Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/memoirsoflifewor00hart_0 
 

 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
We certify that this is No. ... of two hundred and fifty copies and 
 
 two unnumbered copies for copyright purposes, printed by the De 
 Vinne Press, New York, from type, in the month of December, 1911. 
 
MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE 
 
 AND WORKS OF 
 
 JEAN ANTOINE HOUDON 
 
 THE SCULPTOR OF 
 
 VOLTAIRE AND OF WASHINGTON 
 

MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE 
 AND WORKS OF 
 
 JEAN ANTOINE HOUDON 
 
 THE SCULPTOR OF 
 
 VOLTAIRE AND OF WASHINGTON 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES HENRY HART 
 
 AND 
 
 EDWARD BIDDLE 
 
 WITH THIRTY-THREE ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHORS 
 MCMXI 
 
Copyright, 1911, by 
 
 Charles Henry Hart and Edward Biddle 
 
Contents 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Proem . xi 
 
 Chapter I (1741-1769) 3 
 
 Birth and student days in Rome. Statues of Saint Bruno and 
 of John the Baptist. The Ecorche. 
 
 Chapter II (1769-1777) 12 
 
 Return to Paris. Rapid rise to fame. Statues of Morphee 
 and of Diana. Busts of Diderot, Gliick, and Sophie Arnould. 
 
 Chapter III (1778) 32 
 
 Voltaire. His busts and his statue in the Comedie-Frangaise. 
 
 The bust crowned at the sixth representation of “Irene” 
 shown to have been by Houdon. 
 
 Chapter IV (1777) 62 
 
 Tomb of Montgomery by Caffieri: our first national monu- 
 ment. 
 
 Chapter V (1778) 73 
 
 Bust of Franklin. Caflieri’s jealousy of Houdon. Letters 
 from Caffieri to Franklin. Caffieri’s bust of Franklin wrongly 
 attributed to Ceracchi. The busts of Franklin by Houdon 
 and by Caffieri compared and distinguished. 
 
 V 
 
VI 
 
 Contents 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter VI (1779) no 
 
 Moliere, Rousseau and Mirabeau. Death-masks of Rous- 
 seau and of Mirabeau. 
 
 Chapter VII (1780) 125 
 
 Bust of John Paul Jones. The question of the identification 
 of his remains by Houdon’s bust considered. 
 
 Chapter VIII (1776-1848) 155 
 
 La Loge des Neuf-Soeurs. Membership of Houdon, Vol- 
 taire, Franklin and Paul Jones. 
 
 Chapter IX (1781-1785) 173 
 
 Statues of Tourville and of “La Frileuse.” Houdon’s re- 
 vival of the art of casting in bronze. 
 
 Chapter X (1785) 182 
 
 Washington. Houdon’s visit to America. Domiciled at 
 Mount Vernon for a fortnight. Mask and bust from life. 
 
 Statue at Richmond, Va. 
 
 Chapter XI (1785-1790) 226 
 
 La Fayette. Busts for America and for France. Destruc- 
 tion of the latter, August 10, 1792. 
 
 Chapter XII (1789) 248 
 
 Busts of Jefferson, Necker, Louis XVI, and Bailly. 
 
 Chapter XIII (1791-1814) 255 
 
 Escapes the guillotine. Busts of Robert Fulton and of Joel 
 Barlow; of Napoleon and of Josephine. 
 
Contents vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter XIV (1814-1828) 272 
 
 Last days and death. Portraits of Houdon. His honors and 
 his genius. 
 
 Appendix A. Houdon’s Account of Expenses on his Visit to 
 
 America 289 
 
 Appendix B. Houdon’s Explanation of the Statue to the King . 294 
 
 Appendix C. Houdon’s Views on Competitions 296 
 
 Appendix D. Houdon’s Letter on Bust of Mirabeau .... 299 
 
 Appendix E. Sale Catalogue of Houdon’s Works, 1828 . . . 300 
 
 Appendix F. Catalogue of Houdon’s Works 306 
 
 Appendix G. List of Authorities used in the Preparation of this 
 
 Work 324 
 
 Index 329 
 

 
Illustrations 
 
 PHOTOGRAVURES BY THE F. A. RINGLER COMPANY 
 
 I Portrait of Jean Antoine Houdon modeling a bust of 
 
 Bonaparte, by Louis Boilly ...... Frontispiece 
 
 FACING PAGE 
 
 II Statue of Saint Bruno, in Rome 8 
 
 ill Statue of Morphee, in the Louvre, Paris 12 
 
 IV Bust of Diderot, in the Louvre, Paris 20 
 
 v Bust of Mme. Victoire de France, in the Wallace Collec- 
 tion, London 24 
 
 VI Statue of Diana, in the Louvre, Paris ....... 30 
 
 vii Bust of Voltaire, in the Theatre-Frangais, Paris .... 36 
 
 Vlll Bust of Voltaire a l y antique, in the Louvre, Paris ... 44 
 
 ix Statue of Voltaire, in the Theatre-Frangais, Paris ... 54 
 
 x Bust of Louise Brongniart, in the Louvre, Paris .... 64 
 
 XI Bust of Alexandre Brongniart, in the Louvre, Paris ... 70 
 
 xil Bust of Franklin, by Jean-Jacques Caffieri, in the Institute 
 
 of France, Paris 86 
 
 xiii Bust of Franklin, in the Louvre, Paris 104 
 
 xiv Bust of Rousseau, in the Louvre, Paris 118 
 
 XV Bust of John Paul Jones, in the Pennsylvania Academy of 
 
 Fine Arts, Philadelphia 128 
 
 IX 
 
X 
 
 Illustrations 
 
 FACING PAGE 
 
 xvi Bust of Lavoisier, in the Louvre, Paris 156 
 
 XVII Statue of “La Frileuse,” in the Louvre, Paris 176 
 
 xviii Bust of Buffon, in the Louvre, Paris 180 
 
 XIX Life-mask of Washington, owned by J. Pierpont Morgan, 
 
 New York 202 
 
 xx Bust of Washington, in the Louvre, Paris 206 
 
 XXI Statue of Washington, in Richmond, Virginia .... 220 
 
 xxii Bust of La Fayette, in Richmond, Virginia 236 
 
 xxiii Bust of Thomas Jefferson, in the New York Historical So- 
 
 ciety, New York 248 
 
 xxiv Bust of Mme. Houdon, in the Louvre, Paris 256 
 
 xxv Bust of Robert Fulton, in the National Academy of De- 
 
 sign, New York 262 
 
 xxvi Bust of Napoleon, in the Museum at Versailles, France . 266 
 
 xxvii Miniature of Houdon, in the Louvre, Paris 272 
 
 xxvill Miniature of Mme. Houdon, in the Louvre, Paris . . . 272 
 
 xxix Bust of Sabine Houdon, in the Louvre, Paris 278 
 
 xxx Bust of Anne-Ange Houdon, in the Louvre, Paris . . . 284 
 
 HALF-TONE PLATES 
 
 xxxi The Crowning of Voltaire, March 30, 1778. Part of en- 
 
 graving by C. E. Gaucher after J. M. Moreau ... 47 
 
 xxxii Cenotaph to General Montgomery, by Caffieri, in portico 
 
 of St. Paul’s Church, New York 
 
 xxxill Signature of Houdon on Bust of John Paul Jones . . . 
 
 62 
 
 138 
 
Proem 
 
 In presenting to the public these memoirs of the life of Jean An- 
 toine Houdon, it seems a little strange that this tardy justice to him 
 should come from this side of the water, and that while his art is 
 appreciated in his own land, in Britain and on the Continent, no 
 one of his own tongue should have devoted a volume to his extraor- 
 dinary career. Of course to the American people Houdon is very 
 near from his having chiseled the famous statue of Washington, 
 which has preserved best the features and form of that immortal 
 character, as also from his having sculptured busts of Franklin, Jef- 
 ferson, Paul Jones, La Fayette, Fulton and Barlow, so that it is quite 
 natural we should be deeply interested in his life and in his works. 
 It was this keen interest of the writers that has resulted in the pres- 
 ent work, in which his life, both as an artist and as a man, is traced 
 with a fullness that was felt very doubtful of accomplishment when 
 first undertaken. From the bibliography it will be seen that two 
 brief sketches of Houdon’s life were printed in France more than 
 half a century ago, but they were published in such a way as to be 
 unknown outside of the limited few who would delve for them, they 
 having appeared respectively in the “Revue Universelle des Arts,” 
 
 xi 
 
XI 1 
 
 Proem 
 
 in 1855, and in “Memoires de la Societe des Sciences Morales, des 
 Lettres et des Arts de Seine-et-Oise, 55 1857. 
 
 What seems quite a coincidence in this connection is the fact that 
 Houdon’s career would appear to be too big a subject to be tackled 
 single-handed, as the first mentioned memoir was written in col- 
 laboration by Messrs. Montaiglon and Duplessis, the second by 
 Messrs. Delerot and Legrelle, and the present by the undersigned. 
 As the material used in this work was necessarily chiefly in French, 
 and a large part unpublished manuscripts, all the translations have 
 been made by Mr. Biddle, who has also prepared the chapters on 
 the “Statues of Morphee and of Diana/ 5 on “Voltaire 55 and on 
 “Moliere, Rousseau and Mirabeau, 55 while Mr. Hart is responsible 
 for those on “Franklin, 55 on the “Tomb of Montgomery, 55 on “John 
 Paul Jones, 55 on “La Loge des Neuf-Soeurs, 55 on “Washington 55 and 
 on “La Fayette. 55 The other chapters are composite; but that the 
 work should be absolutely homogeneous, Mr. Hart has revised Mr. 
 Biddle’s chapters, and Mr. Biddle has done the like service for 
 those by Mr. Hart. 
 
 The writers were both surprised and delighted at the richness of 
 the field when they ploughed deeply into the published and unpub- 
 lished material both at home and abroad; but their employment of 
 it would have been impossible were it not for the unusual courtesies 
 extended to them on all sides. To the Librarians of the Library of 
 Congress, of Harvard University, of the Boston Public Library, 
 of the State Library of Virginia, of the Metropolitan Museum, 
 
Proem 
 
 Xlll 
 
 New York, of the American Philosophical Society and of the His- 
 torical Society of Pennsylvania, especial acknowledgments are due 
 and are most gratefully given for facilities extended, without which 
 it would have been out of the question to make this volume as full 
 and as complete as we feel it is. Owing to the many errors we have 
 detected and corrected, some parts of the work may seem to the 
 superficial reader to savor of the controversial ; but, while we have 
 not hesitated at acute criticism where necessary, we have not aimed 
 at, nor do we desire, controversy. We feel assured that the reader 
 will agree with us that Houdon’s life was too rich to be left unwrit- 
 ten, and we are well pleased that it was left for us to accomplish. 
 
 Charles Henry Hart. 
 Edward Biddle. 
 
 Philadelphia, December, 1911. 
 
LIFE AND WORKS OF 
 JEAN ANTOINE HOUDON 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 1741-1769 
 
 BIRTH AND STUDENT DAYS IN ROME-STATUES OF SAINT BRUNO AND 
 OF JOHN THE BAPTIST— THE ECORCHE 
 
 -^EAN ANTOINE HOUDON was born at Versailles, 
 France, on the 20th of March, 1741. His parentage was 
 
 humble, for we learn that his father, Jacques Houdon, 
 was a servant in the house of M. Delamotte. His mother’s maiden 
 name was Anne Rabache; our sculptor being the third child born 
 of this union. 
 
 His earliest years were passed at Versailles, and, perhaps uncon- 
 sciously, in the midst of its gardens filled with works of art, his taste 
 and predilection for sculpture first took root. At any rate, at a very 
 early age he evinced a strong bent toward the art in which he was 
 to become so famous. When about five years of age, his family re- 
 moved to Paris; his father still being employed by the intendant 
 Delamotte. Here Jacques Houdon, the father, seems to have held 
 the post of “concierge,” and on the death of M. Delamotte, the 
 widow having rented the building to the King for the purposes of 
 an art school, Jacques Houdon remained as its janitor. 
 
 This school, or, to give it its full title, “L’ficole des Eleves Prote- 
 ges,” was established in 1748, when our little Jean Antoine was 
 
 3 
 
4 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 seven years old. It is so linked with his after development that we 
 give some account of its history. It appears that in 1747 Coypel, 
 “the first painter to the King” and then director of the “Academie 
 de Peinture et de Sculpture,” in Paris, complained of the poor work 
 sent in by the art students holding royal scholarships in Rome. He 
 attributed this to the lack of sufficient preparation for the sojourn 
 in Rome, and therefore he proposed to Tournehem, then director- 
 general of the royal buildings, to establish a special school in 
 which the holders of scholarships might be prepared by a course of 
 three years for their studies in Rome. Louis XV showed himself 
 favorably inclined toward this proposal; Coypel drew up the act; 
 and early in the following year the institution was established and 
 opened under the title, “ficole des fileves Proteges.” 
 
 The school, as already mentioned, was installed in the house of 
 the late intendant Delamotte, which abutted immediately on the 
 old Louvre, close to the present Place du Carrousel, where the 
 Gallery of the Academy of Painting was then to be found. From 
 this time on, our Jean Antoine lived continually in the environment 
 of artists. Later on, when somewhat older, to quote from Raoul 
 Rochette, 1 Houdon’s son-in-law, “He tiptoes into the class-room, 
 and is happy if he can snatch a few pieces of moist clay in order to 
 imitate the work of the students. The attention of the professors, 
 especially of Pigalle, was attracted to the zeal and talent which his 
 attempts showed, and he considered it worth while to give advice 
 
 1 Preface to Houdon Sale Catalogue of 1828. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon $ 
 
 and encouragement to the boy, hardly more than ten or twelve years 
 old at that time.” The whole atmosphere in which the lad lived 
 and moved and had his being was impregnated with art; if he en- 
 tered the court of the Louvre, the studios of Francin and Vasse, 
 Pigalle, LeMoyne, Falconet, Slodtz, Bouchardon, and some two or 
 three others, were temptingly at hand. With the friendly feelings 
 of a number of these artists toward our embryo sculptor, oppor- 
 tunities for intercourse with them must have been frequent. Prob- 
 ably induced by the professors, who had noticed the boy’s talent, he 
 entered the “Academie de Peinture et de Sculpture,” where he be- 
 gan to draw from the model, which is the basis of all artistic devel- 
 opment. His teachers were the professors of the Academy, who 
 changed monthly in giving instruction. 
 
 In order to stimulate the diligence of the students, they had to 
 work for their places. Every three months the best three students 
 received a prize. This was called the small prize, in distinction 
 from the “Grand Prix de Rome.” Houdon received the former 
 prize as early as the 25th of September, 1756, at the age of fifteen 
 years. 1 As the quarterly prize just mentioned consisted of a silver 
 medal, the winners were called “medalists.” They enjoyed the 
 right and honor of entering the studio preceding the other students 
 and immediately after the professors and the “Eleves proteges.” In 
 the new class they no longer limited themselves to copying, but 
 
 1 “Registres de l’Academie de Peinture et de Sculpture, 1756, 25 Septembre” (Archives 
 de l’ficole des Beaux Arts). See note, Dierks, Houdon’s Leben und Werke, p. 5. 
 
6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 began to work from nature and to make original compositions un- 
 der the instruction of the teacher. There is mention of Houdon’s 
 winning third prize for a study from life about this period, Du- 
 vivier, the medalist, having carried off first prize, and Le Brun, the 
 painter, second. 
 
 With such studies time passed. The next goal for Houdon’s 
 effort was in competition for the grand prize, “Prix de Rome” ; the 
 test for the talent of the up-growing artists. In 1761, when twenty 
 years of age, he considered himself strong enough to enter the lists 
 with his fellow-students. The competition was opened, as usual, 
 some days before the first Saturday in April. The subject given 
 out was “The Queen of Sheba offers Presents to King Solomon,” of 
 which a sketch in bas-relief was to be made. 1 On the 4th of April 
 the finished sketches were submitted to the assembled members of 
 the Academy, and after examining them, they considered the sculp- 
 tor students Pollet, Houdon, Boucher and Fourreau entitled to 
 compete for the grand prize. They now had to execute their 
 sketches in special and separate booths. On the 15th of August the 
 works were finished and on the feast of St. Louis they were exhibited 
 for public criticism in the halls of the Academy. On the 29th of 
 August, 1761, the final decision was given out, Houdon receiving 
 the first prize? 
 
 This event was decisive for the future of the young artist. Be- 
 
 1 Houdon preserved the bas-relief he made and with which he won the prize until the 
 time of his death. It appears in the Sale Catalogue of 1828. 
 
 2 Dierks, p. 5, quotes “Registres de TAcademie, 1761, 29 Aout.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 7 
 
 sides the gold medal received for winning in the competition, he 
 also gained the privilege of seven years’ study at the expense of the 
 King. To begin with, he entered the “Ecole des Eleves Proteges,” 
 which was established, as we have already seen, to prepare students 
 by a three years’ course for their studies in Rome. At this point it 
 seems proper to state that neither Montaiglon and Duplessis nor 
 Delerot and Legrelle appear to have known the fact of Houdon’s 
 having first entered this school in Paris before going to Rome; on 
 the contrary, they are quite vague as to the length of Houdon’s 
 sojourn in Rome, putting it at anywhere from seven to ten years. 
 Dr. Hermann Dierks, however, with characteristic German thor- 
 oughness, 1 unearthed from the Archives Nationales, 0 , 1094, P- 21 1, 
 the “Brevet d’eleve sculpteur de l’Academie de Rome pour le 
 S. Houdon, du 19 Aout, 1764.” This is signed by the Marquis de 
 Marigny, brother of Mme. de Pompadour, and is as follows: 
 
 “We, Marquis of Marigny — in consideration of the favorable 
 reports made to us of the good conduct of Sieur Jean Antoine Hou- 
 don born at Paris [sic!] aged 23 years, and of his happy faculties 
 in the art of sculpture which he has studied as well under M. 
 Slodtz, Sculptor to the King, as at the ficole des Eleves Proteges, 
 protected by his Majesty under M.Vanloo, Governor of said school, 
 in which the said S. Houdon carried off first prize on the 29th of 
 August, 1761, We have chosen and named him to take one of the 
 places of Student Sculptors at the Academy in Rome, under the 
 
 1 Houdon’s “Leben und Werke,” Dr. Hermann Dierks, Gotha, 1887, p. 11. 
 
8 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 conduct and discipline of M. Natoire— with the responsibility 
 by S. Houdon to apply himself with docility and assiduity to the 
 studies and works that the said M. Natoire may order him. . . . 
 In testimony of which— at Versailles— 
 
 “The Marquis of Marigny ” 
 
 This, it will be seen, establishes : 
 
 First, that after winning the Prix de Rome, Houdon did not pro- 
 ceed to Italy until three years later; actually on the i ith of Novem- 
 ber, 1764 ;* and that in the meantime he pursued his studies in 
 Paris. 
 
 Secondly, as we have the date of his return to France, “the end of 
 the year 1768,” that the time he spent in Rome covered just about 
 four years . On this point Dr. Dierks in a note states, “The 10th of 
 April, 1768, his name is still on the list of pensioners in Rome, but 
 on the 25th of January, 1769, it is there no more.” 
 
 Few details are obtainable of these years passed by Houdon in 
 Rome. We learn, however, from a letter 2 bearing date January 7th, 
 1767, that he worked with ardor. “If I do nothing of mark,” he 
 writes, “at least I shall have nothing to reproach myself with.” But 
 this modest summing up of Houdon’s merits, by himself, does not 
 begin to do justice to his budding reputation. Italy, herself deca- 
 dent at this period, confided to him the execution of a statue of 
 Saint Bruno, Founder of the Carthusian Order in the eleventh cen- 
 
 1 “L’Academie de France a Rome,” Gazette des Beaux Arts, Vol. VI, 1872, p. 16. 
 
 2 Quoted by Delerot and Legrelle, p. 63. 
 
MMUT^CQ) 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 9 
 
 tury, and intended for the Monastery of the Chartreuse. While not 
 going the length of Delerot and Legrelle, who consider this figure 
 even a greater work in some respects than the statue of Voltaire, 
 we confess to a very great admiration for Houdon’s conception. 
 The naturalness and simplicity of the figure are remarkable and 
 striking, especially considering the period of its execution, differ- 
 ing in this respect from the labored and studied art so prevalent at 
 that period. The statue is nine and a half feet in height, and is 
 placed in the pronaos of the Church of the Chartreuse in Rome, 
 also known as the Church of St. Mary of the Angels. The idea of a 
 “life dedicated to contemplation and religion” is admirably ex- 
 pressed in the features, attitude and expression of the holy cenobite, 
 and the articulation of the hands is wonderful. Pope Clement 
 XIV, on viewing it, is said to have exclaimed, “ ’T would speak, 
 did not the rules of its order enjoin silence.” Connecting this anec- 
 dote with the time that Ganganelli ascended the papal throne, in 
 May, 1769, would indicate that Saint Bruno was the work of Hou- 
 don’s last years in Rome. An eminent English critic, Mr. Claude 
 Phillips, has this to say of it: 1 
 
 “He [Houdon] found time to execute a colossal statue of the 
 founder of the Carthusian order of Saint Bruno, of which a cast is 
 seen in the Trocadero [Paris]. It is a work of surpassing dignity 
 and simplicity, considering the age in which it was conceived and 
 executed and the youth of the artist; indeed, in these respects it may 
 
 1 The London Art Journal of 1893, Vol. XLV, p. 78. 
 
IO 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 be said to stand almost alone in the eighteenth century, which pro- 
 duced so many skilful executants but so few sculptors of the highest 
 class.” 
 
 Houdon also executed, while at Rome, his “Ecorche,” or skinless 
 figure, an admirable anatomical study which Lalande, in his “Voy- 
 age in Italy,” mentions as having been made in 1767. Houdon pre- 
 sented it to the Academy on his return to Paris, at the date of his 
 “approbation” by that body. Afterward he modeled a second fig- 
 ure, with the right arm in a different position, the first having the 
 arm extended at the level of the shoulder, while in the later one the 
 arm is uplifted above the head. Houdon gave this also to the 
 Academy, in 1792, to serve the students as a model. It is the better 
 known of the two, and is the one which the government had cast 
 in bronze. A striking fact about this model is its continued celeb- 
 rity and the practical use made of it by students down to the present 
 day. After the lapse of one hundred and forty-five years, we find 
 it reproduced and cited in modern works on anatomy, still playing 
 its part in the field for which it was created. 
 
 A statue of Saint John the Baptist of this period at Rome has 
 given rise to a good deal of conjecture and doubt. The question has 
 been raised whether Houdon ever made such a figure. The proofs 
 that he did so seem to us overwhelming. Natoire, then the head of 
 the school in Rome, states in a letter that the statue was ordered for 
 the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, and there so late as 1887 Dr. 
 Dierks notes the statue standing directly opposite the Saint Bruno, 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon n 
 
 “not of marble, to be sure, but carried out in gypsum.” Dr. Dierks 
 thinks the style to be undoubtedly Houdon’s. This is supported by 
 the following note in “L’Academie de France a Rome”: 1 
 
 ii fevrier 1767 le Sr. Oudon sculpteur a fait dernierement avec 
 beaucoup de succes une etude d’anatomie, que tous les connoisseurs dans 
 ce genre trouvent fort bien. Elle luy doi servir a sa statue de saint Jean- 
 Baptiste pour l’eglise de Chartreux en la mettant ensuitte dans le carac- 
 tere qui convient a cette figure. 
 
