distraction of a conventional third story.
Most
importantly, the triangular-shaped pediment of Perrault's
central pavilion was the only one among the main
competitors' designs to be explicitly classical in inspiration.
The final design of the colonnade was formally
accepted by the king on 14 May 1667, and when
completed, it would stand as perhaps the most celebrated
example of seventeenth-century French architecture,
described by Anthony Blunt as "the first example in this
art of the style of Louis XIV (232)." Ironically, the king
had by now developed the fascination for Versailles that
was to prove fatal to Colbert's hopes of transforming the
Louvre into a monumental symbol of dynastic kingship.
Six years of bickering over the design, during which the
king had been obliged to move back and forth from the
Louvre to the Tuileries or to the palace of St. Germain,
had undoubtedly contributed to Louis' dissatisfaction.
Versailles also represented, however, an opportunity for
the king to give free reign to the expression of his own
taste. A further irony was that the principal architect
chosen by the king for the construction of Versailles was
SYMBOLISM
AND POLITICS:...
89
the very man whom Colbert had taken such effort to
supplant, Louis Le Vau.
As early as 1669, alterations to the chateau had been
carried out according to Le Vau's designs, supervised after
the architect's death in 1671 by his son-in-law, Francois
d'Orbay (Blunt 234). 11 Then in 1678, the king established
his official residence at Versailles, and appointed Mansart's
great-nephew, Jules Hardouin-Mansart, to succeed to the
post of principal architect. There is no record of any
contribution by Claude Perrault to the structure, although
he has been credited with the design of the «allee d'eau»
leading to the Neptune basin (Perrault, tr. Zarucchi 97).
The Louvre's importance as a royal palace was thus
effectively eclipsed.
In the course of the Louvre episode, however, a
progression is evident in the political and aesthetic
attitudes that influenced its outcome. In the early years,
the king and Colbert were willing to defer to the
recognized superiority of an Italian architect, believing that
by bringing a world-renowned figure to France, the
country would bask in his reflected glory. At a later stage,
the French would define and carry out their own artistic
standard.
There was also a progression in the aesthetic perception
of art itself, which was initially respected as an
autonomous creation. As Blunt has stated,
In the previous generation architects such as
Francois Mansart were devoted to the abstract
qualities of the art, and his patrons were
sufficiently sensitive to encourage him to develop
these interests (240).
Later on, however, art became viewed as the servant of
practical function. Ingenuity of design was less important
than accommodating the cermonial activities of Louis'
court. The king also exerted greater authority over artistic
production, in part as a logical reaction to the humiliation
he suffered in dealing with Bernini, but also because of an
90 JEANNE MORGAN ZARUCCHI
increased awareness of the usefulness of the visual arts, as
a vehicle for controlling and promoting his own public
image.
Finally, the episode of the Louvre, and the ultimate
shift from that palace to Versailles as the chosen
embodiment of monarchal power, may be seen to reflect a
parallel shift that occurred in the perceived identity of the
king himself. For Louis XIV, the symbolism of Augustus
was gradually succeeded by the symbolism of Apollo, as
the youthful emperor grew into maturity as the Sun King.
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Notes
^ e e Mirot 162-164.
2
Ranum (265), further suggests that Colbert's wariness
of Le Vau was strengthened by the fact that although
Colbert was named superintendent of buildings in January
1664, Fouquet's trial was still pending, and his actual
condemnation was not issued until December of that year.
Le Vau therefore remained a potential threat during that
period of uncertainty.
3
2
Bibliotheque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, cote
N .
4
Bernini's visit has also been analyzed in detail by
Cecil Gould, in Bernini in France:
An Episode in
Seventeenth-Century
History
(Princeton:
Princeton
University Press, 1982).
5
6
Bib. Nat. ms. ital. 2083, p. 163, cited in Mirot 231.
This plan was described in Josephson 75§, as cited in
Gould 16-19.
SYMBOLISM
AND POLITICS:...
91
7
See references to H. Sauval; T. Sauvel, Whiteley &
Braham; Laprade, Bourdel & Lafond (supra).
8
Portrait of Francois Mansart and Claude Perrault,
identified as «Ecole franchise du XVIIe siecle,» Musee de
Versailles.
(Reproduction consulted, courtesy of Prof.
William Roberts, Northwestern University.)
9
Arnauld defended Claude in a letter to Boileau of
1694 (Oeuvres T. IV, p. 58).
10
Letter from Colbert to Monsieur Roberti, 18 March
1665 (Mirot, 187); see also the anecdotal criticism reported
in Perrault (tr. Zarucchi 61).
n
Blunt identifies d'Orbay erroneously as Le Vau's
nephew.
Works Cited or Consulted
Amauld, Antoine. Oeuvres T. IV (Paris: D'Arnay et Cie,
1776).
Blunt, Anthony. Art and Architecture in France, 1500 to
1700 (Melbourne, London, Baltimore: Penguin Books,
1953).
Chantelou, Paul Freart, sieur de. Journal du voyage du
cavalier Bernin en France. L. Lalanne, ed. (Paris: Gazette
des Beaux-Arts, 1885) [English translation, Princeton
University Press, 1985).
Clement, Pierre. Lettres, instructions et memoires de
Colbert. T. V (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1861-1882).
Gould, Cecil. Bernini in France: An Episode in
Seventeenth-Century
History
(Princeton:
Princeton
University Press, 1982).
Hautecoeur, Louis. Le Louvre et les Tuileries de Louis
XIV (Paris/Bruxelles: G. Vanoest, 1927).
Josephson, R. «Les Maquettes du Bernin pour le
Louvre». Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1928): 75ss.
Laprade, Albert, Bourdel, Nicole, & Lafond, Jean.
Frangois d'Orbay, architecte de Louis XIV (Paris: Vincent
Freal et C ie , 1960).
Mirot, Leon. «Le Bernin en France». Memoires de la
Societe d'Histoire de Paris. 1904: 162-164.
Perrault, Charles. Memoires de ma vie. P. Bonnefon, ed.
(Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1909).
. Memoirs of my Life. Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi,
ed. and tr. (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press,
1989).
SYMBOLISM AND POLITICS:...
93
Piganiol de La Force, Jean Aymar. Description
historique de la ville de Paris et de ses environs (Paris: G.
Desprez, 1765) T. II.
Ranum, Orest. Paris in the Age of Absolutism. (New
York: John Wiley & sons, 1968).
Sauval, Henri. Histoire et recherches des antiquites de
la ville de Paris. T. II (Paris: Moette et Chardon, 1724).
Sauvel, Tony. «Les Auteurs de la colonnade
Louvre». Bulletin Monumental, 122 (1964): 323-347.
du
Whiteley, Mary & Braham, Allan. "Louis Le Vau's
Projects for the Louvre and the Colonnade."Gazette des
Beaux-Arts 64, I (November 1964): 285-296
Whiteley, Mary & Braham, Allan. "Louis Le Vau's
Projects for the Louvre and the Colonnade."Gazette des
Beaux-Arts 64, II (December 1964): 347-362