 A gypsum head of Saint John is in the Museum at Gotha, having 
 been sent by Houdon, at a later period, to the court of the Duke, 
 and in a letter of Houdon’s dated the 3d year of the Republic oc- 
 curs the following: 
 
 “J’ay de plus fait a Rome pour l’Eglise des Chartreux un St. 
 Brunehaut [sic!] en marbre de 9 p y 2 , un St. Jean Baptiste.” 
 
 Adding all these data together, we think it impossible to do other- 
 wise than accredit Houdon with the statue of Saint John. There 
 seems to have been some straining after effect in the figure, which 
 the Saint Bruno is so free from, a reason probably for its not having 
 shared the fame of the latter. The head, on the other hand, is de- 
 scribed as fine, of classical outline and full of deep expression. 
 
 There is also record of a copy made by Houdon in marble of a 
 Centaur, as dating from this period, which appears to have been at 
 one time (1818) in the Luxembourg Museum. 
 
 With the completion of these various works, Houdon brought his 
 student days to an end. The apprentice had become a master. 
 
 1 Gazette des Beaux Arts, Vol. VI, 1872, p. 16. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 1769-1777 
 
 RETURN TO PARIS-RAPID RISE TO FAME-STATUES OF MORPHEE 
 AND DIANA-BUSTS OF DIDEROT, GLtlCK 
 AND SOPHIE ARNOULD 
 
 ACK once more in Paris after an absence of four years in 
 Rome, the first move Houdon made was to present him- 
 self for approbation to the Academy. 1 His Morpheus 
 has always been the figure cited as the one to win his reception into 
 the Academy through a life-size model in plaster, the only exem- 
 plar of which is now in the Museum at Gotha. Delerot and Le- 
 grelle and Montaiglon and Duplessis both give currency to the 
 suggestion that the figure had been executed in Rome; but a later 
 writer, Paul Vitry, in a contribution to the “Revue de l’Art” in 
 1907, makes out a strong case against this idea. According to his ac- 
 count, the rolls of the Academy under date of July 23, 1769, record 
 that Houdon “exhibited from his works,” that the Academy “recog- 
 nized his capacity,” and that “M. the Directeur will instruct him as 
 to what he is to execute for his reception.” Not until nearly eighteen 
 months later, on the 31st of December, 1770, does one read that 
 
 1 The Rules of the Academy required that one should first be approved, then become 
 an Academician, afterward Professor, then Rector. — Paul Vitry, “La Revue de l’Art,” 
 No. 1 19, p. 149. 
 
 12 
 
mcQmiPIHDEIE 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 13 
 
 Houdon “has presented a sketch of the piece ordered him for his 
 reception, which represents Morpheus.” M. Vitry deduces from 
 this, and we agree with him, that the Morpheus could hardly have 
 figured among the student works that the young sculptor had 
 brought with him from Rome and which he submitted to the 
 judges of the Academy in 1769. On the contrary, it would seem to 
 have been his first original work executed in Paris for submission 
 to the Academy on final judgment. 
 
 He doubtless submitted his “ficorche” first, for the records of 
 the Academy under date of September 30, 1769, register his offer 1 
 of a copy of this in plaster. Another piece might have been a 
 sketch or reduction of his Saint Bruno, and, beyond doubt, some 
 studies from the antique. When Houdon finally became Acade- 
 mician in the year 1777, he made for his morceau de reception a 
 reduced figure, half life size, of his Morphee in marble. This is 
 now at the Louvre. 
 
 Quatremere de Quincy, as Houdon’s successor at the Institute, in 
 a eulogy delivered at the Academy in 1829 on Houdon, stated that 
 “the little model which made him agree, and which later, rendered 
 in marble, inducted him into the Academy, was that figure of Mor- 
 pheus which he carried sometime later to life size.” Montaiglon 
 and Duplessis corrected this error in 1855, pointing out that at the 
 Salon of 1771 there figured a Morpheus of life size, and that the 
 figure was not enlarged but reduced later by Houdon in 1777 when 
 
 1 Paul Vitry, “La Revue de l’Art,” February io, 1907. 
 
14 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 he made the marble. The explanation of this, given by Delerot and 
 Legrelle, is that the rules of the Academy prescribe that all sculp- 
 ture intended for diploma work, morgeaux de reception, shall not 
 exceed three feet in dimensions, thus saving an expense for material 
 to the artist, and avoiding the dilemma to the Academy of having 
 to care for a constantly growing collection of life-size figures. 
 
 The “Secret Memoirs,” under date of September 22, 1777, pages 
 49, 50, 51, reviewing the Salon of 1777, write anent the marble 
 Morpheus, “The Morphee of M. Houdon characterizes the God 
 of Sleep so as to render him unmistakable. It is not an ordinary 
 relaxation; it is an entire suspension of all the senses; it is a heavy, 
 deep, and entire abandonment; it is a complete prostration, which 
 would mean illness— lethargy— in a mortal, and is merely the 
 natural state of this divinity. His wings alone seem to betray some 
 action, some movement, doubtless to express in the midst of his 
 torpor his complete ascendancy over nature.” 
 
 Opinions seem to differ as to which of the two is the more con- 
 vincing, the life-size plaster or the reduced marble. Montaiglon 
 and Duplessis, writing in 1855, were of the opinion that the life-size 
 figure, which they apparently had not seen, however, must have 
 been superior, and that in the reduction it probably lost much of its 
 strength and meaning. Paul Vitry, writing in the “Revue de PArt,” 
 so late as February, 1907, having access to both the life-size 
 plaster at Gotha and the smaller marble of the Louvre, takes an 
 opposite view, rather criticizing unfavorably the “academic round- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 15 
 
 ness” of the plaster model and extolling the finer lines and finish of 
 the marble. From reproductions alone and without a comparison 
 of the originals, it is difficult to express an opinion, and we do not 
 attempt it ourselves, only remarking that it is natural to suppose 
 that Houdon’s art had advanced, and that the marble, made seven 
 years later than the plaster, had the advantage of this greater ma- 
 turity. 
 
 At the Salon of 1771, at which the life-size model of Morpheus 
 was exhibited, Houdon showed also a medallion head of Alexan- 
 der the Great, intended to serve as a pendant to an antique head of 
 Minerva, and two heads of young men are also mentioned, prob- 
 ably studies. But what particularly marks Houdon’s exhibitions at 
 this Salon, foreshadowing, as they do, his future fame, are the por- 
 trait-busts ; inaugurating a career in this special branch of sculpture, 
 in which all agree he was to become unrivaled. Unfortunately, 
 two of the busts were of persons toward whom the public, owing to 
 certain happenings, were unfavorably disposed. These were M. 
 Bignon, the Mayor of Paris, and his wife. Bignon was a man of 
 good connections, but it so happened that at the celebration of the 
 marriage of the Dauphin and Marie Antoinette the year previous, 
 when Bignon was in office, a premature discharge of fire-works 
 and a consequent panic resulted in a dreadful loss of life, some one 
 hundred and thirty bodies being found trampled to death. A case 
 of a somewhat similar nature in the reign of Louis XI, where severe 
 punishment had been meted out to the Mayor, presented a prece- 
 
i6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 dent for much unjust indignation; besides which, Bignon had had 
 the temerity— or bad taste, perhaps— to show himself at the Opera 
 shortly after the event, so that the public were not disposed to view 
 a likeness of him with much favor. 1 Mme. Bignon, being plain of 
 feature, did not help to relieve the situation. 
 
 Houdon’s bust of Diderot, however, now at the Louvre, and 
 probably one of the very best of his portrait-busts, made a great 
 impression and marked the beginning of that series of masterpieces 
 in portraiture which Houdon was to bequeath to posterity. The 
 contrast between the incisive, nervous, and alert countenance of 
 Diderot and the recumbent dreaming figure of Morpheus was very 
 striking and attracted general notice and appreciative criticisms, as 
 showing Houdon’s versatile talent. Diderot himself points out the 
 difficulties Houdon successfully overcame: “I wear a mask that 
 deceives the artist; whether there are too many things blended to- 
 gether, whether the impressions I receive succeed each other too 
 rapidly and show themselves all in my countenance, the artist thus 
 never seeing me the same from one moment to another, his task be- 
 comes more difficult than he imagined.” 
 
 At this exhibition, the Salon of 1773, Houdon had a great num- 
 ber of works. Success had come, and he was eagerly besought from 
 every quarter, even outside of his own country. The reigning Duke 
 of Saxe-Gotha and Altenburg engaged him to make his own bust, 
 
 1 This marble bust is now in the Museum at Montpellier. Louis Gonze reproduces 
 it in his book on the Museums of France. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i 7 
 
 those of his father, wife and sister; the Empress of Russia, her own 
 bust; and the Galitzin family of Russia, two memorial tombs. His 
 opportunity for carrying out the first of these commissions was 
 afforded him by a stay of some months at the court of the 
 Duke. In a species of note-book kept by Jacques Houdon, the 
 father, there is mention of his son Jean Antoine’s absence at 
 Gotha from October 12 to December 20, 1771, and again from 
 April 24 to July 1, 1773. The authority for this is a pamphlet 
 by M. Gaudoin, who had access to the papers of Sabine Houdon, 
 and a letter quoted by Delerot and Legrelle. The Duchess 
 Charlotte, writing to Houdon in 1803, recalls the visit by saying, 
 “Be assured that it is always with great pleasure I recall the time 
 that I had the advantage of seeing you here with us.” Houdon, 
 not having visited Russia— indeed, he never went there— probably 
 owed the Russian orders to Diderot’s influence and the friendly 
 offices of J. C. de Mailly, the enameler, whose wife had sat to Hou- 
 don for her bust. De Mailly had gone to Russia, and it is perhaps 
 from one of the portraits of the great Catharine enameled by this 
 artist that Houdon modeled the bust, which he made larger than 
 life. The “Secret Memoirs” in “Letters on the Salon of 1773” have 
 this to say of it: “This beautiful head, larger than the usually ac- 
 cepted size, seems to announce that Nature made an effort in giving 
 birth to the immortal sovereign whom it represents.” 
 
 After this period, Houdon no longer consented to work at hap- 
 hazard without the presence of his model ; and when it wasproposed 
 
1 8 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 that he should make a statue of Washington, he refused to under- 
 take it unless it was agreed that he should see Washington and 
 model him from the life. At the Salon of 1775, we find a superb 
 collection of busts, including such names as Miromesnil, Keeper of 
 the Seals; the celebrated Turgot, 1 Minister of Finance; the head in 
 marble of the charming actress, Sophie Arnould, in the role of 
 Gluck’s “Iphigenia,” slightly flattered, it was thought, but full of 
 grace; and beside this artist who interpreted his roles, a model of 
 Gliick, the marble of which was exhibited at the following Salon. 
 Gluck was pock-marked, and Houdon, with his ideas of realism 
 and fidelity toward his models, reproduced these blemishes faith- 
 fully. He was a good deal criticized for doing so. But the bust 
 was afterward and is now counted as one of his most spirited and 
 life-like creations. The marble has disappeared, but an admirable 
 gypsum model is in the Berlin Museum. 
 
 One might suppose that the execution of all these matchless por- 
 traits would leave but little time or inclination for indulgence in 
 imaginative work, and yet our artist had several pieces of that char- 
 acter on view at the same Salon: the plaster model of a female 
 leaving the bath which was to be executed in marble; a head of 
 Medusa, a 1 ’ antique; and the head of a young girl in bronzed plas- 
 ter, remarked upon for its “expression of sweetness and simplicity.” 
 We shall find that Houdon became noted for this style of head, ex- 
 
 1 A fine plaster cast of this bust at the American Philosophical Society of Philadel- 
 phia, was presented by Dupont de Nemours on December 6, 1816. Proceedings of Am. 
 Phil. Soc., 1744-1838, p. 468. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 19 
 
 pressing youthful innocence and naivete, and the examples that we 
 reproduce of the two children of Alexandre Brongniart, the archi- 
 tect of the Hotel des Invalides, and of the sculptor’s own two chil- 
 dren, show why he should have become thus noted. 1 In connection 
 with one, particularly, a very amusing anecdote is told. We quote 
 from Bachaumont: 2 “The most curious head in this studio, through 
 the novelty and originality of the story, is the bust of ‘Mile. 
 Lise.’ It must be recalled that in 1774 the City of Paris, instead of 
 giving useless entertainments in honor of the marriage of the Comte 
 d’Artois, conceived the idea of giving young girls in marriage. Of 
 this number was Mile. Lise. When she presented herself for regis- 
 tration she was asked the name of her lover. She replied ‘that she 
 had none, that she thought the City was to furnish everything,’— 
 and the City, as it turned out, found her a husband. The face of 
 such an innocent needed doubtless to be preserved, and this is what 
 Houdon has done; in this physiognomy, whose agreeable features 
 are well adapted to express the average face, there is a character- 
 istic something introduced that it would be hard to detect in a hun- 
 dred thousand others.” But what drew forth the most general and 
 marked admiration was his “Dead Thrush.” The bird is repre- 
 sented hanging by one claw from a nail. Baron Grimm 3 tells an 
 
 1 A beautiful marble of Louise Brongniart is in a New York collection, and while 
 not signed by Houdon, the slight deviations from the original terra-cotta and the 
 exquisite delicacy of the cutting, leave no doubt but that it came from the master’s hand. 
 
 2 Bachaumont’s “Memoires Secrets,” April 19, 1778, Vol. XI, p. 198. 
 
 3 “Correspondance Litteraire,” Vol. XIV, p. 416. 
 
20 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 anecdote of a child of six being taken by his father to Houdon’s 
 studio, and, on looking at the bird, asking “where it had been 
 wounded?” The father tells him that the wound is probably con- 
 cealed. “But, papa, of what is the bird made?” “Of marble, my 
 boy.” “Ah, indeed,” answers the child, “are feathers made of 
 marble?” Houdon, from this story, would certainly seem to have 
 reached perfection in simulation. 
 
 It has often been related as an example of our artist’s fecundity 
 of talent that he exhibited on one occasion more separate works 
 than all the other exhibiting sculptors combined. This striking 
 fact is verified by the catalogue of the Salon of the year 1777. 
 There were on this occasion ten exhibitors and fifty-four works 
 shown. We are speaking now only of sculpture. Of these fifty- 
 four subjects not less than thirty were from Houdon’s hand. This 
 is therefore more than half the entire number. A single artist ex- 
 hibits more than nine others combined! 
 
 A group of four busts signed by him attracted general notice. 
 They were those of Monsieur the King’s brother, who later became 
 Louis XVIII, his wife, and the King’s two aunts, Mme. Adelaide 
 and Mme. Victoire. 1 A critic of the day, writing of these por- 
 trait-busts, exclaims, “One must needs be an artist himself to express 
 in detail the skill of Houdon’s chisel in imitating lace, in placing 
 
 1 Montaiglon and Duplessis speak, p. 176, of these ladies being the sisters of Louis 
 XVI. Dierks in his catalogue of Houdon’s works puts them as sisters of Louis XV. 
 Of course, as should be generally known, they were daughters of Louis XV and conse- 
 quently aunts of Louis XVI. 
 
HDUDUMCDT 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 21 
 
 the hair, in showing it unbound, in dressing it with elegance, and in 
 representing the different orders of the Prince; in short, in render- 
 ing all the accessories with no less truthfulness than that of the souls 
 of his models.” 1 
 
 In connection with the bust of Mine. Adelaide, there is a note in 
 Dierks 2 stating that “the bust of Mme. Adeleyde in the year 1785 
 was still unpaid for . . . that Houdon claimed payment for it and 
 got it with some difficulty.” He quotes from the French National 
 Archives to support this statement, and also gives an extract from 
 a letter dated January 22, 1785, addressed by Houdon to the 
 Abbe Ruallemy, private secretary of that Princess, running as fol- 
 lows: “You have led me to hope, so obligingly, that you will inter- 
 cede for me with Mme. Adeleyde relative to the bust of that Prin- 
 cess, for which the price has been owing me now nine years, that I 
 venture to communicate to you the necessity I am under to recover 
 the sum due me in consequence of a projected voyage. 3 If I am so 
 fortunate as to obtain through your intervention, by the end of this 
 month or the beginning of next, the four thousand livres, being the 
 price agreed upon for the bust, it will save my being obliged to have 
 recourse to the always troublesome expedient of a loan. This price 
 is demandable; the column and pedestal which support said bust 
 having necessitated extraordinary expenditure and the simplest bust 
 costing 1000 ecus.” 
 
 1 Delerot and Legrelle, p. 108. 
 
 2 Houdon’s “Leben und Werke,” Hermann Dierks, Gotha, 1887, p. 37. 
 
 3 This doubtless refers to his voyage to America, undertaken in the summer of that year. 
 
22 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Curiously enough, in our varied researches we have found on this 
 side of the water at Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, 
 among the Roberts Collection of MSS., a signed letter of Houdon’s 
 bearing on this very question, and showing conclusively that so late 
 as 1789 he was still a claimant for the sum due him from royalty. 
 Unfortunately, the superscription of this letter, showing to whom it 
 was addressed, has been torn off, so that on this point we are still in 
 the dark. The letter follows in full : 
 
 Sir: 
 
 I have the honor to make reply, that having gone to make the bust of 
 Mme. Victoire, agreeably to the order rec’d from that Princess, through 
 M. the Comte d’Altay, now some 9 or 10 years since, she persuaded 
 Mme. Adelaide to have hers made also; that in the same way at the 
 solicitation of these ladies Monsieur and Madame 1 determined to con- 
 fide to me the execution of their own, and that at the last sitting, having 
 thought it appropriate to ask the Prince and Princess whether it was 
 their desire to have the busts executed in marble, they said they so wished 
 it. These are the orders I received from their own lips, and I am re- 
 minded that having presented myself for admittance at Monsieur’s, I 
 was asked by what authority? To which I replied that the Prince had 
 bidden me call at that hour, and that immediately the door was opened 
 to me. 
 
 When after several years I addressed myself to each house for pay- 
 ment, Mme. Adelaide sent me word to apply to M. the Comte d’Anguil- 
 liers. 
 
 The letters and appeals on this subject addressed to M. Pierre and the 
 Director-General 2 mention the period at which these works were exe- 
 
 1 Afterward Louis XVIII, and wife. 
 
 2 Director-General of Buildings. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 23 
 
 cuted. Neither M. Pierre nor the Comte 1 has honored with their 
 replies my various statements, which I was not led to expect, after send- 
 ing the history of the matter to M. Pierre, at his own request, for presen- 
 tation to the Director-General. 
 
 I am, Sir, with gratitude, 
 
 Your very humble and obedient servant, 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 At Paris, this 29th January, 1789. 
 
 In the light of the information furnished by this letter, it is not 
 surprising that Houdon, in arranging terms for his voyage to 
 America, should have made the stipulation for his family that he 
 did, in case of his death. Here he was something like 15,000 francs 
 ($3000) out of pocket for the execution of these four busts. This 
 was poor reward for an artist of whose exhibit at the Salon the 
 “Secret Memoirs” under date of September 22, 1777, say, “ . . . his 
 other busts are all strikingly varied, and if I might go into details 
 it would be seen that one is left uncertain as to the style of head in 
 which he most excels. He represents in turn, majesty, nobility, the 
 graces, sprightliness, severity, ingenuity, spirits, genius— all is 
 differentiated according to sex, age, character, and the rank of the 
 personages. . . .” An admirable and truthful summing up of 
 Houdon’s genius. 
 
 There were not wanting ideal works as well. Mythology fur- 
 nished a brilliant escort to the royal family. Passing over studies 
 
 1 Comte d’Anguilliers. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 24 
 
 executed in terra-cotta and animals 1 in marble on which we have 
 no special information, we find a notable bust of Diana, to be re- 
 ferred to directly, also a medallion of Minerva and a Naiad and 
 Vestal, both of delicate conception. The “Diana, Huntress” bust, to 
 which we have just alluded, was detached from a statue which 
 Houdon was modeling, as some accounts state, for the gardens of 
 the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, while others attribute it to an order from 
 the Empress of Russia. This question has been much discussed of 
 late in French journals, but does not seem likely to meet with solu- 
 tion. In the Catalogue of the Salon of 1777, under the number 248, 
 is written : “This Diana is to be executed in marble, and placed in 
 the gardens of his Highness the Duke of Saxe-Gotha.” This ap- 
 parently never came to fruition, for the only exemplar in the Mu- 
 seum of Gotha is a figure in gypsum. What has come to light, 
 however, as a result of the discussion, is the undoubted fact that of 
 this celebrated Diana, “the most illustrious example of the nude 
 feminine in French statuary,” as Louis Gonze appreciates it, there 
 have been two distinct productions. Accustomed as we are to the 
 liberal ideas of Frenchmen where matters of art are concerned, it 
 certainly seemed surprising to find that the very beautiful statue of 
 Diana, as we know it from the bronze of the Louvre and the 
 casts that have been made from it, should have been forbidden ex- 
 hibition by the Commissioners of the Louvre at two Salons: those 
 
 1 Life-size greyhound in terra-cotta, in a private collection in Paris. Vide “Un 
 Levrier. Terre-cuite originale de Houdon. Par Georges Giacometti. Paris, 1904.” 
 
AID) Am IE ¥ICT(D)IJRE 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 25 
 
 of 1777 and 1781. Now that we have seen a reproduction of the 
 marble at St. Petersburg, published in “Les Arts” for January, 
 1907, it is easy to understand the scruples which might have influ- 
 enced even a very liberal-minded jury. As the writer in “Les Arts” 
 puts it, “The marble at St. Petersburg enters into naturalistic detail, 
 and is objectionable on this account.” It was of this same marble 
 that La Harpe in his “Compendium Litteraire” wrote: “It is too 
 lovely and too nude for a statue intended for public exhibition.” 
 
 The bronze of the Museum at Tours, cast in 1839, is said to be 
 from the same original model; in fact, it bears the signature of 
 Houdon and the date 1776, showing that these had been preserved 
 in the plaster. This is undoubtedly the model shown at Houdon’s 
 studio in 1777, failing the right of exhibition at the Salon of the 
 same year. The second exemplar, of bronze, made for Girardot de 
 Marigny, is dated 1782, and is similar to the one at the Louvre, 
 which is dated 1790. The Marigny bronze is noted in the Cata- 
 logue of the Salon of 1783 as being on exhibition at the house of the 
 Marquis. Leaving out the original plaster, there were then two 
 unexpurgated statues— one of marble and one of bronze— while in 
 the amended form two bronzes exist: the one at the Louvre, of 
 1790, and the Marigny statue, which atone time was at “Bagatelle,” 
 having been acquired by Lord Hertford in 1870. 1 Placed in the 
 gardens of “Bagatelle” by the latter, it was sold by Mr. Scott, who 
 
 1 See Montaiglon: “Nouvelles Archives de l’Art Frangais,” 1879, p. 271. Lady Dilke 
 states the price said to have been paid by Lord Hertford as 23,500 francs, and the date 
 May 20, 1870. 
 
1 6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 inherited the place, with its contents, at the same time that the 
 celebrated Wallace collection was transferred to England. It 
 could have been seen in Paris in 1902, at Duveen’s, who disposed of 
 it to Charles T. Yerkes, of New York, for $70,000; and at the sale 
 of the Yerkes collection in April, 1910, it was sold for $51,000, 
 when it was repurchased by Duveen and returned to Europe. In 
 the marble statue, Diana carries a quiver of arrows under the left 
 arm and her bow in the left hand ; but in the bronze of the Louvre, 
 as also the one at Tours and the plaster model at Gotha, a single 
 arrow is held in the right hand and the bow carried in the left, 
 while no quiver of arrows is introduced. We much prefer the last 
 composition; it is more in keeping with the nudity of a “Diana, 
 Huntress”; as if she had sprung to her feet in some sudden alarm, 
 and not, as the quiver thrown over the shoulder suggests, as having 
 formally prepared herself for a hunting excursion. The arrow in 
 the right hand seems to balance the figure, so lightly poised on one 
 foot, and gives an effect of lightness and grace, which the artist 
 doubtless intended to convey by the use of the arrow, an emblem 
 itself of the very quality he desired to express. The marble statue 
 at the Hermitage differs also in another detail : in order to support 
 the figure of Diana, made necessary by its execution in marble, 
 Houdon has introduced a thicket of reeds on which the goddess 
 lightly rests her weight, while she appears to be brushing the ob- 
 stacle from her path. “It was much feared that in executing the 
 plaster of this graceful conception in marble, Houdon might by the 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 27 
 
 difficulties of execution be obliged to curtail a portion of its light- 
 ness to insure its solidity. But he conceived a means of support 
 which in no way detracted from its primitive form.” 
 
 We agree, however, with the judgment of others “that the Diana 
 of the Louvre is much lighter standing in empty space than among 
 the reeds, which must retard her flight.” But the material itself ap- 
 parently lent much effect, being of “dazzling whiteness, which can 
 only be compared,” continue the “Secret Memoirs,” “to the ex- 
 ceeding purity of the Goddess herself.” 
 
 One of the most modern of critics on French art, W. C. Brownell, 
 in his “Classic and Contemporary Painting and Sculpture” (p. 
 1 53 ) , says of the Diana: 
 
 “Houdon is one of the finest examples of the union of vigor with 
 grace. He will be known chiefly as a portraitist, but such a mas- 
 terpiece as his Diana shows how admirable he was in the sphere 
 of purely imaginative theme and treatment. Classic, and even 
 conventionally classic, as it is, both in subject and in the way the 
 subject is handled, it is designed and modelled with as much per- 
 sonal freedom and feeling as if Houdon had been stimulated by the 
 ambition of novel accomplishment, instead of that of rendering 
 with truth and grace a time-honored and traditional sculptural 
 motive. Its treatment is beautifully educated and its effect refined, 
 chaste, and elevated in an extraordinary degree.” 
 
 Various theories have been advanced as to the reason of Hou- 
 don’s deviation from conventional rules in representing a nude 
 
28 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Diana. Delerot and Legrelle are quite positive that it was intended 
 as a reproof to Allegrain, whose Diana at the Bath had just ap- 
 peared 1 and had met with considerable success at the Salon; also 
 as a protest against the morbidity of style so prevalent at this period. 
 To quote them: 
 
 “But drapery would have rendered abortive any comparison. 
 What it was tacitly desired to point out in Allegrain, by its absence 
 in the new Diana, were those heavy forms bordering on what has 
 since come to be known as morbidity, and only attaining, after mis- 
 taken effort, a heaviness of outline without any mark of distinction. 
 . . . It was necessary to oppose a light and airy design, a thing un- 
 known since the Renaissance.” 
 
 This is ingenious and very well expressed and seems fairly prob- 
 able. An entirely different view, however, is taken by Paul Vitry, 
 writing in “Les Arts” for 1907: 
 
 “After all, it was probably audacity and fancy without much re- 
 flection that urged on the clever artist, little equipped as he was 
 with a knowledge of mythology, to this conception of a Diana, un- 
 clothed, as a huntress, and we certainly concede to him to-day with- 
 out vain argument the right to satisfy his desire for plastic and 
 animated beauty, even at the expense of literary truth.” 
 
 The charge here made against Houdon as lacking any know- 
 ledge of mythology hardly seems borne out, as witness some of his 
 earlier productions. The first piano by Sebastian firard, placed in 
 
 1 Salon of 1777. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 29 
 
 the Chateau Bellevue belonging to the aunts of Louis XVI, and 
 decorated by Boucher, Greuze and Vanloo, is said to have also 
 “had the pedals covered with a group from mythology executed 
 by Houdon.” 1 
 
 This statue added greatly to Houdon’s reputation. “No other 
 creation of Houdon’s received such unqualified praise from con- 
 temporaries as this one, and no other speaks to us so freely of the 
 spirit of the time. Poems were addressed to it.” 2 
 
 In the Grimm-Diderot Correspondance (1879), Vol. II, page 
 529, under date of September, 1777, we read: 
 
 “M. Houdon’s modesty has induced him to make every effort for 
 preventing the verses addressed to him from all sides appearing in 
 print. Here are some lines written by M. de Rulhiere on the spur 
 of the moment, after having admired his Diana: 
 
 “ ‘Oui, c’est Diane, et mon oeii enchante 
 Desire dans sa course atteindre la deesse, 
 
 Et mes regards devancent sa vitesse. 
 
 Aucun habillement ne voile sa beaute, 
 
 Mais son effroi lui rend sa chastete. 
 
 On aurait dans Ephese adore ton ouvrage, 
 
 Rival de Phidias, ingenieux Houdon, 
 
 A moins que les devots, en voyant ton image, 
 
 N’eussent craint le sort d’Acteon.’ ” 
 
 An oft-quoted letter of Louis de Boissy, praising the statue, ap- 
 
 1 “Autour de la Statue de Jean Houdon,” by Albert Terrade, Versailles, 1892, p. 15. 
 
 2 Dr. Hermann Dierks, Houdon’s “Leben und Werke,” p. 46. 
 
30 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 peared in the “Journal de Paris” of April 14, 1778, page 415, and 
 Houdon’s answer was published in the same journal on the 16th 
 of April. Boissy, in the course of his letter, had extolled the Diana 
 as “the sister of Apollo— that divine Apollo of the Vatican, the only 
 figure on earth giving us the idea of a God.” To which Houdon, 
 after thanking him for the flattering things said of him, very mod- 
 estly goes on to say, “As to my Diana: although it has been the 
 work entailing on me the greatest labor, I cannot agree with the 
 parallel you draw. As you know the Apollo of the Vatican, and 
 judging from signs you are an amateur of sculpture, you will agree 
 that my piece does not approach it. What I say is not through 
 modesty; but, with very slight reservation, I found that figure per- 
 fect, and you know that in the arts what is called perfect is simply 
 what approaches perfection. My Diana is not in this class; I feel 
 it, in spite of what the artists and my confreres have said in its 
 praise, and in spite of their praise having made me alive to certain 
 faults, which augurs well, for an author is usually indiscriminately 
 praised when a work is found bad throughout.” 
 
 We see that success had not turned Houdon’s head; modesty has 
 always been claimed as his distinct attribute, and thus far nothing 
 would seem to contradict so flattering a judgment. These seven or 
 eight years in Houdon’s career which we have endeavored to depict 
 have brought him almost to the summit of his art; the next three 
 will see this actually accomplished. So that within ten years of his 
 return to Paris and entrance there into the competitive field of art, 
 

 >. ■ 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 31 
 
 he triumphed over all difficulties and became the acknowledged 
 and unrivaled sculptor of his time. Not only that, he accomplished 
 more, for he comes down to us in history as being certainly the 
 greatest French sculptor of the eighteenth century, and perhaps of 
 all time. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 1778 
 
 VOLTAIRE— HIS BUSTS AND HIS STATUE IN THE COMEDIE-FRANQAISE— 
 THE BUST CROWNED AT THE SIXTH REPRESENTATION OF “IRENE” 
 SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN BY HOUDON 
 
 HEN, in the full maturity of his talent, Houdon modeled 
 the image of Voltaire, he was already the author of 
 numerous works celebrated at once on their appearance; 
 none, however, so much as this one. Even if not the most perfect 
 masterpiece of the sculptor, it will nevertheless remain his most 
 typical work. The immense popularity of the author of ‘Candide,’ 
 added to the notoriety gained through Houdon’s rare merit, hence- 
 forth indissolubly bound up the name of the artist with that of his 
 model. In consequence, long after, perhaps always, and in spite of 
 the fine Saint Bruno, the (female) Bather, the Ecorche, and the 
 Diana, Houdon will be designated almost exclusively as the author 
 of the statue of Voltaire .” 1 
 
 These words so aptly sum up the fame gained by Houdon 
 through this wonderful monument that we have quoted them at the 
 very opening of our chapter. 
 
 1 P. E. Mangeant, “Sur une Statuette de Voltaire,” 1896. 
 
 32 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 33 
 
 There is much to be told, however, before we come to the statue. 
 Voltaire, after an exile from Paris of about twenty-seven years, 
 having settled himself in Berlin so early as 1750, returned, when a 
 very old man (eighty-four), on the 10th of February, 1778. There 
 is an amusing account given of the arrival of Voltaire and his party. 
 “Our voyagers drew up in front of the city gates toward half-past 
 three in the afternoon on the 10th of February. ... At the barrier 
 the clerks asked if we carried anything against the order of the 
 King? ‘By my faith, gentlemen,’ replied Voltaire, ‘I believe there 
 is nothing contraband here but myself.’ m This was an allusion to 
 the attitude of French royalty toward himself, for, while no actual 
 decree had been entered against him, Louis XV in granting him 
 leave to enter the service of the King of Prussia had determined not 
 to allow him to return to Paris during his own lifetime. What the 
 grandson’s attitude might be was still problematical. Having got 
 to Paris, he established himself in the house of M. de Villette, who 
 had married a former member of his household, so well known in 
 the annals of Voltaire as “belle et bonne.” It was doubtless owing 
 to the exertions of the Marquis de Villevieille that Houdon almost 
 immediately obtained the favor of sittings. The Marquis has left 
 on record a most dramatic account of one of these— the last one— 
 at which he was present. 
 
 “With much trouble I induced M. Voltaire to lend himself to the 
 wish that Houdon had so often expressed to me to make a statue of 
 
 1 “Voltaire et la Societe du iS 1 ® 1116 Siecle,” Desnoiresterres, Vol. VIII, p. 192. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 34 
 
 him. At last his consent was torn from him, the day fixed, and the 
 periods for the sittings arranged. I was to accompany him when- 
 ever he visited the studio. I submitted without difficulty, as you 
 may suppose. The artist having frequently observed that the fea- 
 tures of his model only betrayed his impatience, that constraint and 
 fatigue clouded his brow, and that the fire of genius died from his 
 eyes, I planned to bring to the last sitting granted by M. de Voltaire 
 the wreath which the actor Brizard had placed on his head, before 
 the acclaiming throng, the day of his triumph at the Comedie- 
 Frangaise,— a wreath which I still possess. I notified M. Houdon 
 that at a given signal between us I should start forward to the plat- 
 form where M. de Voltaire was placed, and would lay the wreath 
 upon his head. Without doubt,’ I said to him, ‘this will light up 
 his countenance and you can then, seizing the passing flash, inject 
 the life, soul and truthfulness which should animate the face,’ and 
 which, in effect, speak to us from the masterpiece. I carried out 
 with much good fortune what I had planned; but I had hardly 
 placed the wreath on the venerable head when, with the grace that 
 never deserted him, he waved me from him. ‘What are you doing, 
 young man?’ spoke the illustrious one. ‘Place it on my tomb, 
 which opens before me.’ (He suffered already from severe pains.) 
 He rises immediately, and turning toward the artist: ‘Adieu, Phi- 
 dias’ ; then, seizing my arm, ‘My friend, let us go die.’ ‘Oh, my 
 master,’ I cried, ‘let me kiss the hand once more that wrote “Zaire.” ’ 
 Then his tears flowed and mixed with mine, his pains became in- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 35 
 
 tolerable, he returned to the house, and a few days later he was no 
 more.” 1 
 
 The first step toward this chef d’ oeuvre, produced by Houdon as 
 a result of these life sittings, was his bust at the Comedie-Frangaise, 
 known as the one “with wig” ( avec perruque). This he first exe- 
 cuted in plaster, and it was this bust which at the sixth representa- 
 tion of “Irene,” on the 30th of March, 1778, was brought upon the 
 stage to be crowned and garlanded by the actors in the presence of 
 Voltaire, who was in a box with his niece and Mme. de Villette. 
 At the Salon of the following year, 1779, Houdon exhibited the 
 marble which is now preserved in the foyer of the Comedie and 
 stands on a pedestal immediately beside the seated statue. Baron 
 Grimm writes: 
 
 “ ... Of all the thousand portraits made of M. de Voltaire in 
 the past sixty years, it is the only one with which he himself has been 
 perfectly content. . . . The eyes are full of life by an effect of light 
 so ingeniously managed that M. Greuze himself on seeing the bust 
 for the first time imagined that they were eyes of enamel or of some 
 other colored matter. We were witnesses with several others of an 
 error so flattering to the talent of his confrere.” 2 
 
 Houdon also finished a bust of Voltaire a I’antique, which he 
 exhibited at this same time and which was highly praised. It is 
 practically the same head represented in the seated statue, except- 
 
 1 “Account of the Inauguration of a Statue to Voltaire at Montpellier,” by P. E. 
 Martin-Choisi, Year IX. 
 
 2 Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, Vol. XII (1880), p. 104. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 3 6 
 
 ing that in the latter there is more hair apparent, and a cincture is 
 bound about his locks, giving a classic effect without in the least 
 detracting from the natural and life-like expression of the face. 
 
 Catharine of Russia again showed her appreciation of our artist’s 
 talent by immediately acquiring this bust for her own collection. 1 
 She continuously evinced her interest in his genius, for we shall find 
 later on that an obstacle in the way of Houdon’s visit to the United 
 States, in 1785, for the purpose of modeling the statue of Washing- 
 ton, lay in his engagements to Catharine. 
 
 It was at this Salon of 1779 that Houdon foreshadowed his later 
 masterpiece of the seated figure by exhibiting a statuette of Voltaire 
 in gilded bronze, also intended for the private collection of the 
 Russian Empress. The “Secret Memoirs” (Vol. XIII, page 245), 
 in its “Letters on the Salon of 1779,” have this to say of it: 
 
 “Here we truly have the old man of Ferney; he is enveloped in 
 the folds of his wrapper; he is seated in his elbow-chair, the hands 
 resting on its arms; 2 he has come in from his walk, he is fatigued 
 
 1 Louis Gonze states that from the Salon books and Sale Catalogue, Houdon must 
 have made at least six marble busts of Voltaire: first, the three admirable busts, cos- 
 tumed with wig, of the Comedie-Frangaise, Versailles, and the Ministry of the Interior, 
 the last escaping the sack of the Palais Royal; then the bust draped a l J antique, 
 executed for Catharine of Russia, the model of which is in the Museum at Gotha; a 
 bust on a variegated pedestal (Sale of 1795); and finally, at the Sale of 1828, a bust 
 in white marble, bare-headed, on a bracket of dark blue marble, perhaps the one in the 
 Angers Museum, he thinks. According to Gonze’s view, the one at Versailles is the 
 finest, and he thinks it probable that this is the one formerly belonging to the Academy. 
 “Chefs d’CEuvres des Musees de France.” 
 
 2 According to Louis Gonze (“Chef d’CEuvres des Musees de France”), in the 
 Museum of Angers is a cast from nature by Houdon of the thin long hands of Voltaire, 
 
¥(D)MAIME 
 
Jean Antoine Hondon 37 
 
 and ready to retire. This is the familiar scene the sculptor has 
 chosen; but in spite of the body’s lassitude, his virile spirit and the 
 sardonic laughter of his face mark the flow of ridicule running 
 through his final meditations. He is immensely amused over the 
 fools, the priests, the fanatics, whom he intends holding up again 
 to general ridicule. It must be confessed that in this little figure, of 
 less than a foot in height, there is more genius than in those ordered 
 by the court, the one of Corneille 1 excepted.” 
 
 This statuette for a long time could be seen at the Hermitage, in 
 St. Petersburg. There is a note in P. E. Mangeant’s monograph 
 already quoted, stating that “in 1851 the administration of the 
 Hermitage, knowing how little sympathy the Emperor Nicholas I 
 entertained for Voltaire, and having no appreciation of the artistic 
 merit of the statuette, disposed of it at the same time with some 
 other works of art which seemed to them to have little value. The 
 statuette was purchased at this period by the Count Andre Paolo- 
 vitch Shouwalow, marechal de la noblesse de Saint Petersburg, as 
 related by himself in 1876, for fifteen roubles, about fifty francs.” 
 At the crowning of the emperor Alexander in 1856, the Due de 
 Morny, being at St. Petersburg as envoy extraordinary and get- 
 ting a view of this beautiful statuette at Count Shouwalow’s, begged 
 
 and said by one who has seen them to have “the expression and the drawing of the 
 admirable hands that the artist made to his statue at the Comedie-Frangaise.” Upon the 
 cast is the inscription, “h. 31 May, 1778.” This was the day immediately following the 
 day of Voltaire’s death. 
 
 1 “Corneille seated,” by Caffieri. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 38 
 
 him to sell it to him for 50,000 francs, but the Count would not 
 consent We read in a record of Voltaire’s career that in 1757, 
 being encouraged to write a history of Russia, “Count Jean Shou- 
 walow furnished him with data.” So the later descendant seems to 
 have inherited his ancestor’s admiration for Voltaire. 
 
 While on the subject of the busts, it will be well to ask the atten- 
 tion of our readers to a controversy that has agitated writers during 
 the last thirty years, as to the identity of the bust figuring, at the 
 Theatre-Frangais, on the night of Voltaire’s appearing there at the 
 sixth representation of “Irene,” on the 30th of March, 1778. Un- 
 til the appearance of J. J. Guiffrey’s book, “Les Caffieris,” pub- 
 lished at Paris in 1877, it had always been accepted that the bust 
 brought forward upon the stage in honor of the author and crowned 
 and garlanded by the actors in his presence, was, as already stated, 
 the plaster bust modeled by Houdon from the sittings given him by 
 Voltaire immediately on his arrival in Paris from Ferney. 
 
 M. Guiffrey, however, asserted that, from evidence he had dis- 
 covered, the bust used on that occasion was one by Jean Jacques 
 Caffieri, a clever sculptor, but a most cantankerous character, whose 
 chief aim in life, after Houdon’s fame was assured and recognized, 
 seemed an effort— most vain indeed— to detract from his great repu- 
 tation. Guiffrey here fell into an astounding error; for, basing his 
 assertion on a letter of acceptance from the Comedie-Frangaise, ad- 
 dressed to Caffieri, he entirely overlooked the fact that this letter 
 was in answer to a note from Caffieri asking the Comedie’s accept- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 3 9 
 
 ance of a bust of Voltaire by Le Moyne . We cannot do better than 
 quote Caffieri’s letter, preserved among the archives of the Co- 
 medie-Frangaise and dated Paris, 16th February, 1778. 
 
 “Since the arrival of M. de Voltaire, I have heard it argued 
 among several people of distinction in your own foyer that 
 Messieurs the Comedians should have the portrait of M. de Vol- 
 taire placed there, and that such homage should be rendered his 
 great talents; it is with the same idea that I make you an offer, 
 gentlemen, of a bust in plaster made by M. Le Moyne. This por- 
 trait was made at the period when M. de Voltaire produced his 
 noblest works. Although the Comedie has made a rule not to ad- 
 mit the portraits of living authors, M. de Voltaire would seem to 
 be the exception. 
 
 “If the offer, gentlemen, that I have the honor to make you is 
 agreeable, I shall have the bust placed whenever it may please you, 
 I shall have no greater merit than to provide for you and for the 
 public the pleasure of seeing the portrait of a great man to whom 
 all Europe pays homage.” 1 
 
 This makes it very clear by whom this particular bust that Caf- 
 fieri was offering had been executed. We now give the letter of 
 the Comedie in answer to the above, the one upon which Guiffrey, 
 without looking up further proof, assumes, quite positively, that 
 the Comedie were accepting a bust by Caffieri. 
 
 1 “Archives of Comedie-Fran^aise.” Dossier de Caffieri. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 4 o 
 Sir: 
 
 The Comedie recognizes in the offer you make it both the sincerity 
 and love of genius that stamp your own works of great men; it thanks 
 you for the present you are willing to make it, and accepts it with a grati- 
 tude proportioned to its love and admiration for the immortal character 
 whom the bust represents. It is sensible, however, of the danger it 
 would run in placing any other but a Voltaire in the foyer during his 
 actual lifetime in company with a Corneille and a Racine. It will pro- 
 ceed to pass a resolution which shall attest the merited exception in the 
 case of M. de Voltaire, and the reasons which induce the Comedie to 
 break in his favor its rule of only admitting the dead. 
 
 The great age of M. de Voltaire is an excuse; the impatience to im- 
 mortalize him does not reflect on his long life; but thanks to it he gets 
 cash payment for what Moliere and Corneille hastened too much to ob- 
 tain by premature deaths. 
 
 Des Essarts. 
 
 16th March, 1778. 
 
 Upon this state of things Guiffrey constructed an hypothesis: 
 first, that Caffieri had made a bust of Voltaire and presented it to 
 the Comedie; second, that this bust was in the foyer when the per- 
 formance of “Irene” on the 30th of March took place; third, that 
 this was the bust carried upon the stage and crowned and garlanded 
 in the presence of Voltaire. 
 
 As to the first contention, we have shown by Caffieri’s own words 
 that he did not offer a bust of his own, but one by Le Moyne. As 
 to the second, it is not at all clear that this bust found its way im- 
 mediately to the foyer of the Comedie, for the latter’s answer to 
 Caffieri speaks of a resolution it “is about to pass,” looking to 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 41 
 
 the reception of the bust in the future. Third, we are able to show 
 positively that Houdon’s bust was the one brought upon the stage at 
 the sixth representation of “Irene.” 
 
 An examination of the catalogue of the works of art belonging 
 to the Comedie-Frangaise and their history, published in 1897, dis- 
 closed the fact that, while quoting M. Guiffrey’s book with ap- 
 proval, no reference was made to the very palpable error in it of 
 attributing the Le Moyne bust of Voltaire to Caffieri. We include 
 a letter which was addressed to the Comedie and the reply. 
 
 To M. Jules Claretie, 
 
 Director of the Theatre-Frangais. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 In reading recently your Introduction to the “Collections of the Co- 
 medie-Frangaise” by M. Monval, I find on page 5 : “Caffieri sends to 
 the Comedians the Voltaire of his master, J. B. Le Moyne.” 
 
 I am collaborating on a Life of Houdon in English, and sought for 
 information in the “Collections de la Comedie-Frangaise.” Allow me, 
 Sir, to ask the source of this citation. 
 
 Neither the “Memoires” of Houdon by Montaiglon and Duplessis, 
 nor those by Delerot and Legrelle, nor the exhaustive work by J. J. Guif- 
 frey, “Les Caffieris,” contain such a reference; the last named, on the 
 contrary, champions the theory that the bust of Voltaire crowned at the 
 sixth representation of “Irene” was a bust by Caffieri not by Le Moyne. 
 The letter from Caffieri which J. J. Guiffrey quotes in full on pages 3 5 5— 
 356 speaks of a bust of /. /. Rousseau by Le Moyne. 
 
 I am endeavoring to be exact and accurate, and I venture to hope, Sir, 
 that you will find time to send me a few lines on the question submitted. 
 
 I beg you to accept, Sir, the expression of my highest consideration 
 and good wishes from across the water. g Biddle 
 
42 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 1680-1906 
 
 Comedie-Fran^aise 
 
 Paris, 25 Xbre [1906]. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 In reply to the letter that you addressed to the Administrator, here is 
 the information you ask for. 
 
 The “Mercure de France” of April, 1778, Vol. I, p. 169, says on the 
 subject of Voltaire’s arrival in Paris: 
 
 “The Comedie-Frangaise, so rich in the fruits of his labors, has done 
 homage to him. His bust in marble, a work of M. le Moine’s and a gift 
 from M. Caffieri, both celebrated sculptors, has been placed in the foyer 
 of the Comedie.” 
 
 It is this bust which, on Monday, the 30th of March, 1778, at the sixth 
 representation of “Irene,” was carried on the stage and crowned and gar- 
 landed, after Mme. Vestris had recited the verses composed by the 
 Marquis of Saint-Marc. 
 
 The letter in which Caffieri offered this bust to the Comedians, on 16th 
 February, 1778, informs us that this bust was not in marble, but in 
 plaster: “I offer you,” he says, “gentlemen, a bust in plaster made by M. 
 Le Moyne; the portrait was made in the time when M. de Voltaire was 
 producing his greatest works.” 
 
 This bust has disappeared, and it is very probable that it was broken, 
 which would not have happened if it had been of marble, as stated in 
 the “Mercure.” 
 
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my distinguished consideration. 
 
 C. Ouis. 
 
 Mr. Edward Biddle. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the Guiffrey -Caffieri legend, we are left 
 to combat the very positive assertion over the hand of the Comedie, 
 that “it is this bust [Le Moyne’s] which, on Monday, the 30th of 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 4 3 
 
 March, 1778, at the sixth representation of ‘Irene,’ was carried on 
 the stage and crowned and garlanded” ; and this we are able to do 
 successfully. 
 
 The chief reliance of the opponents to Houdon’s bust is the 
 shortness of time elapsing between Voltaire’s arrival in Paris, on 
 the 10th of February, 1778, and the sixth representation of “Irene” 
 on the 30th of March. We reply to this that it is an uncontradicted 
 fact that Voltaire sat to Houdon very soon after reaching Paris. If 
 merely circumstantial evidence were needed, we think that the offer 
 of Le Moyne’s bust to the Comedie, on the 16th of February, by 
 Caffieri, is strong presumption that the latter had got wind of the 
 sittings and was, as usual, endeavoring to head off Houdon. Guif- 
 frey himself suggests such a reason in the case of Rousseau’s bust, 
 under precisely similar circumstances; but, to any one familiar 
 with Houdon’s untiring industry and skill as shown in the history 
 of his career, nothing is easier to suppose than that in a period of 
 time such as the one in question, something over six weeks, and 
 with sittings given him, Houdon could have completed his plaster 
 bust. This celerity of execution would be nothing in comparison 
 with his accomplishment at Mount Vernon, when he modeled the 
 bust of Washington and cast it within two weeks. 
 
 But we do not have to suppose anything about it; for, against the 
 multitude of suppositions raised by the opponents to this view, in 
 trying to show that it was a physical impossibility for Houdon to 
 have completed his bust in so short a time, we have the positive 
 
44 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 statements of the day that he did complete such a bust. The “Se- 
 cret Memoirs,” under date of April 19, 1778, say: “There has been 
 on view for some time in M. Houdon’s studio a bust of Moliere 
 executed for the foyer of the Comedie-Frangaise. It is very fine 
 . . . and the same artist has just executed a bust of Voltaire” 
 While three days earlier the “Correspondance Secrete” 1 for April 
 16, 1778, says: “All Paris is going to see, at M. Houdon’s, a bust of 
 Voltaire, which, without fear of contradiction, is more strikingly 
 like him than all other portraits ever made of this patriarch.” But 
 here is yet stronger proof. On the 4th of April the French Acad- 
 emy decide to have a portrait painted from Houdon’s bust as a 
 companion to the painting by Largilliere of Voltaire in his youth. 
 Desnoiresterres, 2 in speaking of this, prefaces it by saying, “The 
 bust of Voltaire, which is dated as of 1778, was finished during the 
 last days of March.” Guiffrey endeavors to combat the records of 
 the “Memoires Secrets” by saying that it was quite out of the ques- 
 tion to suppose that, even admitting the bust to have been finished 
 before the 30th of March, it could have been taken to the Comedie 
 and returned to Houdon’s studio afterward. We fail to see why; 
 but, granting it for the sake of argument, what was to prevent Hou- 
 don having a second cast on view at his studio? We see in this 
 reasoning of Guiffrey evidence that he is arguing from the stand- 
 point of a finished marble bust, and this is where he is again in 
 error. But when we get to the 4th of April, five days only after the 
 1 Vol. VI, p. 164. 
 
 2 “Iconographie Voltairienne,” p. 113. 
 
VCDILTAIM:® A 3L MTMQTU1 
 

 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 45 
 
 memorable sixth performance of “Irene,” and find the French 
 Academy ordering a portrait from the Houdon bust, the inference 
 is irresistible that such a bust had been in existence on the 30th of 
 March. 
 
 To go back for a moment to Guiffrey, in arguing for Caffieri’s 
 supposed bust, he says (page 276) : “This bust was certainly mod- 
 eled then between the 10th of February and the 15th of March. 
 This rapidity of execution has nothing in it to surprise one in a man 
 of Caffieri s skill” ; and on pages 285 and 286, in a comparison of the 
 two artists, “he [Caffieri] was neglected for a younger competitor 
 [Houdon], also more productive and, it must be said, more skil- 
 ful r 
 
 We find, therefore, Guiffrey arguing for Caffieri from premises 
 infinitely stronger when applied to Houdon. 
 
 The only existing record of Le Moyne’s bust is an engraving by 
 Augustin de St. Aubin. The bust was made in 1748, and it would 
 seem inconceivable that a likeness made thirty years before should 
 be the one selected for an occasion such as the sixth representation of 
 “Irene,” the author being present, and his bust by the most eminent 
 sculptor of the day, just finished and of wonderful truthfulness, 
 being, as far as we can see, available. As to the expression used by 
 Caffieri, in his letter offering Le Moyne’s bust, “this portrait was 
 made at the time when M. Voltaire was producing his noblest 
 works,” presenting any reason for the selection of that bust in 
 preference to Houdon’s, we can reply that “Irene,” the play at 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 46 
 
 which so much enthusiasm was evoked, was the play of Voltaire’s 
 old age. 1 
 
 The date at which the marble bust of Voltaire was placed in the 
 foyer of the Comedie, February 18, 1779, has also been advanced 
 by some of the later writers as a reason why the bust crowned and 
 garlanded could not have been the bust by Houdon. But we main- 
 tain that it is not a question of a finished marble bust, done later, 
 but of the one made first in plaster. 
 
 We have had access to another book upon the Musee of the Co- 
 medie-Frangaise, by M. fimile Dacier, published so recently as the 
 year 1905. Relating to the question we have just been discussing, 
 the writer says: “In 1777 . . . Caffieri sends a bust in marble of 
 Pierre Corneille, . . . in 1778 he gives a Voltaire, to-day miss- 
 ing,” and in a note to this adds, “a plaster cast of the Voltaire by 
 Caffieri ( and not by Le Moyne, as M . Monval has written) wasi 
 used at the crowning of the 30th of March, 1778, at the sixth 
 representation of ‘Irene.’ See Guiffrey, ‘Les Caffieris.’ ” 2 
 
 Here we have the old error reiterated, and we are astounded at 
 such heedless inaccuracy. As this book also contains a preface by 
 
 1 Begun in 1776; finished in 1777. Beuchot, “Life of Voltaire.” 
 
 2 M. Stanislas Lami, the author of a dictionary of French sculptors of the eigh- 
 teenth century, appearing at the present time, and widely heralded, under “Caffieri” 
 gives a list of the latter’s works; among them, “Voltaire: bust executed for the Comedie- 
 Franqaise between the 10th of February and the 15th of March, 1778. It is this bust 
 which figured in the ceremony of the crowning of Voltaire, following the sixth repre- 
 sentation of ‘Irene,’ on the 30th of March, 1778. It is not known what has become of 
 it.” He adds in a foot-note, “M. Jules Guiffrey has established this fact in a positive 
 way in his fine work on the Caffieris, p. 276 and following.” 
 

 
 
 
 
COURONNEMENT DE VOLTAIRE 
 
 SUR LE ThEATRE-FrAN£AIS, LE 30 MARS, 1778, APRES LA SlXIEME REPRESENTATION D’IrENE 
 Center of print engraved by C. E. Gaucher after drawing by J. M. Moreau. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 47 
 
 M. Jules Claretie, it would seem as if the Comedie had put the 
 stamp of its approval upon it. However, we can resolve all 
 doubts upon the subject and vindicate our position as against any 
 other bust having been used than that of Houdon, by producing the 
 engraving by Gaucher of the drawing of the scene, made by J. N. 
 Moreau, the younger . 1 Can any one for a moment mistake the bust 
 in the foreground? Besides, we have the contemporaneous evi- 
 dence of the “Memoires Secrets” that this picture is virtually a 
 photograph of the event just as it transpired. Bachaumont 2 says, 
 “M. Moreau, Jr., has composed a picture representing the crown- 
 ing of Voltaire at the Comedie-Frangaise (‘Couronnement de Vol- 
 taire sur le Theatre-Frangais, dessin au bistre’). It has been en- 
 graved by Charles Etienne Gaucher. The scene is represented just 
 as it was enacted in the theatre ” We think the merest tyro in art 
 will recognize the Houdon bust,— the drapery, the wig, the aged 
 look of the face, all combine to prove its identity. While, as we 
 have said, the episode, decided either way, would have weighed 
 little in the balance with Houdon’s great name and fame, we are 
 nevertheless much gratified at having been able to bury this mare’s- 
 nest effectually for all time. 
 
 M. Guiffrey, were he still living, would join with us, we think, 
 in admitting that once again, without any effort on the part of Hou- 
 
 1 Exposed at the Salon de la Correspondance in 1783. Vide Desnoiresterres, “Icono- 
 graphie Voltairienne,” p. 96. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets” for May 8, 1778, Vol. XI, p. 256. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 48 
 
 don, the attempt to supplant him— this time, however, not by Caf- 
 fieri himself but by his biographer— has proved abortive. 
 
 We now turn our attention to the statue, probably as celebrated a 
 piece of statuary as exists anywhere, and certainly more widely 
 known than any other work by Houdon. 
 
 “It would be impossible to recall all the honors paid this statue 
 since its first appearance. On the day when Voltaire’s ashes were 
 transferred to the Pantheon, July 11, 1791, Houdon’s likeness of 
 him played a prominent part in the ceremony, and it is perfectly 
 true to say that the day consecrated to the fame of Voltaire was also 
 consecrated to the genius of Houdon. A copy of the statue in 
 gilded card-board 1 was carried in triumphal procession all over 
 Paris. It was crowned with flowers and covered with laurel. The 
 statue was reproduced on every hand, even being embroidered on 
 the ribbons worn by young girls in the procession. The sight of 
 such a faithful likeness of the philosopher, due to Houdon, was 
 certainly not without its influence in arousing the deep enthusiasm 
 manifested throughout the day.” 2 
 
 Voltaire had for a long period of time obstinately refused to sit 
 for any statue intended for public exhibition. The first sculptor 
 who succeeded in winning over the distinguished recluse to pose 
 for him in his asylum at Ferney was a very obscure and mediocre 
 
 1 Catalogued at Houdon’s sale of 1828, but since lost sight of. “Sur une Statuette de 
 Voltaire,” P. E. Mangeant, 1896. 
 
 2 Note in Delerot and Legrelle, pp. 162 and 163. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 49 
 
 artist. He came from Franche-Comte, and called himself Rosset- 
 Dupont. 1 It seems that it was the good humor of this provincial 
 sculptor that influenced Voltaire to break his avowed purpose. 
 He appeared pleased, too, with his bust, it being full of life, accord- 
 ing to contemporary evidence. The memory of it is all that has 
 been handed down. The meed of praise for this unknown work 
 would seem to be justified solely by the fact that Voltaire’s preju- 
 dice had been overcome through it, and that it had opened the way 
 for future yieldings of the same sort. 
 
 It came about in 1770 that Mme. Necker conceived the idea of 
 starting a subscription for a statue to Voltaire. It was broached at 
 a dinner-party given by the Neckers, and seventeen subscribers 
 were at once secured; the names of Diderot, Baron Grimm, Mar- 
 montel, d’Alembert, Helvetius and the Abbe Reynal being on the 
 list. It was to be an expression of admiration on the part of literary 
 Europe. Voltaire himself, it is known, helped the project as much 
 as possible while apparently refusing. “I have n’t the sort of face 
 for a statue,” he would say. “They want to model my face, but for 
 this I should possess a face ; they will hardly be able to divine its 
 position. My eyes are sunken to a depth of three inches, my cheeks 
 are like so much old parchment badly glued on some old bones 
 supported by nothing! The few teeth I ever had are gone,” etc., 
 etc. Enthusiasm, however, in spite of these objections, which were 
 
 1 Desnoiresterres, in his “Iconographie Voltairienne,” pp. 86 and 87, gives a somewhat 
 different description of the man. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 5 ° 
 
 readily combated, became general and found expression through 
 numerous subscriptions. 1 As to the choice of an artist for trans- 
 mitting to posterity the features of the Patriarch of Ferney, there 
 was no hesitation. Jean Baptiste Pigalle, in 1770, ranked as the first 
 sculptor of the day. Public approval pointed to him with universal 
 voice. Pigalle very naturally felt much pride in being chosen. “If 
 I succeed, I shall deem myself the most fortunate of artists,” were 
 his words. The price to be paid Pigalle was left entirely with him- 
 self to fix. He wished to show his appreciation of such generous 
 treatment by the modesty of his pretensions; he estimated his fees 
 at 10,000 francs, not including his traveling expenses and the cost 
 of the marble. So, in the first days of June, armed with a letter 
 from d’Alembert, he left for Ferney. 
 
 Voltaire received him very well and praised his talent. He com- 
 plained, however, that he was being slandered by him. “M. Pi- 
 galle,” was his expression, “goes about saying that I am as fat as a 
 monk. The fact is, I forced myself to be gay in his presence, and 
 puffed out my cheeks in order to please him.” Pigalle, on leaving 
 Ferney, carried with him the model of the head, which had cost 
 him infinite labor. Voltaire was a most restless sitter at this time, 
 constantly changing his position, and most of the time engaged in 
 dictating to his private secretary. Pigalle was in despair, until one 
 day the conversation happened to turn on Aaron’s “golden calf,” 
 
 1 The total subscription reached 18,775 francs. Statement of May 10, 1776. Note in 
 Desnoiresterres, “Iconographie Voltairienne.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 51 
 
 and the length of time such a statue would take in the making. On 
 Pigalle’s rejoinder that he would want six months, at least, for such 
 a labor, the answer, as contradicting the accepted version, gave so 
 much pleasure to Voltaire that he became quite pliant and docile, 
 permitting Pigalle finally to complete a satisfactory model. The 
 story goes that the latter, fearing some unforeseen interference with 
 what he had accomplished, left surreptitiously in the night-time, 
 without tarrying any longer. It now became a question of how the 
 figure should be posed, and as to the dress. Pigalle had no hesita- 
 tion in deciding to represent Voltaire nude and seated. To quote 
 Desnoiresterres: “If Pigalle had any hesitation, it was as to the 
 choice of material : marble or bronze. As for the rest, he had the 
 faith of an apostle.” 
 
 Some thought that Diderot’s influence had determined Pigalle; 
 Baron Grimm, however, contended that the sculptor was ignorant 
 in the art of simulating drapery, and that he represented Voltaire 
 nude for fear of doing the other badly. 
 
 In the early part of September, 1770, the public was admitted to 
 view in Pigalle’s studio a sketch of the entire figure of Voltaire, 
 holding a roll of parchment in one hand and a pen, or rather a 
 stylus, in the other. The silence of the least exacting visitors, and 
 the disapprobation expressed by other amateurs more critical, 
 warned Pigalle that he was on the wrong tack. He did not change 
 his mind, however, and sought merely to do better with his living 
 skeleton by trying another attitude, which in no way carried with it 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 5 2 
 
 any change in his original plan. The statue, which had failed of 
 any modification, was executed after this last model. Mme. 
 Necker, alarmed, had written Voltaire, begging him to prevent 
 Pigalle from carrying out his first idea; but Voltaire was of the 
 opinion that “M. Pigalle must be left the absolute master of the 
 statue.’’ “It is a crime,” Voltaire goes on to say, “in the fine arts to 
 put obstacles in the way of genius. It is not without meaning that 
 the latter is represented with wings; for it must take its flight as it 
 wills and where it wills. ... I have never succeeded in the arts 
 that I have cultivated myself unless when listening to my own 
 voice.” 
 
 However, it was not without intention that he addressed the fol- 
 lowing well-known verses to Pigalle : 
 
 Cher Phidias, votre statue 
 Me fait mille fois trop d’honneur. 
 
 Mais, quand votre main s’evertue 
 A sculpter votre serviteur, 
 
 Vous agacez l’esprit railleur 
 De certain peuple rimailleur, 
 
 Qui depuis si longtemps me hue— 
 
 Que ferez-vous d’un pauvre auteur 
 Dont la taille et le cou de grue, 
 
 Et la mine tres peu joufflue 
 Feront rire les connaisseurs? 
 
 Sculptez-nous quelque beaute nue. . . . 
 
 In spite of all these hints, both in verse and prose, Pigalle stuck 
 doggedly to his purpose ; he had an old soldier brought to his studio 
 from whom he modeled with a frightful accuracy of detail, and 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 53 
 
 the statue, finished by these means, was exhibited two years later, 
 toward the beginning of August, 1772. At once epigrams began 
 to be showered upon the philosopher as well as the sculptor. 
 The King of Sweden, then in Paris, announced that he would gladly 
 subscribe “for a cloak” ! Another suggested “that while it was well 
 to have a statue of Voltaire, it was not necessary that posterity 
 should be able to count his ribs”! The poets were most prolific, 
 and many verses were penned. Stress has been laid purposely on 
 this unfortunate statue by Pigalle 1 in order to give its history, and 
 to show how through its failure the task finally fell to Houdon, 
 giving him the opportunity to produce his immortal work. 
 
 The last months of Voltaire’s life are recorded in history; the 
 admiration, the enthusiasm, with which he was surrounded, and the 
 whole of his incessant and prodigious triumph; as great, probably, 
 as any man has ever enjoyed. Houdon connected himself with all 
 this resounding praise by preserving for contemporaries and to 
 future generations the last likeness of this great man, and one in- 
 deed worthy of him. Before the death of Voltaire, M. d’Angevil- 
 liers had already succeeded in having it granted that among the 
 statues to be executed by the Academy of Sculpture, after those last 
 ordered, should be included a statue of Voltaire. But, Voltaire 
 dead, what had been yielded M. d’Angevilliers out of personal re- 
 
 1 Its fate is known. This monument, raised at the expense of literary Europe, was 
 first buried in the Museum of President d’Hormoi. Later it was placed in the library 
 of the Institute, or rather at the entrance to the library of the Institute, where it is still 
 to be found — M. de Quincy saying that its most appropriate resting-place would be in 
 a “school of anatomy.” The head is not wanting in merit. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 54 
 
 gard and to give the aged poet a pleasant anticipation of post- 
 humous fame, was not carried out. The Clerical Party, which 
 opposed as much as possible all honors paid the memory of Vol- 
 taire, would have risen in a body against this official homage; and 
 it was not considered sufficiently important to provoke a profitless 
 quarrel by pursuing it. Consequently there was no further ques- 
 tion of an official statue, and it was Houdon’s statuette, so favorably 
 commented on in the Salon of 1779, that led to his being commis- 
 sioned for the statue. 
 
 On the advice of d’Alembert, Mme. Denis, the niece and sole 
 legatee of the great man, desired Houdon to execute the figure in 
 marble, and of life size, as a gift to the French Academy. But be- 
 fore the statue was finished, a foolish marriage at sixty-eight 
 years of age, after thirty-six years of widowhood, to a man younger 
 than herself, 1 caused the men of letters and philosophers to absent 
 themselves from Mme. Denis’s salon. In order to revenge this 
 slight, aggravated by certain sarcasms pronounced against her, the 
 niece of Voltaire conceived the idea of offering the statue, not to 
 the Academy, but to the Comedie, and through the medium of 
 Gerbier, 2 the celebrated advocate and one of the Company’s coun- 
 selors, arranged to have them ask for it. 
 
 A letter was addressed by the Comedians to Mme. Duvivier un- 
 der date of September 26, 1780, in which the signers, all mem- 
 
 1 Duvivier. There is a most amusing account of this individual in the “Souvenirs” of 
 Mme. Vigee-Lebrun, chapter v, translated edition, 1879. 
 
 2 Houdon did a bust of him. 
 

Jean Antoine Houdon 55 
 
 bers of the Comedie, represented the appropriateness of having 
 Voltaire’s statue on the scene of his many triumphs, and citing the 
 affection that had always existed between himself and the members 
 of the Company. 
 
 Mme. Duvivier wrote the same day, acknowledging her joy 
 at the flattering expressions contained in the letter, and the great 
 satisfaction and pleasure it gave her to accede to their request, and 
 in the possession of the Comedie the statue remains to this day. No 
 happier spot could have been chosen for it than the Theatre-Fran- 
 gais, where nightly throngs for generations past have been able to 
 view and admire it. 
 
 Of the impression it makes upon beholders something may be 
 gathered from those who have recorded their impressions: “It fig- 
 ures the mortality of the body and the immortality of the soul; it 
 is deformity transfigured by genius.” Yet another: “It displays 
 the union of intellectual power with physical weakness.” Again : 
 “In its presence no other form suggests itself, and one does not see 
 how it could be different.” In more descriptive vein: “In this 
 marble he lives for us as well as for his contemporaries; leaning 
 forward slightly, he appears to be listening to our words; he looks 
 at us; he sees us; he ponders and he smiles.” And finally, to quote 
 from Claude Phillips: “The lover of dramatic art at its fountain- 
 head, so often as he finds himself within this temple of Tragedy 
 and Comedy, is irresistibly impelled to bend his steps toward the 
 foyer, there to commune with this keenly interrogative marble of 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 56 
 
 Voltaire, with the glance of ice and of flame. And each time— so 
 magical is the art of Houdon— is conviction strengthened that more 
 absolutely than even the man himself or his works does the marble 
 effigy express the tone of the theatre which it adorns, the keenness, 
 vivacity and polish of the work that it has done, its intellectual 
 atmosphere and that of the France of the eighteenth century, of 
 which Voltaire was, if not the most attractive or human, the central 
 and dominant figure.” 1 
 
 Finished in 1781, the statue was placed in the new theatre 
 in the Faubourg St.-Germain, when completed and opened the 
 next year. In 1794, during the imprisonment of the Comedians 
 and the closing of the theatre in the Reign of Terror, an inventory 
 was taken in which, among other objects, the statue was entered as 
 “belonging to the nation.” In virtue of this spurious authority, in 
 the year 1796, workmen, despatched by the ministry, presented 
 themselves for the purpose of carrying off the Voltaire from the 
 vestibule and of putting it in the National Institute recently organ- 
 ized. Saint-Prix, the tragedian, made answer that this statue was 
 not national property but belonged to the creditors of the Society, 
 then bankrupt. Upon this, the Minister of the Interior authorized 
 his agent to open negotiations to ascertain in whom the owner- 
 ship really lay, and, further, to acquire it for the government; but 
 the Comedians gave answer that they could not, and would not, 
 sell it. 
 
 1 “Art Journal,” 1906, p. 225. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 57 
 
 The Minister persisting in the belief that they were merely the 
 depositaries of it, the citizen Duvivier was obliged formally to 
 certify that the statue was a gift without restrictions or reservations 
 from his deceased wife to the Society of Artists of the Theatre- 
 Frangais, and was intended to remain “in their midst.” 
 
 This important testimony was addressed in the form of a me- 
 morial to the Minister, and won the cause; but, the question of 
 ownership once determined, the Comedians immediately offered to 
 cede the statue to the Museum of the Louvre, conditioned on the 
 payment of sums due retired artists who had contributed to the suc- 
 cess of Voltaire’s plays: Cloison, Dumesnil, Preville, etc., whom 
 the Revolution had deprived of their pensions. This offer fortu- 
 nately remained unanswered, as the “seated Voltaire” was found in 
 its vestibule when the theatre was reopened under the name of the 
 “Odeon,” in 1797 j 1 and here it was when the great fire occurred in 
 1799. The statue as well as the busts was saved by the grenadiers 
 of the Legislative Assembly, aided by a young painter, Germain 
 Bevalet. 
 
 A new Theatre-Frangais arose as it were from the ashes of the 
 Odeon. On the 31st of May, 1799, the Comedie-Frangaise, re- 
 constituted, opened its doors in the Rue de Richelieu; but it was 
 not until 1806, on the 1st of September, that the statue was brought 
 
 1 Not to be confused with the present Odeon, Place de l’Odeon, near the Palais du 
 Luxembourg, and where the statue has never been. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 5 * 
 
 back across the river and again placed here in the peristyle, 
 where it remained in rear of the ticket-office until 1864. At 
 this period the construction of a new foyer for the public allowed 
 of its being transferred to the large room reserved for busts ; so that, 
 after being in the antechamber for eighty-two years, Houdon’s 
 masterpiece was placed here on the 16th of March, 1864. 
 
 During the siege of Paris, M. fidouard Thierry, Director of the 
 Theatre-Frangais, as a precautionary measure, in September, 1870, 
 had the statue incased in thin boards and enveloped in canvas. 
 Strange to relate, government officials seemed to suspect this very 
 natural precaution as an attempt to conceal the image of Voltaire, 
 and so a formal notice was served to “remove the coverings that 
 conceal the statue of Voltaire.” The following day M. Thierry 
 called at the Hotel de Ville, where M. Arago told him, “I am 
 about having a resolution adopted, by which, considering that Hou- 
 don’s Voltaire is the masterpiece of French sculpture, it will be 
 displaced and lodged in a safe place.” 
 
 Thierry asks him to have it clearly expressed in the resolution 
 that the statue is the property of the Theatre-Frangais, and that it 
 should be nowhere received excepting as a deposit. 
 
 The “Siecle” having politely invited the Director to quit the 
 Theatre-Frangais if Voltaire and his statue disturbed him in any 
 way, M. Thierry wrote as follows, the letter appearing in the news- 
 paper the next day: 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 59 
 
 Sir Director: 
 
 The Theatre-Frangais has had the statue of Voltaire encased in wood 
 and enveloped in canvas, as it also has that of Mile. Rachel, for the sole 
 purpose of protecting them both against accidents likely to occur in a 
 hospital . 1 I thought that this precautionary measure toward one of the 
 wonders of French sculpture which is both our pride and the treasure of 
 the Society, would require no explanation. 
 
 But, as I appear mistaken, allow me to reassure your readers of the 
 respect entertained by the Comedie for both Voltaire and the images of 
 him. There are five still remaining on view: in the tiring-room of the 
 artists, in the library, in the public foyer (being now the large hospital), 
 where the bust of the author of “Merope” is always uncovered, and 
 where we have veiled none of the literary lights of the eighteenth cen- 
 
 tUI7 ' Believe me > Sir ’ etc - fio. Thierry. 
 
 On the 7th of October, an individual from the Museum came to 
 the Theatre with these words scribbled in pencil on the half of an 
 envelope: “I beg of M. E. Thierry to be good enough to hand over 
 the statue of Voltaire to the bearer, who will take it to the Louvre. 
 Order of the Minister of Public Instruction.” Signed, “F. Ra- 
 vaisson, Custodian of Antiquities.” 
 
 The messenger viewed the statue, says M. Thierry, and came to 
 the conclusion that it would be a considerable labor, as in the first 
 place the grand staircase would have to be staged, and, he adds, 
 “profited by the occasion to write M. Ravaisson that the Theatre- 
 Frangais would view with regret the disappearance of the statue, 
 
 1 The building was used as a hospital during the siege of Paris, 1870-71. 
 
6 o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 even for a little while.” “On the 14th of January, 1871, the men 
 from the Museum removed the statue of Voltaire from its pedestal, 
 which is already in the corridor of the first gallery.” At this point 
 M. de Monval adds, as if recorded by M. Thierry, “and there is no 
 further question in the matter until the end of the two sieges.” 
 
 An examination of the published journal 1 fails to disclose these 
 words, and their effect is misleading, for the writers naturally sup- 
 posed that it meant the statue had been removed to the Louvre, that 
 having been the “question” as to its disposal. This is shown in a 
 note made by M. Thierry under the date of Monday, January 9, 
 1871: “Ch. Blanc came. We viewed the statue of Voltaire and 
 looked about together for a place where we might place it, to be 
 protected from a bombardment or secure against being carried off. 
 Ch. Blanc will speak about it to M. Villot, so that it shall be moved 
 to the cellars of the Louvre.” The next day, Friday, June 10th, 
 there is a note: “Went to M. Tissot’s. He does not see that the 
 statue of Voltaire will be any more secure in the Louvre than at the 
 Theatre. He urges us to keep it by us.” Then follows the note of 
 the 14th, given above, stating that the men from the Museum had 
 removed the statue from its pedestal. It would appear that at this 
 point any attempt at removal ended, and a further reading of the 
 Journal explains the cause; for, under date of Sunday, the 15th, we 
 find, “This night, by intervals, terrific explosions of shells; this 
 morning, incessant cannonade from the southwest.” Under the 
 
 1 “La Comedie-Frangaise pendant les deux Sieges,” 1870-71. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 61 
 
 16th, “Bombardment all night,— the detonations succeeded each 
 other rapidly and incessantly, — last night about io o’clock a bomb 
 fell in the Jardin des Plantes.” The bombardment had begun, and 
 any projects formed for removal had immediately to be abandoned, 
 and so the statue remained at the Theatre during the fiery ordeal; 
 and when a breathing-space comes we find under date of March 
 nth, “The statue of Voltaire is replaced on its pedestal; told Da- 
 vesnes, to whom the chief workman addressed himself, to give him 
 30 francs, the same as paid him previously.” This refers evidently 
 to the same man having been employed at the time of the statue’s 
 removal from the pedestal in January. Finally, on the 27th of 
 May, 1871, when the Commune was almost suppressed but the 
 streets of Paris were still disturbed and dangerous, M. Thierry 
 makes his way to the Theatre and recounts: “Embraced L. Guil- 
 lard. He showed me how he had protected the statue of Voltaire 
 and a certain number of fine busts in the foyer.” 
 
 No, the statue of Voltaire was not removed during the two sieges, 
 1870, 1871. As recently as 1900, after a fire at the Comedie, the 
 statue was temporarily sheltered at the Louvre during the rebuild- 
 ing of the Theatre. It has long since been returned to the Comedie, 
 and there in its appropriate resting-place, surrounded continually 
 by a bank of flowers, we may bid this wonderful image, “the finest 
 iconic work which the eighteenth century has produced,” 1 Re - 
 quiescat in pace. 
 
 1 Claude Phillips in “London Art Journal,” 1893, P- 78. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 1777 
 
 TOMB OF MONTGOMERY BY CAFFIERI ; OUR FIRST 
 NATIONAL MONUMENT 
 
 RELAND gave birth to more of the American revolu- 
 tionary patriots than is commonly known, and the second 
 general officer to fall in the War of the Revolution was 
 of Irish birth. At Swords, near Feltrim, county Dublin, Ireland, 
 on the 2d of December, 1736, was born Richard Montgomery, 
 whose father was a member of the Irish Parliament. 1 Commis- 
 sioned an ensign before he was twenty, he accompanied his regi- 
 ment to Halifax, N. S., and saw much severe service at Louisbourg, 
 Champlain, Montreal and in the West Indies, promotion for which 
 being denied him, he sold his commission and settled on a farm at 
 King’s Bridge, now a part of New York City, where, soon after, 
 he took his bride, Janet, daughter of Judge Robert R. Livingston, 
 to whom he was married on July 24, 1773. Later they removed to 
 her home near Rhinebeck, on the Hudson, and in May of 1775 he 
 was sent as a delegate to the first Provincial Congress of New York. 
 The following month he was appointed, by Congress, a Brigadier- 
 
 1 “Return of the Names of every Member returned to serve in each Parliament from 
 1696 up to 1876.” London, 1879. Pt. II, p. 657. 
 
 62 
 
Cf Tantbeau a etc mvenkei execute en Marbre a Parte par J J. Ca/Supy Sadpteur du Jici en r — . 
 
 St trauve a Parts ekes J Jr S'. ftdnn t Graeettr da Rat et de ra Bibltothepu . rue dee. ll.it harms au petit flolel dr day try rttmx aJrets&t ardiHUKuiP D X 
 
 CENOTAPH TO GENERAL RICHARD MONTGOMERY 
 
 Portico of St. Paul’s Church, New York 
 

 
 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 63 
 
 General in the Continental Army and six months later was commis- 
 sioned a Major-General for his brilliant services in Canada. 
 Stimulated by promotion to redoubled efforts, he planned an assault 
 upon Quebec, for the last day of the year, December 31, 1775, and, 
 in a driving snow-storm, led the attack. At the first fire of the 
 British artillery he fell, with his aides, Macpherson and Cheese- 
 man, by his side. 
 
 Enemies and friends alike paid tribute to Montgomery’s valor. 
 The government of Quebec and the chief officers of the garrison 
 buried him with the honors of war. Congress, at Philadelphia, on 
 January 22, 1776, appointed William Livingston, Dr. Franklin 
 and William Hooper a committee to consider a proper method of 
 paying a just tribute of gratitude to the memory of the fallen chief- 
 tain. Three days later this committee reported: “It being not only 
 a tribute of gratitude, justly due to the memory of those who have 
 peculiarly distinguished themselves in the glorious cause of liberty, 
 to perpetuate their names by the most durable monuments erected 
 to their honour, but also greatly conducive to inspire posterity with 
 an emulation of their illustrious actions, 
 
 “Resolved, That to express the veneration of the United Colonies 
 for their late general, Richard Montgomery, and the deep sense 
 they entertain of the many signal and important services of that 
 gallant officer, who, after a series of successes, amidst the most dis- 
 couraging difficulties, fell, at length, in a gallant attack upon 
 Quebec, the capital of Canada; and for transmitting to future ages 
 
6 4 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 an example truly worthy of imitation, his patriotism, conduct, bold- 
 ness of enterprize, insuperable perseverance and contempt of dan- 
 ger and death; a monument be procured from Paris, or any other 
 part of France, with an inscription sacred to his memory and ex- 
 pressive of his amiable character and heroic achievements; and that 
 the Continental treasurers be directed to advance a sum, not exceed- 
 ing £300 sterling, to Dr. Benjamin Franklin (who is desired to see 
 this resolution properly executed) for defraying the expense 
 thereof. 
 
 “That Dr. Smith be desired to prepare and deliver a funeral ora- 
 tion in honour of General Montgomery and of those officers and 
 soldiers who so magnanimously fought and fell with him in main- 
 taining the principles of American liberty.” 
 
 The oration was delivered before Congress on the 19th of Feb- 
 ruary, by the Rev. William Smith, provost of the University of 
 Pennsylvania, and was published in Philadelphia, London, Paris 
 and elsewhere; but Dr. Franklin, to whom was committed the se- 
 curing the execution of the monument, did not arrive in Paris until 
 a few days before Christmas, and it was the following summer be- 
 fore the work was put in hand. He selected to execute it Jean 
 Jacques Caffieri, whose employment to do this work involved 
 Franklin in many annoyances from him when, some years later, a 
 sculptor had to be selected to model the statue of Washington for 
 the State of Virginia, which was executed by Houdon; Caffieri, in- 
 deed, claiming the Washington commission as a right, contending 
 
IddDTUISlE UR(D)lfraiAMf 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 65 
 
 that he had made Montgomery’s tomb for glory and not for price, 
 as we shall see in the letters hereafter given, to which this chapter 
 is an introduction. The invaluable manuscript correspondence of 
 Dr. Franklin, in the American Philosophical Society at Phila- 
 delphia, yields a rich harvest of unreaped material upon these sub- 
 jects. The letters, of which the following is the first, are translated 
 from the French originals. 
 
 . Paris, 13 June, 1777. 
 
 dir: 
 
 I have asked the gentleman (your son) 1 for the names, surnames and 
 titles of Genl. Montgomery, the place and date of his birth, or what 
 time he spent in Boston, the several grades through which he passed, the 
 most distinguished incidents in his career, how he attacked Quebec, in 
 which spot he was killed, and above all the date of his death, his age and 
 his arms. This will be very necessary to me as I count on exhibiting a 
 drawing of the tomb at the next Salon. I will add a description of the 
 tomb and of the person for whom it is being made. You will oblige me 
 very much by sending me these notes as promptly as it may be possible 
 for you to do so. I have the honor to be, Sir, your 
 
 Very humble and very obedient Servant, Caffieri 
 
 Caffieri did exhibit his design in the Salon of 1777, along with 
 his bust of Franklin. The entry in the catalogue is: “Dessin du 
 tombeau d’un general que l’artiste execute en marbre de 10 pieds 
 de haut sur 3 de large.” Then follows a description: “From an 
 altarpiece supported by two brackets rises a broken column, on 
 which rests a cinerary urn. On one side of the column is a military 
 trophy, joined by a branch of cypress ; on the other are the emblems 
 
 1 William Temple Franklin, his grandson. 
 
66 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 of liberty, with a palm-branch. Behind the column rises a pyra- 
 mid. Under the altarpiece, between the two brackets, is an es- 
 cutcheon and a white marble tablet for the inscription.” 
 
 It appears that Caffieri had promised to give, in the description 
 of his design, its destination, an omission which was not through 
 forgetfulness, and was not allowed to pass unnoticed. The “Me- 
 moires Secrets” say: 
 
 It is not known why the artist has not ventured to name the hero to 
 whom the monument is to be raised. It is a subject of general curiosity, 
 and indignation is felt at the offensive reticence displayed, typifying the 
 weakness of government, which doubtless forbade it for fear of offend- 
 ing the English. 
 
 And in a foot-note add that “the tomb was intended for General 
 Montgomery, killed before Quebec, the 31st of December, 1775.” 
 
 A year later the cenotaph was finished and shipped to America. 
 This we know from a somewhat amusing letter from Franklin to 
 James Hutton of London, who had asked for a passport for a vessel 
 sent by the Moravians of England to their missionaries on the coast 
 of Labrador. It is dated “Passy, 23 June, 1778. My dear old 
 friend has here the paper he desired. We have had a marble monu- 
 ment made at Paris for the brave General Montgomery, which is 
 gone to America. If it should fall into the hands of any of your 
 cruisers, I expect you will exert yourself to get it restored to us, 
 because I know the generosity of your temper, which likes to do 
 handsome things as well as to make returns. You see, we are un- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 67 
 
 willing to rob the hospital; we hope your people will be found as 
 averse to pillaging the dead ” Owing to the chief ports of entry 
 being in the hands of the British, this marble was shipped to the 
 care of Joseph Hewes, at Edenton, North Carolina; and Franklin, 
 not being advised of its arrival, wrote to John Jay, President of 
 Congress, from “Passy, October 4, 1779. It is two years, I believe, 
 since I sent the monument of General Montgomery. I have heard 
 that the vessel arrived in North Carolina, but nothing more. I 
 should be glad to know of its coming to hand and whether it was 
 approved. Here it was admired for the goodness and beauty of 
 the marble and the simplicity of the design. The sculptor has had 
 an engraving made of it, of which I enclose a copy. It was con- 
 trived to be affixed to the wall within some church or in the great 
 room where the Congress met. Directions for putting it up went 
 with it. All the parts were well packed in strong cases.” The 
 pressure of public affairs of greater moment evidently kept Jay 
 from advising Franklin in answer to his inquiry; for three years 
 later we find Franklin writing to the same effect to Robert R. Liv- 
 ingston, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 Passy, 12 August, 1782. 
 
 This [proposed monument to Yorktown] puts me in mind of a monu- 
 ment I got made here and sent to America by order of Congress five 
 years since. I have heard of its arrival and nothing more. It was ad- 
 mired here for its elegant antique simplicity of design and the various 
 beautiful marbles used in its composition. It was intended to be fixed 
 against a wall in the State House of Philadelphia. I know not why it has 
 
68 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 been so long neglected; it would, methinks, be well to inquire after it and 
 get it put up somewhere. Directions for fixing it were sent with it. I en- 
 close a print of it. The inscription on the engraving is not on the monu- 
 ment ; it was merely the fancy of the engraver. There is a white plate of 
 marble left smooth to receive such inscription as the Congress should 
 think proper. 
 
 Another two years were allowed to roll by before any action was 
 taken in regard to erecting the monument, when in Congress, on 
 Tuesday, June i, 1784, on motion of Mr. De Witt, seconded by 
 Mr. Gerry, it was resolved: 
 
 “Whereas, On the 25th day of January, 1776, Congress did re- 
 solve that a monument be procured at Paris or any other place in 
 France, with an inscription sacred to the memory of General Mont- 
 gomery; which in consequence thereof was procured and sent to 
 the care of Mr. Hewes, in North Carolina, and is now supposed to 
 be in the care of his executors : 
 
 “Resolved, That the executors of Joseph Hewes, Esq., or the 
 person in whose hands the monument is, be requested to deliver the 
 same to the order of the Superintendent of Finance, to be trans- 
 ported to the city of New York, to be erected in such part of the 
 State of New York as the Legislature thereof may judge proper, 
 and that the expense accruing thereon be paid by the United States 
 of America.” 
 
 This action of Congress leaves the impression that the monument 
 was rather in the nature of a white elephant, which Congress was 
 endeavoring to shove off on some other body, an impression that is 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 69 
 
 not removed by the action of the Senate and Assembly of the State 
 of New York on November 26, 1784, when it was resolved “that 
 the Monument by the United States, in Congress, ordered to be 
 erected to the memory of Major General Montgomerie, be erected 
 in the city of New York, at such particular place as the Mayor, 
 Aldermen and Commonalty of the said city, in Common Council 
 convened, shall appoint.” 
 
 None of these actions could have been communicated to Frank- 
 lin, which, to say the least, does not speak well for the amenities of 
 our forefathers, when Franklin had had the entire burden and re- 
 sponsibility of procuring the monument, and showed his great in- 
 terest in it by his constant inquiries, for within a year after his 
 return to America we find him writing again to Jay on the subject. 
 He says : 
 
 Philadelphia, August 24, 1786. 
 
 The monument of General Montgomery— May I ask what is become 
 of it? It has formerly been said that republicks are naturally ungrate- 
 ful. The immediate resolution of Congress for erecting that monument 
 contradicts that opinion. But the letting the monument lie eight years 
 unpack’d, if true, seems rather a Confirmation of it. 
 
 Whether this last communication stirred the matter up for final 
 settlement, we do not know, but on the 3d of April, 1787, in the 
 Common Council of New York, the Mayor laid before the Board 
 the concurrent resolution of the Legislature of two years and a half 
 before, and the Board “proceeded to the consideration of a place for 
 erecting the Monument, and the front of St. Paul’s Church in this 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 70 
 
 city was unanimously agreed to be the most proper place. And there- 
 upon it was ordered that a Committee be appointed to consult with 
 the Churchwardens and Vestrymen of the Episcopal Church on the 
 subject, and if approved of by them, that the Committee take order 
 and direct the said Monument to be properly erected accordingly.” 
 
 Thus a place for the monument to Montgomery was finally ar- 
 ranged, but it yet required time to complete its erection, and it was 
 not until 1789 that this monument, ordered by Congress thirteen 
 years before and delivered by the sculptor to Franklin and by him 
 shipped to America within a year of the time that the order was 
 given, was put in place against the wall under the large portico of 
 the eastern end of St. Paul’s Church, where it remains to-day and 
 can be seen readily by any one passing up or down Broadway— the 
 oldest public monument in the city of New York. 
 
 It is signed, “Invenit et sculpsit J J Caffieri, Sculptor, Regius 
 Anno Domini cbbcclxxvii.” The inscription is an abbreviation of 
 the minute of Congress which came from the pen of Franklin. 
 
 This Monument is erected by order of Congress 
 25th Jan r y 1776 to transmit to posterity a grateful remem- 
 brance of the patriotism, conduct, enterprize & perseverance 
 of Major General Richard Montgomery 
 Who after a series of successes amidst the most discou- 
 raging difficulties Fell in the attack on 
 Quebec 31st Dec r 1775 Aged 37 years 1 
 
 1 Montgomery’s age as given on the monument was thought at the time to be correct, 
 but later investigation has shown that he was thirty-nine years old at the time of his 
 death. 
 

Jean Antoine Houdon 7 i 
 
 More than two score years after he fell, Montgomery’s remains 
 were disinterred and brought to New York, where on July 8, 1 8 1 8, 
 they were deposited beneath this monument, the history of which 
 has not before been told, and which it is of great importance should 
 be told for the “truth of history,” in view of the remarkable state- 
 ment made by the late Dr. Morgan Dix, in his “History of the 
 Parish of Trinity Church, New York” (Part II, page 141) : “To 
 begin with, the monument to General Montgomery, in the portico 
 of St. Paul’s Chapel, in front of the great window— that monument 
 was ordered by the Vestry and made in England.” Comment is 
 unnecessary, but not upon the terrible dilapidation into which this 
 wealthy corporation has permitted our first national monument to 
 fall. It is not only seriously fractured in parts, but it is generally 
 so uncared for that no one would ever dream that it was made of 
 varicolored marbles or, knowing it, could ever detect it. 
 
 That Caffieri was not aware of the neglect his monument had 
 received when he importuned Franklin to give him the Washing- 
 ton statue to model, is shown by his memorial, in 1786, soliciting 
 “des Lettres de Noblesse et le Cordon de Saint Michel,” wherein 
 he sets forth among his most important works : 
 
 “4. Un grand tombeau erige a la gloire de Richard de Mont- 
 gomery, major-general des Americaine, place dans la grande salle 
 ou se tiennent les fitats-generaux a Philadelphie en 1777.” 
 
 The print of the monument, mentioned by Franklin in his letters 
 to J ay and to Livingston, was engraved by Augustin de St. Aubin 
 
72 J ean Antoine Houdon 
 
 and published in 1779, and must have been copied from the exhib- 
 ited design, which the sculptor departed from in executing the 
 marble, and not from the finished monument, as the two vary in 
 many details, besides being reversed, as is often the case in prints 
 prior to the last century. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 1778 
 
 BUSTS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN— CAFFIERI’S JEALOUSY OF HOUDON-LET- 
 TERS FROM CAFFIERI TO FRANKLIN- CAFFI ERI’S BUST OF FRANKLIN 
 WRONGFULLY ATTRIBUTED TO CERACCHI— THE BUSTS OF FRANKLIN 
 BY HOUDON AND BY CAFFIERI COMPARED 
 
 H HE subject of this chapter is of the first importance and 
 interest, owing to the errors and mistakes that have hung 
 around it for well-nigh a century. Houdon’s preemi- 
 nence as an artist and distinction as a man have made it customary 
 to attach his name to almost every bust that we have of the “Father 
 of all the Yankees,” as Carlyle dubbed Franklin. And it is to point 
 out clearly and definitively which is the Houdon type of Franklin 
 bust and which the type called the Ceracchi (which, however, we 
 shall show was not by Ceracchi, but by Caffieri, a fellow-country- 
 man and contemporary of Houdon), that we shall bend our 
 energies. 
 
 To properly survey the field and present the entire subject intelli- 
 gently, it becomes necessary to anticipate somewhat Franklin’s 
 arrival in France, toward the close of 1776. Nine months before 
 
 his appointment to represent the Congress at the court of Versailles, 
 
 73 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 74 
 
 that body, as we have seen, had requested him to carry out its reso- 
 lution providing for a monument to the memory of General Rich- 
 ard Montgomery. Thus coming events cast their light before. 
 Franklin, at this time, was a resident of Philadelphia, and while 
 he was a delegate to Congress and chairman of the Secret Commit- 
 tee of Correspondence, which was in fact a committee on foreign 
 relations, his name had not even been mentioned for the mission 
 that was to add such lustre to his declining years. Indeed, INDE- 
 PENDENCE had hardly then been thought of, except perhaps by Sam 
 Adams and a few of his radical followers. Franklin, too, had 
 passed the allotted milestone of life and but recently returned from 
 an eleven years’ residence in England, which might have been con- 
 sidered an immunity from further foreign service. But France 
 was already showing her leaning toward the revolted colonies, and 
 Franklin was the Frenchman’s American then, as he is to-day. 
 Therefore he, and only he, was the man, in the mind’s eye, to go to 
 France when the proper moment should arrive; and thus he was 
 intrusted, ahead of time, to select, when he should get there, the 
 sculptor to make the first commemorative monument ordered by 
 the Continental Congress. 
 
 Franklin arrived in Paris on December 21, 1776, 1 and on the 
 
 1 Mme. du Deffand wrote to Horace Walpole from Paris, December 22, 1776, “Dr. 
 Franklin arrived in town yesterday at two o’clock in the afternoon.” Lettres de la 
 Marquise du Deffand a Horace Walpole, Paris, 1812, Vol. Ill, p. 361, n. See also 
 “Correspondance Secrete,” January 1, 1777, Vol. IV, p. 70: “The celebrated Franklin 
 arrived at Paris on the 21st of December and the eyes of the world are fixed on his 
 slightest movement.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 75 
 
 1 2th of the next month the police entered this description of him 
 on their record: 
 
 “Dr. Franklin lately arrived in this country. This Quaker wears 
 the full costume of his sect. He has an agreeable physiognomy; 
 spectacles always on his eyes; but little hair; a fur cap is always on 
 his head. He wears no powder ; tidy in his dress ; very white linen ; 
 a walking-stick his only defence.” 
 
 A month later, Franklin confirms this official description in a 
 letter to Mrs. Emma Thompson at Lille . 1 He writes: 
 
 “I know you wish you could see me, but, as you can’t, I will de- 
 scribe myself to you. Figure me in your mind as jolly as formerly, 
 and as strong and hearty, only a few years older, very plainly 
 dressed, wearing my thin gray straight hair, that peeps out under 
 my only Coiffure , a fine fur cap, which comes down my Forehead 
 almost to my spectacles.” 
 
 This was the odd figure that appeared “among the powdered 
 heads of Paris,” as he told Mrs. Hewson 2 the same day that he gave 
 the police the impression that he was a Quaker in the plain garb of 
 his sect. He was not at all averse that his unpolished appearance 
 should, as it doubtless did, intensify the character the French peo- 
 ple had already formed of him. Almost immediately, with a 
 mushroom-like growth, his portrait was seen everywhere, in paint- 
 ing, engraving and sculpture, in miniature, medallion and statuette, 
 
 1 Smyth’s Franklin, Vol. VII, p. 26. 
 
 2 Smyth’s Franklin, Vol. VII, p. 10. 
 
7 ^ 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 numbering hundreds. They were set in rings, watches, snuff-boxes, 
 bracelets, looking-glasses, clocks, and even in articles of household 
 use, until it was said by a gossip of the day that his likeness was “to 
 be found at the hearth of the lowly and in the boudoir of the beauti- 
 ful. ” Before he was a year in Paris, Cochin had drawn him in his 
 fur cap, and St. Aubin had engraved it; 1 Greuze had painted 
 his little-known but extremely fine pastel portrait of him ; 2 Nini had 
 modeled no less than five different medallions for cheap reproduc- 
 tion ; and Caffieri had made a bust of him that was exhibited in the 
 Salon of 1777. This last item is pregnant with importance in our 
 consideration of the present subject; for so completely had it been 
 buried and forgotten that it was virtually unknown until disinterred 
 by the writer a few years ago in a rather remarkable manner. 
 
 The two busts of Franklin familiar in this country have been 
 known for a century interchangeably as the Ceracchi bust and the 
 Houdon bust, but few persons entertaining any idea of distinguish- 
 ing or individualizing them— differentiating one from the other; 
 
 1 The following verses, written for St. Aubin’s engraving of Cochin’s portrait of 
 Franklin, were suppressed by the censor as being blasphemous: 
 
 C’est l’honneur et l’appui du nouvel hemisphere, 
 
 Les flots de l’Ocean s’abaissent a sa voix; 
 
 II reprime ou dirige a son gre le tonnerre, 
 
 Qui desarmee les Dieux peut-il craindres les Rois. 
 
 Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, October, 1777, Vol. XII, p. 3. 
 
 2 This picture, and the only portrait of Franklin by Greuze, although many are 
 claimed to be by him, belonged to Prince Demidoff, and was purchased at the great 
 San Donato sale, in March, 1870, by its present owner, Mrs. Thomas Lindall Winthrop 
 of Boston, Massachusetts. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 77 
 
 so that one may find in public galleries and in private collections 
 both busts attributed, interchangeably, to Houdon and to Ceracchi. 
 
 A decade ago, when the writer was preparing his monograph on 
 “The Life Portraits of Franklin,” 1 he came across a letter from 
 Franklin “to a discontented artist whose name is not preserved.” 2 
 This letter is in the Stevens collection of Franklin manuscripts in 
 the Library of Congress at Washington, where are an undated and 
 unsigned draft in English, in Franklin’s own hand, and a dated 
 translation into French by an amanuensis, signed by Franklin. As 
 this letter has not been accurately printed in either of the publica- 
 tions where it appears, 3 we give Franklin’s original draft and also 
 the French translation. The latter has a pen line drawn diagonally 
 across the second paragraph, as it is here printed, which would in- 
 dicate that this paragraph was omitted from the letter actually sent 
 and no notice whatever taken of the correspondent’s complaints,— 
 a sober, wise second thought. 
 
 (Draft.) 
 
 Sir: 
 
 I receiv’d the two obliging Lettres you have lately written to me. 
 Please to deliver one of the Busts to M. le Roy, of the Academy of 
 Sciences, and keep the other till call’d for by M. Carmichael, Charge 
 des Affaires des Ltats Unis at Madrid. Send me a Bill of the Expense 
 with a Receipt and it shall be immediately paid. Your Complaints of 
 Injustice, of being supplanted, etc., seem to have been founded on a 
 
 1 McClure’s Magazine for January, 1897. 
 
 2 Hale’s Franklin in France, Vol. II, p. 372. 
 
 3 Hale’s Franklin in France, Vol. II, p. 372, and Smyth’s Franklin, Vol. IX, p. 346. 
 
78 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 mistake. You have not considered the 13 States of America as so many 
 distinct Governments, each of which has a Right to employ what Artist 
 it thinks proper, and is under no kind of Obligation to employ one who 
 has been employ’d before, either by the Congress or by particular States. 
 The State of Virginia, therefore, in chusing another, tho’ perhaps they 
 may not have made a better choice, have certainly done you no injustice. 
 With great esteem I have the honour to be. 
 
 (French Translation.) 
 
 Passy, le 20 Juin, 1785. 
 
 J’ai regu, Monsieur, les 2 Lettres obligeantes que vous m’avez fait 
 l’honneur de m’ecrire dernierement. Remettez, Je vous prie, un des 
 Bustes a Mr. le Roy de L’Academie des Sciences, et gardez l’autre jusqu’a 
 ce que M. Carmichael, Charge des Affaires des Etats Unis a Madrid, le 
 demande. Aussitot que vous m’aurez envoye votre memoire quittance 
 il vous sera paye immediatement. 
 
 V^s^Plaintes sur l’lnjustice d’avoir ete supplante &c. semblent fon- 
 dees sur ui^m^lentendu. Vous n’avez pas considere que les 13 Etats Unis 
 de l’Amerique sfrf^tautant Gouvernements distincts, qui ont chacun le 
 Droit d’employer tel AHi^te qu’ils jugent a propos, et ne sont aucunement 
 obliges d’en employer un qm^a^ete employe avant, soit par le Congres 
 ou par des fitats particuliers. L’Efctfc^de Virginie par consequence nous 
 vous a certainement fait aucun Injustice^er^prenant un autre Artiste, 
 quoi qu’il n’ait peut-etre pas fait un meilleur chofr^ 
 
 J’ai l’honneur d’etre avec beaucoup d’Estime, Monsieur, votre tres 
 humble et tres obeissant Serviteur, 
 
 B. Franklin. 
 
 These two pieces are calendared 1 with the name of “[JEAN 
 ANTOINE HOUDON?],” in brackets and with a query-mark, as 
 
 1 List of the Benjamin Franklin Papers in the Library of Congress, p. 161. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 79 
 
 a putative addressee. This was the suggestion of Stevens. The 
 date of the letter and its comment upon “your complaints of Injus- 
 tice” showed me clearly that it could not have been addressed to 
 Houdon, as at that very date Houdon was under contract to accom- 
 pany Franklin to America to model a statue of Washington, so that 
 he had no possible cause for complaint, while the complaint itself 
 was plainly directed against him on this very ground. As the only 
 other contemporary bust of Franklin known was the one attributed 
 to Ceracchi, he was the only other sculptor with whom Franklin 
 was thought to have had any affiliations, and this letter to an un- 
 known sculptor was therefore assumed to have been written to 
 Ceracchi. 
 
 Not long after the publication of my monograph, in examining 
 the very important Franklin manuscript correspondence in the 
 American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, a new Richmond 
 appeared upon the field. I found the letter dated “Paris, June 13, 
 1777” signed “Caffieri,” given in the preceding chapter. Thus 
 Franklin’s choice of a sculptor to make the Montgomery memorial 
 confided to him by Congress had fallen, this letter revealed, upon 
 Jean Jacques Caffieri, a Parisian sculptor of Italian descent, who 
 was the senior of Houdon by sixteen years. The design for the 
 memorial was exhibited at the Salon of 1777, along with a bust of 
 Franklin. This seemed to be a new bust of Franklin, from the 
 hand of a sculptor hitherto unknown in this connection. 
 
 Further search discovered numerous letters from Caffieri to Dr. 
 
8o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Franklin and to his grandson and secretary, William Temple 
 Franklin. On May 3, 1780, he invites Franklin to his studio to see 
 his “statue in marble of St. Satyre, destined to be placed in one of 
 the chapels of the Royal Church of the Invalides.” On June 4 he 
 writes : 
 
 I learn by the public papers that the Congress at Philadelphia, in 
 acknowledgment of the services rendered by the late Count Pulaski, 
 Brigadier General, have resolved that a public monument shall be raised 
 to the memory of that officer and that its execution shall be confided to a 
 French artist. Owing to that article I take the liberty to write you for 
 the purpose of reminding you that you had the goodness to promise to 
 confide to me the execution of all the Tombs that the United States of 
 America should have made in the future. As some time has elapsed 
 since there has been a question of this tomb, perhaps I have a com- 
 petitor. However, I am indifferent to this; I dare hope to have the 
 preference to obtain the monument as I have in you, Sir, full confidence. 
 
 Two years later— April 1, 1782— he writes: 
 
 Sickness and the bad weather have prevented me from having the 
 honour of calling to assure you of my humble civilities and to pray you 
 to remember me on the occasion when you may be charged by the Amer- 
 ican republic with some piece of sculpture, whether Tomb or Statue, in 
 marble or in bronze. You have had the goodness to promise me not to 
 forget me when the occasion presents itself. It is not to be doubted but 
 that the republic will desire to testify by monuments the happy services 
 of the heroes who live, as of the heroes who sacrificed themselves for 
 their country. My talents you know. I dare hope that you will prefer 
 me to any propositions another sculptor might make you. 
 
 And on May 3, 1782, he presents Franklin with “the statue of 
 Pierre Corneille, which is a faithful copy of the one I have exe- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 81 
 
 cuted in marble for the King.” The next year is a banner year of 
 importuning letters, Caffieri having written not less than six, each 
 one begging to be employed on any sculptural work to be ordered 
 by the United States. On January 22, 1783, he writes Dr. Frank- 
 lin : 
 
 I beg of you to aid in having my talents employed and to be per- 
 suaded that I shall apply all my care and zeal to prove myself worthy of 
 your choice. 
 
 And the same day, to the grandson : 
 
 Peace between England and America being the epoch the most re- 
 markable of this century, I venture to believe that your fellow-country- 
 men will hasten to render your illustrious grandfather, M. Franklin, the 
 homage they owe to his sagacity, and to the success attending his nego- 
 tiations. Perhaps the Americans residing in Paris may unite to send to 
 Philadelphia the statue of this great man, in marble or in bronze, and I 
 should take pride if you would contribute toward having me honored by 
 their choice. Finally, if in one way or another it is desired to transmit 
 the great event to posterity, I claim your good offices for my talents, 
 which are known to you, promising you every endeavor to merit the 
 suffrage of your country and of my own on so happy an occasion. 
 
 On March 25 of this year he wrote : 
 
 I have just learned indirectly that the United States of America are 
 intending to raise a statue to the Glory of the King. If the thing be true, 
 it would be very flattering for me to be charged with the execution of the 
 monument. I beg of you, Sir, at this opportunity and at all others to be 
 good enough to recall me to your mind and to be persuaded of my zeal 
 and gratitude. 
 
 The rumor, mentioned in this letter as being afloat in Paris, of 
 the intention of the American Congress to erect a monument to his 
 
82 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Most Christian Majesty seems to have been wide-spread over there, 
 although, as far as I can discover, without the least foundation over 
 here. The Journals of Congress contain not a word regarding it, 
 and this reference in the letter of Caffieri was the first mention I 
 ever saw of it. Yet Franklin seems to have been openly cognizant 
 of it and by his action to have given credit to it. Bachaumont says i 1 
 “There is a proposition of erecting to Louis XVI, in the square 
 in Philadelphia opposite to the hall of Congress, a statue in bronze 
 with this inscription: 
 
 Post Deum 
 
 Deligenda et Servanda est Libertas, 
 
 Maximis empta laboribus; 
 
 Humanique sanguinis flumine irrigata 
 Per imminentia belli pericula; 
 
 Juvante 
 
 Optimo Galliarum Principe, Rege 
 Ludovico XVI 
 
 Hanc statuam principe augustissime 
 Consecravit 
 
 Et aeternam, pretiosam que beneficii 
 Memoriam 
 
 Grata reipublicae veneratio 
 Ultimis tradit nepotibus 
 
 And Metra writes the same day as Bachaumont : 2 
 
 The Museum of Paris held a public meeting on the sixth of this 
 month in honor of Peace, over which M. de Calhava presided and Mr. 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” March 19, 1783, Vol. XXII, p. 178. See also “Correspon- 
 dance Secrete,” July 28, 1783, Vol. XV, p. 19. 
 
 2 “Correspondance Secrete,” March 19, 1783, Vol. XIV, p. 190. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 83 
 
 Franklin assisted. . . . After the concert Mr. Franklin was conducted 
 into the room prepared for the supper to the guests. They drank his 
 health and to the glory of the United States. Amid the noise of the 
 instruments and the plaudits of the assemblage, a palm branch was 
 placed in his hand and a crown upon his head. He spoke these words, 
 “I am very sensible at these evidences of affection that I have received. 
 I wish all of you much prosperity and an everlasting union between the 
 two countries.” He then retired. I have forgotten to say to you that, 
 speaking of the statue that the Congress has caused to he elevated to 
 Louis XVI, the Liberator of America, the Abbe Brizard, in his address, 
 observed very ingeniously that it was the first time that a Republic had 
 rendered such homage to a King. 
 
 Bachaumont, in his account of this celebration of the birth of the 
 new Republic of the United States, adds that a bust of Franklin, 
 presented by M. Houdon, was inaugurated amid the acclamations 
 of all the spectators . 1 Nearly a score of years later Soulavie, con- 
 firming the criticism of Larousse, that his historical memoirs are 
 more interesting than accurate, writes : 2 
 
 That country [the United States] can never forget her obligation to 
 Louis XVI, her benefactor. Congress voted a statue to that King at 
 Philadelphia, with the following inscription which I received from Mr. 
 Franklin. It is probably the only statue and inscription, remaining in its 
 proper place, to the honor of that monarch whose strange destiny was 
 such that the establishment of a Republic in America raised edifices to 
 his memory which the institution of another Republic in France over- 
 turned. 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” March 11, 1783, Vol. XXII, p. 154. 
 
 2 “Memoirs of the Reign of Louis XVI,” London, 1802, Vol. IV, p. 342. 
 
8 4 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Of course there never was any monument erected to Louis XVI, 
 in Philadelphia or anywhere else, by Congress; but Franklin gave 
 the rumor credence by his presence and by listening to the remarks 
 of Brizard; and as he was a personal friend of Soulavie, there is no 
 reason to discredit Soulavie’s statement that Franklin gave him the 
 inscription, which makes this affair all the more singular and unin- 
 telligible, unless it can be explained as a stroke of diplomacy by the 
 wily diplomat. It is certainly both curious and interesting, for 
 which reason we have given all that can be learned of the incident. 
 
 The only action of Congress that could give any color to such a 
 rumor was a resolution of October 29, 1781, “That the United 
 States in Congress Assembled will cause to be erected at York in 
 Virginia a marble column adorned with emblems of the Alliance 
 between the United States and his Most Christian Majesty and in- 
 scribed with a succinct narrative of the surrender of Earl Corn- 
 wallis to his Excellency General Washington.” This was referred 
 to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and Livingston wrote to Frank- 
 lin, December 16, “I enclose a resolution of Congress for erecting 
 a pillar to commemorate the victory at Yorktown,” and asked 
 Franklin to assist him in carrying the resolution into effect. This 
 was never carried out, and nearly a century later, on December 3, 
 1879, Congress passed a resolution reciting that of October 29, 
 1781, and appropriating $100,000 to the erection of a monument 
 commemorative of the centennial anniversary of the surrender at 
 Yorktown in its place. Whether this original resolution was the 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 85 
 
 seed that grew into a monument to Louis XVI, we cannot tell, but 
 great trees have grown from smaller acorns than this. 
 
 Caffieri writes to Franklin, September i, 1783: 
 
 Permit me to reiterate my request in praying you, Sir, to be so good 
 as to remember me in case the Congress of the United States should 
 erect some monuments to the glory of the nation or to the Generals who 
 have contributed to it. 
 
 And again, October 29 : 
 
 In reading the last Gazette, I noticed that the United States of 
 America has the intention of erecting a statue to Genl. Washington and 
 that it is to be executed in Paris. If the thing is true I beg of you, Sir, 
 to recall me to your mind. I have some claims upon your choice : senior- 
 ity over persons who may make the same request to you ; your Portrait 
 and the tomb of Montgomery must have proved to you my zeal and 
 knowledge. 
 
 This is followed two months later by a similar application. On 
 December 31 he writes: 
 
 I learn from the public prints that, in spite of a costly war, the Amer- 
 ican states, to establish civil authority more thoroughly and render 
 commerce more flourishing, propose building a City and a palace for 
 Congress. I venture to hope, from your goodness, that if my feeble 
 talents can be employed, you will call me to mind and believe that my 
 eagerness and zeal may perhaps render me worthy of your choice. Be 
 persuaded that I should regard as one of the most glorious moments of 
 my life, that in which I should be fortunate enough to immortalize in 
 some way the most brilliant epoch of the eighteenth century. 
 
86 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Through the following year Caffieri seems to have preserved an 
 almost ominous silence, which is emphasized by the broadside that 
 he fired during the final months of the Franklins’ sojourn in France. 
 We have already read of Caffieri’s earlier jealousy of Houdon, and 
 of his anonymous attack upon him as a man and as an artist, and 
 now we have more of it in the sharp correspondence between Caf- 
 fieri and William Temple Franklin. 
 
 From Paris, Caffieri writes to the younger Franklin, February 
 19, 1785: 
 
 I have learned that M. Houdon is charged on the part of Congress to 
 execute two statues. I confess that, after having made the portrait of 
 M. Franklin gratuitously and the tomb of General Montgomery, where 
 I contented myself with the glory of its execution, I conceived that would 
 pave the way for important works, and it was very far removed from 
 my thoughts that I should be overlooked, basing my hopes on the word 
 of M. Franklin, and that you did me the honor to promise to have me 
 in mind, should anything occur. This is why I have recourse to you, 
 Sir; not being able as yet to persuade myself of this preference to my 
 injury. If by chance this undertaking should not lie entirely with your- 
 self and M. Franklin, I hope that you will nevertheless interest yourself 
 in my favor, and if the entire undertaking may not be confided to me, I 
 venture to expect, from your good offices and the justice of my remon- 
 strance, that you shall have me included for some part of it. 
 
 On March 1 1, not having had a reply from Temple Franklin, he 
 writes to him again, and for the first time follows his signature with 
 his titles and address: 
 
 I had the honor to write to you last month to ask you for enlighten- 
 
WMAMMJLrKM IB If GA.WWILM'M'K 
 
 ■ 
 
«7 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 ment upon a rumor prevalent. It is claimed that M. Houdon has been 
 charged to execute for Congress, two Statues, and that he has obtained 
 preference over me, in spite of my seniority and the promises made me. 
 I beg of you to tell me whether I am still to hope in this matter or 
 whether I must abandon it. You will oblige me extremely by answering 
 me. 
 
 I have the honor to be entirely, Sir, 
 
 Your very humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 Caffieri, 
 
 Sculptor to the King, Professor of his Royal Academy of 
 Painting and Sculpture, rue des Cannelles, Faubourg St.- 
 Germain. 
 
 On the following day Lair de la Motte, who was private secre- 
 tary to Dr. Franklin for from five to six years, wrote to Caffieri 
 from Passy: 
 
 I gave an account to Mr. Franklin of what you did me the honor to 
 inform me of yesterday touching the bust which has been lost through 
 Sr. de Lorme. He is annoyed at the accident and asks you to be good 
 enough to furnish another one, that he trusts you will have packed like 
 the first one and afterwards forwarded to Mr. Bondfield, merchant at 
 Bordeaux, by a carrier more faithful and less costly than Sr. de Lorme, 
 if the thing is possible. As soon as the consignment is made, Mr. Frank- 
 lin asks you to be good enough to advise him so that he may notify Mr. 
 Bondfield. He will be very glad also at the same time to receive your 
 bill covering all your expenditures for this purpose. 
 
 But still Temple Franklin keeps silence and makes no reply to 
 Caffieri’s letters. This is too much for the hot-headed sculptor, and 
 he bursts forth again on March 31st: 
 
88 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 I have had the honor of writing you twice. I had flattered myself 
 that I should receive an answer from you, as, when having been obliged 
 to write to Ministers, Princes and the highest dignitaries of the Court, 
 they have always made answer. This oversight on your part has much 
 surprised me; however, it has not prevented me, according to your re- 
 quest made by you through a letter received from M. Lair de la Motte, 
 from the undertaking to hand over a plaster bust of M. Franklin to Sr. 
 de Lorme, with advice carefully to pack and box; he even charged him- 
 self with procuring the Passport and the covering with lead. He shipped 
 it on the 28th of this month, as you will see by the memorandum enclosed 
 which comes to the sum of 4of 14c 
 
 and for the plaster bust 96 
 
 frc 136 14 
 
 To these communications Temple Franklin replied in no uncer- 
 tain terms on April 3, without specifically mentioning the last one, 
 at the same time carefully preserving a copy of his letter among his 
 papers. He wrote: 
 
 If I have not replied sooner, Sir, to the two letters that you did me the 
 honor to write me, it was simply from a feeling of delicacy, as not being 
 able to do so without stating disagreeable truths, and it seems to me that 
 you should have understood it and not reproach me on the subject. You 
 compel me now to speak and possibly wound you more in the answering 
 than in remaining silent. In the first place, Sir, M. Houdon is not com- 
 missioned by Congress to execute Statues ; and even if he were, I see no 
 reason why you should cry out against it as you do. The claims you put 
 forward, with so much assurance, are for the most part ill founded, and 
 some of them unseemly. My grandfather has been as much surprised as 
 I have, and he never imagined that, when he yielded to your entreaties 
 and those of his friends in giving you sittings, that a day would come 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 89 
 
 when you would upbraid him for your having made his bust Gratuiously ; 
 and that upon this you would found your claim for being employed by 
 Congress. M. Houdon has likewise made the bust of my grandfather 
 Gratuiously , and moreover has sent four in plaister, also Gratuiously ; 
 but he has not boasted of it and has not thought it a reason for being em- 
 ployed by Congress, in preference to any one else, for works which Con- 
 gress might deem expedient to have executed in this country. What you 
 also advance relative to the tomb of General Montgomery has no better 
 foundation than the promise which you pretend was made to you by my 
 grandfather. He keeps all those that he makes, and as for that, never 
 makes any of this nature. After receiving the price agreed upon in ad- 
 vance for the Tomb, how can you say that you contented yourself with 
 the glory of its execution? Believe me, Sir, it is not thus one gains the 
 esteem of honest people ; and when going such lengths to prove disinter- 
 estedness, the one doing so often discloses his real feelings. 
 
 P. S. Mr. Lamotte will immediately call at M. Caffieri’s to hand him 
 the 1 3 6f . 14c. which are due him for the bust that he sent to Bordeaux. 
 
 The bust referred to in this postscript was sent by Franklin to 
 Sir Edward Newenham, of Dublin, a member of the Irish parlia- 
 ment from 1769 to 1797, who was such a keen friend of the colonies 
 that he told Franklin, “Upon the news of Montgomery’s death at 
 Quebec, I appeared in deep mourning in the Irish parliament- 
 nay, deeper than his only brother.” 1 Newenham had been pleading 
 with Franklin for his bust for nearly two years. He writes to him, 
 October 17, 1783, “My better part desires her most respectful and 
 affectionate respects to his Excellency. She ardently longs to grace 
 
 1 Alexander Montgomery — “Black Montgomery,” as he was called — represented 
 Donegal in the Irish parliament from 1769 to 1800. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 90 
 
 our new study with his Bust. I have the place prepared for it. 
 Vessels leave Bordeaux for this port frequently.” Three days later 
 he writes, “We are anxious for the treasure of the Bust”; and in 
 another week, “Lady Newenham, still anxious for the Bust, desires 
 her best and sincerest respects.” But they did not receive it until 
 a few days before Franklin left France. Newenham writes to 
 Franklin, June 4, 1785: 
 
 This day I had infinite pleasure in receiving your most obliging letter, 
 and yesterday I received the Bust, from on board Captain Murphy, and 
 never parted from it untill I put it up in my library. I mentioned to the 
 Collector and other officers what it was f and they most obligingly let it 
 pass without unpacking it; two chairmen carried it on a bier and I rode 
 along with them to Belcamp. Accept, my Dear Sir and much respected 
 Friend, for such I pride myself in calling you, the warmest thanks of 
 Lady Newenham and me. 
 
 When it got bruited abroad that Newenham had this bust, a 
 present from Franklin, the English people declared it was an im- 
 posture, that Franklin was notoriously too poor to pay a sculptor to 
 make his bust. It is to this that Newenham alludes in his last letter 
 to Franklin, written January 12, 1786: 
 
 One amusing fiction was that I bought an old Bust of Lord Chan- 
 cellor Newport and pretended it was yours, for that it was well known 
 you were so poor that you never sat for your Bust. However, many of 
 the Sycophants have been to see it. ... A few that remember you here 
 declare it brings you fully to their remembrance. 
 
 There is an unconfirmed tradition that this bust was destroyed 
 during the Irish insurrection of 1798. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 91 
 
 But to return to the Caffieri-Franklin correspondence. Caffieri 
 replied to Temple Franklin under date of April 8, 1785 : 
 
 You had good cause, Sir, to remark that your answer would give me 
 greater pain than your silence. I did not think myself exposed to such 
 an one from you, and surely you would have avoided me the pain if you 
 had preserved the coolness and reflection of which you are capable. It 
 must only result from a first movement of ill temper, that you attribute 
 to me low motives, humiliating to myself, drawn from my applications 
 and expressions. In the first place, Sir, I had no other object in wishing 
 to execute the bust of Mr. Franklin, than the glory of transmitting to the 
 future the portrait of so great a man. I was honored in making him a 
 gift of my talents, and I never pretended to any other reward than 
 meriting his patronage. That is why I took the liberty of claiming it on 
 an occasion when I thought I might hope to obtain it. M. Houdon, you 
 say, has gratuitously (a word which you please yourself in repeating 
 several times)— has made, I say, the portrait of your august grandfather. 
 This is for me but a further unpleasantness. In granting also this favor 
 to M. Houdon, it was almost like saying to the Public that mine had not 
 given satisfaction, in spite of the success it had. Certainly, if M. Hou- 
 don had begun, I should have had the delicacy not to have followed after 
 him. These are honest ways of acting as observed between profes- 
 sionals. You have as well wrongly interpreted the paragraph touching 
 the tomb of General Montgomery. I stated that I had made it for the 
 Glory of the thing, and this is the Truth. Proud in being employed by a 
 state just emerging into Freedom, I contented myself with covering my 
 expenses. I can prove this by the account I have of it. I think that 
 when an artist gives his time and his talents, he can claim credit of having 
 worked for Glory. 
 
 There, Sir, you have my misdeeds; condescend to estimate them. I 
 thought that, having acted with so much zeal, I could without showing 
 pretension hope to obtain preference over my fellow artists. Your let- 
 
9 2 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 ter has cruelly undeceived me. You might, however, have spared me 
 the insulting irony of the closing lines. You attribute to me conduct 
 unworthy an upright man and myself. I have never been guided by sor- 
 did interests; everything proves it. If I were better known to you, you 
 would have rendered me the justice I deserve, and I am sure that, follow- 
 ing your goodness of heart, you will regret having attributed to me 
 feelings I never had. 
 
 This seems to have closed the correspondence between Caffieri 
 and William Temple Franklin, but among the Franklin papers 
 there is a “Copy of a letter from Caffieri to one of his friends,” 
 which, from the dates mentioned in it, “November, 1783,” and 
 “forgotten for eighteen months” (which would bring it to May, 
 1785), as well as its subject, would seem to have been called forth 
 by the preceding correspondence. As part of the res gestce, we 
 give it : 
 
 After the interest, Sir, that you have always been so good as to show 
 me, I feel that I should give you an account of what passed between Mr. 
 Franklin, Jr., and myself. I confess that I was not expecting such a dis- 
 cussion, and as I consider that an honorable man owes it to himself to 
 prevent the attacks of calumny, I take the liberty of enclosing with this 
 letter the copy of that of Mr. Franklin, Jr., and those which I was obliged 
 to write him, being prevented from going out by a cold. I pray you as a 
 favor to look them over and to communicate their contents to Mad. — - — , 
 that she may know the truth. I venture to add the assurance of my re- 
 spect. You will see, Sir, and she will be able to judge, if my fervor, my 
 zeal and my conduct deserved so hard an answer. I could call it by a 
 stronger term. It is essential that you should make yourself familiar 
 with the facts about the Bust of which there is a question. 
 
93 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 In the month of November, 1783, Mr. Franklin asked me for a bust 
 of his distinguished grandfather that he wished to send to America. I 
 had it taken to M. de Lorme’s for packing. This bust was forgotten 
 for 18 months and Mr. Franklin, Jr., having inquired for it of M. de 
 Lorme in the month of March last, it was found to have disappeared, 
 which gave him occasion to have me written to by his Clerk. You will 
 find the copy of that letter, which I beg of you to keep with the others as 
 an authentic proof of my conduct. Jealous to preserve the esteem in 
 which I stand with you, I wish to show you that I am worthy of its con- 
 tinuance. Mr. Franklin should, without doubt, have been more just 
 toward an honest man, and not wound him in the most vital point, his 
 honor. 
 
 Such a continuing broadside of importunity and complaint 
 would be almost enough to ruffle even the equanimity of the philos- 
 opher Franklin, as we have seen it did ruffle his grandson, and two 
 letters that were finally discovered, addressed to him, did accom- 
 plish it. They are dated respectively June 10 and 15, 1785, the last 
 one filled with the plaint that Franklin first answered, and then 
 erased, in his letter of June 20, given above. Here, then, was the 
 unknown sculptor discovered; he whose “two obliging letters” Dr. 
 Franklin, with humorous satire, acknowledged among the last be- 
 fore leaving Paris, and which are now for the first time printed. 
 Translated, they are as follows: 
 
 June 10, 1785. 
 
 Various occupations deprive me of the advantage of paying my re- 
 spects and wishing you health and a prosperous voyage. The period 
 during which I have had the honor of your acquaintance will remain for 
 me an unforgetable event. I shall always Glory in having known a man 
 
94 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 so rare by his virtues, his enlightenment and his merit. Following the 
 directions of the note you addressed to me, I have had two of your busts 
 in plaster put in proper repair; you may, when you like, send for them. 
 
 June 15th he wrote: 
 
 I have been assiduous in making the repairs myself to the two busts 
 you asked me for, and they are in condition to be conveyed wherever you 
 may desire. I should have much preferred, if multiplied occupations had 
 not deprived me of the pleasure, of visiting you in person to pay my 
 homage and to wish you good health and a happy voyage. I shall never 
 forget the honor of your acquaintance, and I shall always congratulate 
 myself on having been led to make the portrait of a man as rare by his 
 virtues as by his merits, and whose works will go down to the most dis- 
 tant posterity. If my services in America could have been to your liking, 
 I should have been most eager to accompany you, but you take with you 
 one of my fellow artists, which is reason for me to hold my peace. I am 
 ignorant of the art of supplanting any one, although frequently having 
 experienced it at the hands of others. I had the honor of writing you on 
 Wednesday last; not having received any reply, I feared that my letter 
 might have miscarried. 
 
 Here was the hidden truth unmasked, and this discovery was of 
 course a clean annihilation of all claims for Ceracchi to the author- 
 ship of a bust of Franklin; a claim that we do not know or believe 
 was ever made by Ceracchi for himself, but doubtless arose from 
 the fact that Ceracchi, who visited this country and resided here 
 for some time between 1791 and 1795, and made busts of Washing- 
 ton, Hamilton and others, was the only sculptor, aside from Hou- 
 don, whose name was familiar to our people, and thus his name 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 95 
 
 became popularly attached to the bust of Franklin by Caffieri, 
 whose name was not then known here any better than it is now. 
 
 From these and other letters of Caffieri in the great Franklin col- 
 lection at the American Philosophical Society, it would appear 
 that not less than six of his busts of Franklin passed through Frank- 
 lin’s own hands, and one at least was destined for this country. 
 December 9, 1777, Caffieri sent a note to Franklin, accompanying 
 a bust as a present to William Temple Franklin, which he en- 
 dorsed, “Caffieri with a Burst as a present.” Whether this was a 
 slip or a pleasantry, it is difficult to tell when dealing with a profes- 
 sional humorist. This letter has a postscript of some interest: “I 
 reiterate my injunction that it shall not be permitted to allow copies 
 of any kind to be made of this portrait. If any one should desire to 
 see it, they have only to address themselves to me.” On March 17 
 he wrote, evidently to William Temple Franklin, “I have had the 
 Bust of M. Franklin packed up”; and two days later, “The box is 
 ready to despatch. You may have it taken when it suits your con- 
 venience. Here is the memorandum and a note of how it should 
 be unpacked, which it is needful to send to America.” This un- 
 doubtedly refers to a bust intended for Franklin’s daughter, Mrs. 
 Bache, as she wrote to William Temple Franklin from Philadel- 
 phia, March 29, 1780, “I am much mortified at not receiving the 
 Bust. I was at a loss to understand the directions for unpacking.” 
 June 16 Caffieri writes to the same, “Here are the two Busts of M. 
 Franklin that you have desired of me, to which I have given a 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 96 
 
 coating of wax, mixed with spirits of Turpentine, rendering them 
 hard and brilliant. The Bust I have had packed and these two 
 bring it to four Louis each, making the total twelve Louis” ; and on 
 October 29, 1783, covering a copy of his letter to Dr. Franklin of 
 the same date, “I beg to remind you that I have the mould of M. 
 Franklin’s portrait and that I can make as many as may be desired.” 
 
 Whether any one of these busts ever reached America and has 
 survived the ravages of time and yet exists, we do not know, as we 
 do not know a single bust of Franklin, in this country, indubitably 
 ear-marked “by Caffieri.” But the letter of Franklin to the so long 
 “unknown sculptor” directed him “to deliver one of the Busts to 
 M. le Roy, of the Academy of Sciences.” This was a clue to the 
 possible finding of an unquestionable bust of Franklin by Caffieri 
 not to be lost, and an inquiry at the Institute of France, of which 
 the Academy of Sciences is an integral part, found the identical 
 bust that Franklin had presented, with the incised signature, “fait 
 par J. J . Caffieri en 1777 ” Photographs that I had made of this 
 bust, in the Institute, in profile, three-quarter and full face, made it 
 certain that the Caffieri bust of Franklin was the type heretofore 
 known as the Ceracchi bust, and transferred the name of Jean 
 Jacques Caffieri to the busts that had been for a century attributed 
 to Giuseppe Ceracchi. 
 
 This was no great surprise to me, for, except upon the hypothesis 
 that Franklin’s letter of June 20, 1785, was addressed to Ceracchi, I 
 had never been able to bring Franklin and Ceracchi together, or 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 97 
 
 even in the same place at the same time, at the period represented 
 in this bust, a very important incident to enable a sculptor to model 
 a bust from life. And yet I can hardly be accused as blameworthy 
 for having tripped into the pitfall, when a record of the false tradi- 
 tion was made as early as “ July 8, 1811,” on which date the Penn- 
 sylvania Academy of the Fine Arts bought from one Simon Chau- 
 dron for $120 the “Bust of Benjamin Franklin by Cerraci” it now 
 owns. At that time there were scores of persons alive who had 
 known well both Franklin and Ceracchi, among them no less a per- 
 sonage than George Clymer, the president of the institution named, 
 who had been Franklin’s colleague in Congress and with him had 
 signed the Declaration of Independence. If this error could be 
 committed so early, it is not surprising that it should live so long. 
 
 The portraits of Franklin by Caffieri and by Houdon are much 
 alike, as it is only natural they should be, modeled as they were by 
 two skilful artists only a year apart. Therefore, to typify them it is 
 necessary to note the direction of the eyes and the details of dress, 
 which are markedly different in the two busts, and by noting these 
 differences it is impossible to confuse one bust with the other and 
 misname the artist of either. The type of the Caffieri bust of Frank- 
 lin can be defined as having the eyes directed to the front and with 
 a loose-twisted neck-cloth, or jabot, hanging down outside the 
 waistcoat, while the type of the Houdon bust has the eyes slightly 
 elevated, directed to left, and a waistcoat buttoned, well up, with 
 one button, and inside the waistcoat a straight neck-cloth around 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 98 
 
 the throat. These distinctions it is indispensable to bear in mind, 
 as only by neglecting them is it possible to confuse the bust by Caf- 
 fieri with the bust by Houdon. 
 
 What seems more than odd is that although, as I have said, I 
 know not a single bust of Franklin in this country bearing the name 
 of Caffieri, the busts of Franklin that are most generally seen here 
 are of the Caffieri type, having the loose neck-cloth. This is chiefly 
 due to the fact that all of the busts of either type are merely copies, 
 which also accounts for variations found in pose and details. Not 
 only were there early importations from Italy of busts of Franklin, 
 but at the beginning of the last century advertisements appeared in 
 the Philadelphia newspapers of James Traquair, a stone-cutter, 
 offering for sale busts of Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and 
 William Penn, either “in the best carara marble or in Italian or 
 Pennsylvania marble.” Traquair employed to do this work John 
 Dixey, an Irishman of some ability as a sculptor, and Giuseppe 
 Jardella, a skilful Italian carver who had been brought over to 
 America to carve the embellishments for the great mansion being 
 built in Philadelphia for Robert Morris, the illustrious financier 
 of the American Revolution, for the marble work of which Tra- 
 quair had the contract. Upon Morris’s bankruptcy and the aban- 
 donment of his “Folly,” as the mansion was called, Jardella and 
 Dixey were employed to carve busts, and Traquair presented to the 
 Pennsylvania Hospital busts of Penn and of Washington in Penn- 
 sylvania marble, and to the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 99 
 
 Arts, in 1810, busts of Washington and of Hamilton ; while the bust 
 of Franklin purchased by the Academy the next year as “by Cer- 
 raci” doubtless came from the same factory after Traquair’s death, 
 which occurred April 15, 1811. 1 Mr. Lorado Taft, in writing of 
 this last-named bust of Franklin, builded wiser than he knew. 
 Speaking of Ceracchi, 2 he says : 
 
 Two marble busts attributed to him may be seen in the Pennsylvania 
 Academy: a “Hamilton” and a “Franklin,” both of which are weak. The 
 first is a copy, however, by John Dixey, and it is likely that the more 
 glaring defects of the second — such as the hair carved in square ropes — 
 are due to another less skilful hand. However, the pose and expression, 
 which are undoubtedly Ceracchi’s, do scant justice to the dignity of the 
 subjects. 
 
 How different would Mr. Taft’s criticism have been upon Ce- 
 racchi’s work had he known the superb original of Hamilton in the 
 Lenox Library, New York! 
 
 We have now given for the first time the true history of the only 
 two busts of Franklin, assumedly modeled from life, that we know, 
 —the one by Caffieri, of 1777, and that by Houdon, of 1778; and 
 we have laid down immutable rules for distinguishing these two 
 famous busts. We have shown that there is no bust of Franklin by 
 Ceracchi, who for a century has been credited with the bust by 
 Caffieri. We have shown that Franklin’s letter “to a discontented 
 artist, whose name is not preserved,” was written to Jean Jacques 
 
 1 Westcott , s “History of Philadelphia,” chapters 417 and 808. 
 
 2 “History of American Sculpture,” p. 19. 
 
IOO 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Caffieri, and we have identified Caffieri’s work by the bust of 
 Franklin delivered by Caffieri to M. le Roy, on the order of Frank- 
 lin given in this very letter. We have learned how Franklin and 
 Caffieri became acquainted, through the monument ordered by 
 Congress for General Montgomery, and how, taking advantage of 
 the opportunity, Caffieri was “the first to seize on Franklin” 1 and 
 model and exhibit his bust, which was purchased out of the Salon 
 “pour la Direction des Batiments.” Every link of the chain is 
 perfect. 
 
 We do not know, however, what has become of the bust that was 
 exhibited at the Salon and acquired by the King. As early as 
 August, 1780, Pierre, the director of the Academy of Fine Arts and 
 first painter to the King, informs us that “M. Caffieri has delivered, 
 something like two years past, the terra-cotta portrait of M. Franck- 
 lin. This work was valued at 500 livres, but as its whereabouts are 
 unknown , the amount has not been paid.” 2 That source of data 
 upon every subject happening in France during the period it cov- 
 ers, the “Memoires Secrets,” has a word to say on Caffieri’s Frank- 
 lin: 3 
 
 This bust shows us a philanthropist seeking a remedy for the ills of 
 his country. One witnesses his soul aroused in indignation, portrayed in 
 his countenance, altering its benignity. It appears as if the sculptor had 
 sketched it when receiving the order for the tomb of a general, which, 
 from the details furnished, it is evident is intended for America. 
 
 1 Dilke, “French Architects and Sculptors of the XVIII Century,” p. 119. 
 
 2 Guiffrey’s “Les Caffieris,” p. 241. 3 Vol. IX, p. 49. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon ioi 
 
 While Houdon’s bust, when exhibited two years later, calls from 
 Grimm the exclamation, “What elevation of thought is seen in the 
 bust of the legislator of the New World!” 
 
 To the superficial observer it may seem as though too much space 
 has been given to Caffieri in a work upon Jean Antoine Houdon. 
 But it will be seen how much they had to do with each other, how 
 closely interwoven were their professional careers. Delerot and 
 Legrelle, in their monograph on Houdon (p. 1 13 ) , say: 
 
 Franklin, Moliere and J. J. Rousseau are the three great names that 
 really belonged to this exhibition [1779] .... The bust of Franklin had 
 already been executed two years previously in plaster by Caffieri. It 
 would seem as if Franklin had been but half satisfied by this first pro- 
 duction, seeing that he addressed himself to Houdon, as to a Judge sit- 
 ting in a court of last resort, to correct the errors of a less able or inferior 
 one. His confidence in Houdon was not misplaced, and the latter dis- 
 covered how to give to his physiognomy an expression of great elevation 
 and .shrewdness, a characterization of nobility devoid of stiffness, of 
 simplicity and moderation free from affectation of any sort. Franklin 
 ought to have been satisfied this time, and in fact he was; we shall soon 
 find proof of his admiration and gratitude. 
 
 Upon this Guiffrey says: 1 
 
 It is known that Houdon had as well executed a portrait of the illus- 
 trious savant. Houdon’s work, also in terra-cotta, was exhibited in 1779. 
 The two artists were more than once to encounter each other in the same 
 field, and this rivalry, of which we shall have frequent occasion to speak, 
 excited an inward animosity, showing itself in various unpleasant ways. 
 
 1 “Les Caffieris,” p. 243. 
 
102 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 It must be recognized that contemporary opinion appears to have given 
 the preference to Houdon, and posterity, more impartial, has confirmed 
 this opinion. Perhaps the incontestable and more productive talent of 
 Houdon caused an unmerited prejudice against his rival, and Caffieri 
 showed himself too sensitive of the injury he felt in the success of a 
 younger fellow-artist; and the relations of the two, which had begun 
 amicably, even affectionately, underwent a marked change owing to this 
 continuous rivalry ... a rivalry that was not long in changing the 
 friendship of youth into violent animosity and implacable jealousy. 
 
 Guiffrey then goes on to say that Delerot and Legrelle think that 
 
 . . . the bust of Franklin by Caffieri could have had but little suc- 
 cess, as, two years afterward, Houdon was charged with the execution 
 of a fresh portrait of the illustrious man. This seems to be a very forced 
 meaning to give to so simple a fact. That two artists of equal talent, 
 both in search of models calculated to attract public attention, should 
 have crossed each other’s paths in this instance as in others, and exhib- 
 ited likenesses of the same distinguished people at the same time, seems 
 only natural. 
 
 Guiffrey’s view on this point is, of course, the only reasonable and 
 tenable one, and that of Delerot and Legrelle simply absurd and 
 regrettable, as their client was too big a man to need any such 
 fatuous special pleading, while the facts as we have developed them 
 disprove the hypothesis upon which they builded. Franklin did 
 not employ either Caffieri or Houdon to model his bust. They 
 each did it “gratuitously.” Indeed, the opening paragraph of a 
 letter from Houdon to some unknown person in the American 
 Philosophical Society, which was doubtless sent to Franklin for 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 103 
 
 information and preserved by him, would seem to negative the pos- 
 sibility that Franklin had sat to Houdon for his bust, and we have 
 no proof that he did. Here, in this letter, we have Houdon’s own 
 statement that he has just then, in iy 8 j, been presented to Frank- 
 lin. His words will bear no other interpretation or explanation, 
 and it is hardly conceivable, had Franklin sat to Houdon for his 
 bust in 1778, that five years later Houdon would need to be for- 
 mally presented to the simple-minded, easily accessible Franklin. 
 We give the letter and leave it for each one to draw his own con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Paris, 8th Novbr., 1783. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 The day after you had the kindness to present me to Dr. Franklin, I 
 called at your domicile to thank your Son for all his kindness and to 
 express my recognition of the debt I am under to you ; at the same time 
 to inform you that M. Bufon proposed to carry, himself, to Dr. Frank- 
 lin the book in question touching the mould of Louis XV. But as I 
 fear that the multitudinous occupations of M. Bufon may much delay 
 him, if you will permit it and judge it appropriate to pass over to him 
 mine, while awaiting the one that is to be given him as his own property, 
 I then beg you to send it, in order that this celebrated man may suffer no 
 delay in the wish he has to study a work of that kind. It will be another 
 incentive for obliging me and increasing the ground of my gratitude. I 
 am, Sir, with respect, etc., 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 So far as the facts bear upon Franklin’s personal opinion upon 
 either bust, the evidence would be overwhelming in favor of Caf- 
 fieri’s, as we have proof that the philosopher-statesman ordered at 
 
104 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 least five busts from Caffieri, while we have nothing to show that he 
 ordered even one from Houdon, and this in the face of the evidence 
 we have that Houdon presented him with four of his, “gratui- 
 tously.” The “proof” that Delerot and Legrelle say “we shall soon 
 find”— that Franklin was “satisfied” with Houdon’s bust— is no- 
 where exhibited in their monograph, as the language used indicates 
 it is. My own feeling has always leaned toward the Caffieri bust, 
 or, as we knew it for so long, the Ceracchi. It is indeed the head of 
 a philosopher, and much finer in character than the one by Hou- 
 don, which supports the presumption that Houdon’s was not from 
 life sittings. I cannot understand Houdon’s idea in giving the 
 eyes, in his bust of Franklin, the unnatural direction that they have ; 
 particularly as he was noted for his marvelous skill in the modeling 
 of eyes, and the eyes in this bust are most skilfully modeled, but they 
 have a restless energy that one does not expect to find in a jovial 
 philosopher of seventy-two. On this point Metra writes : 1 
 
 M. d’Alembert . . . presented to the Academy a superb bust of the 
 author of “Zaire,” by Houdon, to whose house all Paris goes to see the 
 busts of J. J. Rousseau, of Mr. Franklin, and of M. d’Alembert. One 
 has no idea of the striking resemblances of these portraits. M. Houdon 
 has a manner of his own for rendering eyes. Never has sculpture in this 
 direction been carried so far. It is to me superior to painting. 
 
 In justice all around, it must be admitted, however, that one 
 labors under great disadvantage in judging any piece of sculpture, 
 
 1 “Correspondance Secrete,” November 14, 1778, Vol. Ill, p. 117. 
 

 WTBu&MIKlLJLM' IBlf IHLCCDUIirDCD^ 
 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 105 
 
 and particularly a portrait, a disadvantage shared in equally by the 
 sculptor, for it is impossible to know just how the modeler left his 
 work. What we get is always second-hand, and sometimes third- 
 or fourth-hand. In this respect the sculptor’s practice of his art 
 differs materially from the painter’s. The painter’s work is all the 
 product of his own hand, from the preliminary sketch to the fin- 
 ished picture, and is essentially an original work. Not so with the 
 sculptor’s work. He makes his own sketches, fashions with his own 
 hand his creation out of plastic clay, and then turns his original 
 model over to another who makes a mould and produces a cast in 
 plaster or in metal. Or, if the work is to be perpetuated in stone, 
 an ordinary stone-cutter rough-hews the block and then hands it to a 
 more skilful cutter, often a man of talent not far inferior to his em- 
 ployer, who shapes it into the likeness of the model or really carves 
 it in stone, also enlarging or diminishing it, if this is required. 
 Finally, the artist gives some finishing touches with his chisel, but 
 the result cannot be called “an original work,” in the sense that a 
 painting may be so called. The clay model is the original creation 
 of the artist’s brain and hand, which unfortunately, not being per- 
 manent, is lost as soon as moulded, so that the cast, being almost a 
 facsimile of the original model, is far more valuable and reliable 
 than the copy in stone. 
 
 We are familiar with three busts of Franklin in this country that 
 are signed and dated, “houdon f — 1778.” One is a plaster cast in the 
 Boston Athenaeum, that was given by Houdon to Thomas Jeffer- 
 
io 6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 son; another is a marble in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New 
 York, which belonged originally to Dr. Samuel Bard, a contem- 
 porary and friend of Franklin; and the third is a bronze, under life 
 size, that came from Paris and is owned by Mr. Joseph Y. Jeanes, of 
 Philadelphia. Of these, the plaster cast is unquestionably the most 
 natural, and doubtless, for the reasons we have given, nearest to the 
 original clay model as it left the sculptor’s hands. A signed bust of 
 Franklin by Houdon, in “platre teinte,” belonging to M. Lucien 
 Faucou, of Paris, was exhibited in the Pavilion National de la Re- 
 publique Frangaise, at the Chicago Exposition, in 1893 5 another is 
 in the Louvre; yet another is in the Museum at Angers; and one 
 belongs to Mr. Edward Tuck, of Paris. 
 
 In 1802 (January 20) Dupont de Nemours wrote from New 
 York to Jefferson: 1 
 
 Houdon has left in America a very fine bust of Benjamin Franklin, 
 which is now at my house. This bust is in marble, is worth 100 Louis of 
 our money, equalling about 480 dollars. Nothing would be more appro- 
 priate than for the nation to place it in your Capitol ( Va.) , and Houdon, 
 to whom Virginia still owes a thousand crowns on the statue of Wash- 
 ington, stands in real need of the money. 
 
 Jefferson sent this extract to James Monroe, then Governor of 
 Virginia, 2 but Monroe did not think he was authorized to purchase 
 
 1 Jefferson MS. Correspondence, Library of Congress. 
 
 2 Letter, Jefferson to Monroe, February 28, 1802. Dreer Collection, Pennsylvania 
 Historical Society. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 107 
 
 the bust without the sanction of the legislature, 1 and Jefferson so 
 informed Dupont. 2 Virginia did not buy the bust, and we do not 
 know what became of it. May it not be the one now in the Metro- 
 politan Museum of Art, New York, the only Houdon bust of 
 Franklin in marble that we know? 
 
 Again, in the Salon of 1791, Houdon exhibited a bust of Frank- 
 lin, which has given color to the tradition that the sculptor, when 
 in Philadelphia in 1785, modeled a second bust of Franklin; but 
 we have not been able to find any evidence that he made more than 
 the one bust of him, that of 1778. Any other view seems also to be 
 negatived by Delerot and Legrelle, who say (p. 189) : 
 
 The year 1791 proved a revolutionary period for the public exhibi- 
 tions, introducing plebeian art to the honors of the Salon. Until then 
 the academical aristocracy were solely permitted to exhibit their works 
 at the palace of the Louvre. A decree by the National Assembly, dated 
 August 21, 1791, suppressed this last privilege and this last aristocracy, 
 leaving the public voice the care of very quickly reestablishing it through 
 vote and criticism. Equality at the Salon was a mere chimerical hope. 
 Here were to be found by Houdon a repetition in bronze of his Winter; 
 a plaster bust of a female; some heads of children, young girls; and 
 former busts , such as those of Voltaire, La Fayette and Franklin. 
 
 Of course this is not definitive, as the La Fayette was not the 
 “former bust,” but a new one. 
 
 1 Hamilton’s Monroe, Vol. Ill, p. 339. 
 
 2 Letter from Jefferson, April 30, 1802, in possession of General Henry A. Dupont, 
 Winterthur, Del. 
 
io8 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Montaiglon and Duplessis, in writing of Houdon’s bust of 
 Franklin, say (p. 241) : 
 
 Houdon could not fail to feel the attraction that seemed to draw all 
 France towards this Sage and Savant from another hemisphere, and he 
 must have been happy in reproducing the venerable head of this old man, 
 beautiful from its intelligence and honesty. He succeeded in it perfectly, 
 and the bust of him that he has left to us is one of his finest and most 
 simple. This bust is the man himself, reflective, calm, benevolent, smil- 
 ing, and he makes us understand the man as clearly as his writings do. 
 It had great success, and for an inscription Turgot penned the following 
 lines: “ Eripuit ccelo fulmen sceptrumque tyrannis ” 1 
 
 But the last and most interesting word on the subject, written in 
 his seventieth year, comes from the foremost of living sculptors, 
 Auguste Rodin, who is a great admirer of Houdon, and deserves 
 special consideration coming from such a source. Rodin, wishing 
 to show that the portrait-busts by Houdon are like written memoirs 
 of their subjects, and that “period, race, profession, personal char- 
 acter, all is there indicated,” wrote this curious analysis of the bust 
 of Franklin: 
 
 A heavy appearance, full hanging cheeks; there is the former work- 
 man. Long apostolic hair, a beneficent good-will; here is the popular 
 moralizer, Poor-man Richard. A large obstinate forehead, bent for- 
 ward; evidence of Franklin’s determination, of which proof lies in his 
 self-instruction, self-support, becoming an eminent Savant and further 
 succeeding in emancipating his country. Astuteness in the eyes and at the 
 
 1 These lines were first used on a terra-cotta medallion of Franklin by Nini, 1778. 
 Vide “McClure’s Magazine,” March, 1897, P* 453* 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 109 
 
 corners of the mouth. Houdon was not deceived by the general massive- 
 ness, but he detected the hard common-sense of the successful calculator 
 amassing a fortune, the wary diplomat who compassed the secrets of 
 English diplomacy. Behold, all alive, one of the ancestors of modern 
 America ! 1 
 
 The late Laurence Hutton 2 made some very wild statements in 
 regard to Houdon’s bust of Franklin and a mask of his face that he 
 claimed to have. These were mere assumptions, wholly unsup- 
 ported by any authority, as Mr. Hutton applied to me for informa- 
 tion on the subject, and when I could not give him what he wanted, 
 he applied to a great-granddaughter of Franklin , 3 who in turn 
 applied to me, for him, with necessarily like result. This is merely 
 noted in closing, as a warning to the wary . 4 
 
 1 “La Liberte,” Paris, August 12, 1910. 
 
 2 “Portraits in Plaster,” p. 241. 
 
 3 Miss Agnes Irwin, late Dean of Radcliffe College. 
 
 4 The following note in Scharf and Westcott’s “History of Philadelphia,” Vol. II, p. 
 1066, I have been unable to verify: “The original terra-cotta models of the busts of 
 Washington and Franklin, made by Houdon in Philadelphia, were taken to Paris. They 
 were in the possession of M. Walfredin, nephew of Diderot, in 1869-70. After his 
 death they were sold to M. de Montbrison.” Busts of Washington and of Franklin 
 that belonged to M. Walferdin were bequeathed by him to the Louvre, where they now 
 are. Whether he had others, of course not made in Philadelphia, that were sold after 
 his death, I have been unable to ascertain. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 1779 
 
 MOLIERE— ROUSSEAU— MIRABEAU— DEATH-MASKS OF ROUSSEAU 
 
 AND MIRABEAU 
 
 HE bust of Moliere, it may be remembered, is mentioned 
 as being exhibited in Houdon’s studio when visitors were 
 going there to see the bust of Voltaire. The “Secret Me- 
 moirs,” under date of April 19, 1778, say: “There has been on view 
 for some time in M. Houdon’s studio a bust of Moliere, executed 
 for the foyer of the Comedie-Frangaise. It is very fine.” As the 
 paragraph just quoted shows, it was executed on an order from the 
 members of the Comedie, whose plan originally had been to have 
 a statue made of the great dramatist. The proceeds of a perform- 
 ance on the centenary of Moliere’s death, however, falling below 
 the sum that had been expected, the project for this statue neces- 
 sarily underwent a modification, and on motion of Lekain a bust 
 was decided on. 1 
 
 Here Houdon’s task was a very different one from any he had 
 before attempted : not the faithful portrayal of a living model, in 
 
 1 M. Taschereau, “Vie de Moliere,” notes. 
 
 no 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon m 
 
 which branch of art he had become supreme, but the creation from 
 accepted portraits of an idealized resemblance. It was natural, 
 from the fame and character of Moliere, to anticipate that public 
 expectation would not be satisfied with a mere rendition of the 
 poet’s general aspect, but that the hidden fires of his genius should 
 in some way be brought out and typified in the bust. 
 
 This task Houdon accomplished with great eclat, artists and pub- 
 lic alike joining in praising his creation. “The genius for observa- 
 tion of this great man [Moliere] is expressed with a force, a noble- 
 ness, that no painter has ever approached. His brow carries an 
 expression of profound meditation. His glance (M. Houdon is 
 perhaps the first sculptor who has known how to model eyes) —his 
 glance dives deep into the heart,” writes Baron Grimm . 1 In fact, 
 among French writers we find this work placed upon a very high 
 plane, indeed, certain critics going so far as to rank it as “one of the 
 finest inspirations in iconic statuary .” 2 
 
 A description of the bust is as follows: “The head of the noble 
 thinker, framed in its long, floating hair, the neck bared and a scarf 
 loosely knotted about it, is carried forward with an expression of 
 suppressed ardor and reflection. The poet no longer feels his iden- 
 tity, for he sees, he listens to his genius as it speaks to him; the eye 
 is observant, the nostrils are dilated from the fullness of thought 
 within; the mouth, fine and elegant, is slightly open, but no word 
 
 1 Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, Vol. XII (1880), p. 104. 
 
 2 Delerot and Legrelle, p. 115. 
 
I 12 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 escapes it; and the whole head, as deeply poetical as it is human, 
 sparkles with the powerful and pure reflection of a deep inspi- 
 ration.” 1 
 
 This bust, which in 1779 was merely of plaster, was promptly 
 executed in marble, and a considerable number of repetitions gave 
 it wide currency. The Comedie-Frangaise must undoubtedly have 
 obtained the first, the one now in its collection and prominently 
 placed in the foyer of the theatre. As far back as 1783 we find 
 traces of a slight controversy as to the prominent place given this 
 bust of Moliere. The “Secret Memoirs” 2 say, speaking of some 
 changes made in the interior of the Comedie: “It is a pity that the 
 mantelpiece appears somewhat mean for its surroundings. Busts 
 of different French dramatic authors ornament and enrich it; but it 
 is not understood why the Comedians, arrogating the right to de- 
 cide the leadership among themselves, have judged it appropriate 
 to place Moliere [the one by Houdon] much higher than the rest, 
 and by itself, as if dominating all the others.” It seems that Pre- 
 ville, a member of the Comedie and a very celebrated actor, had 
 been one of the chief instigators in the movement. Voltaire’s statue 
 was in the same hallway, and Preville had epigrammatically an- 
 nounced “that it was not proper to present a tragic author full 
 length where the Father of Comedy was shown only in a bust.” All 
 
 1 Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 244. 
 
 2 Vol. XXII, pp. 360, 361. The terra-cotta of Moliere’s bust belonged to Mme. Paul 
 Lacroix; it figured at the Salon of 1779. Grimm-Diderot Correspondance (1880), Vol. 
 XII, p. 103, n. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 113 
 
 this, of course, has been changed long since, and Voltaire’s image 
 holds undisputed sway as the central and dominating figure in the 
 more modern foyer. 
 
 Another replica of the Moliere bust found its way to the Acade- 
 mic Frangaise. D’Alembert had engraved on this one a celebrated 
 inscription; it is a witty line of Saurin’s: “Nothing is wanting to 
 his fame; he was lacking for ours”— a graceful tribute to Moliere’s 
 memory, and a palpable allusion to his not having been admitted a 
 member of the Academy in his lifetime. 
 
 A third bust is said to have been placed on the house in which 
 Moliere was born in Paris, at No. 3 Rue de la Tonnellerie, marked 
 by an inscription: “J. B. Poquelin de Moliere was born in this 
 house the 15th of January, 1620.” This was at a time before the 
 Revolution, when the premises were occupied by an old-clothes 
 dealer who possessed a great veneration for the memory of the 
 sublime Poquelin. A few years afterward, however, another old- 
 clothes broker succeeded the one just mentioned. He undertook to 
 repaint the front of his shop, and deemed it needful to include Mo- 
 liere’s bust in this operation. So this masterpiece of Houdon’s was 
 daubed over with black paint and the insignia, “At the sign of the 
 Black Head,” set up over it! 
 
 This was a little too much, even in Revolutionary times, and the 
 police authorities ordered the illiterate broker to restore matters to 
 their original state. Later, the house having been sold and the 
 fagade of it reconstructed, another bust of Moliere, sculptured by 
 
n 4 Life and Works of 
 
 Coyzevox, was put in the place of the one by Houdon so shamefully 
 disfigured . 1 
 
 The Ducal Museum at Gotha possesses a fine gypsum facsimile 
 of the marble bust of Moliere in the foyer of the Comedie. 
 
 Following hard upon the death of Voltaire in Paris came the 
 news of Rousseau’s demise at Ermenonville . 2 He was staying in 
 the house of M. de Girardin when the end came. Houdon, with 
 that ardor which distinguished him in his art, hastened to Ermenon- 
 ville. La Harpe, in his Correspondance , 3 says: “The sculptor 
 Houdon has gone at once to take a model of Rousseau at Ermenon- 
 ville, which leads one to think that death has not disfigured him.” 
 There was much divergence of opinion as to the manner of Rous- 
 seau’s death, but it is not our purpose to enter largely into the dis- 
 cussion of that question. A good many years after the event a friend 
 of Rousseau’s, Olivier Corancez, in writing of him, made the state- 
 ment that “M. Girardin, Mme. Rousseau and M. Houdon , sculp- 
 tor, all bear testimony to a hole in the forehead, caused by a fall in 
 the garde-robe [dressing-room]. This hole was so deep that M. 
 Houdon related to me himself having had difficulty in filling up 
 the cavity.” Later, Houdon formally contradicted this assertion in 
 a letter which we shall reproduce. The letter is addressed to M. 
 
 1 “Dictionnaire de la France,” Tome III, p. 205. 
 
 2 According to Montaiglon and Duplessis, the news was received July 3, 1778; accord- 
 ing to Delerot and Legrelle, July 4, 1778. 
 
 3 Letter 89, Vol. XI, p. 62. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon u 5 
 
 Petitain, then engaged on an edition of Rousseau , 1 and runs as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 8 March, 1819. 
 
 Sir: 
 
 I have delayed writing for the reason that I wished to look up and 
 re-examine afresh the mask of J. J. Rousseau that I took of him imme- 
 diately following his decease. As a result of this fresh examination, I 
 find that the contusion showing in the forehead is evidently the result of 
 a severe blow, not producing the effect of a hole. I can readily believe 
 that the skin was injured; nevertheless, one can perfectly trace the unin- 
 terrupted lines of wrinkles where the contusion shows. 
 
 As to the work of M. Corancez, I had no knowledge of it, and as to 
 the view he attributes to me, I never held it, nor could I have held it. To 
 any one familiar with such matters, it will be clear that it is a physical 
 impossibility I should have difficulty in filling up a space occasioned by 
 a cavity. 
 
 If these details should avail you, Sir, you are at liberty to make such 
 use of them as you may desire. 
 
 I have the honor, etc., 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 At a recent period, in order to set at rest a lingering doubt 
 whether Rousseau had really been buried in the Pantheon, a com- 
 mission was appointed by the French government to determine the 
 fact. Acting under the authority conferred, this commission made 
 an investigation, and in the account given in the newspapers of the 
 day we find as follows : 
 
 1 Rousseau’s Works, edited by M. Louis Germain Petitain. Paris, 1819. Appendix 
 to the Confessions, Vol. Ill, pp. 178, 179. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 ii 6 
 
 “The Rousseau vault was next entered. The wooden sarcoph- 
 agus was raised in the same manner as that of Voltaire. Within 
 was a great case of lead, and upon it were these words : 
 
 “Ci-git Rousseau 
 Anno 1778” 
 
 Then follows a description of the body as it appeared within, and, 
 to quote again, “M. Berthelot took the skull in his hands. . . . But 
 what was most important was that the skull bore no trace of frac- 
 ture or perforation, thus disproving the long-believed story that 
 Rousseau committed suicide by blowing out his brains with a 
 pistol.” 
 
 Montaiglon and Duplessis say, quoting Querard 1 in support of 
 the statement, that the original mould referred to in Houdon’s let- 
 ter, just given, as having been taken by the sculptor from the dead 
 man’s face, “was purchased for 1800 francs in 1822 by M. Gossuin, 
 J r.” But this conflicts with the entry in the Sale Catalogue of Hou- 
 don’s effects in 1828, six years later, as follows: 
 
 Plaster mask moulded on the face of J. J. Rousseau a few hours 
 after his death. This precious impression, which is unique, was made by 
 M. Houdon, on the invitation of the late Count de Girardin, at whose 
 house the Philosopher died, on the 3d of July, 1778. 
 
 The terra-cotta bust exhibited at the Salon of 1779 was cata- 
 logued as belonging to the Marquis de Girardin. It was very 
 
 1 “France Litteraire,” VIII, 230. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon n 7 
 
 highly praised as a likeness and a work of art. The “Memoires 
 Secrets” of that year say of it: “What fire in this last portrait, whose 
 piercing glance seems to dive into the innermost recesses of the 
 human heart! From a certain point of view, the illusion is so com- 
 plete and the glance of the eye so direct and lively, that the bust 
 seems animated, and one feels like avoiding its gaze.” 
 
 This is compared by one writer with the description of Rousseau 
 in life, given by Mme. de Genlis in her “Memoirs”: “He had 
 small, deep-sunken eyes, but most piercing , and which seemed to 
 penetrate and divine the inmost thought of the one he was address- 
 ing; it seemed to me that he would have discovered at once a false- 
 hood or a prevarication .” 1 
 
 Houdon complained very bitterly of the pirating of his likeness 
 made of Rousseau, for it was endlessly reproduced. “The likeness 
 of J. J. Rousseau,” he asserted with much warmth, “is my prop- 
 erty.” He indignantly protested against “robberies which had en- 
 riched the thieves” and had proven as detrimental to his fame as 
 injurious to his pocket. As one writer says, “This audacious coun- 
 terfeiting and the multiplicity of the repetitions, so sought after in 
 spite of their imperfections and the formal disavowal of the author 
 himself, are, after all, an indirect panegyric upon Houdon’s celeb- 
 rity .” 1 
 
 The best known busts now extant are the one at the Louvre 
 
 1 “Memoirs of Mme. de Genlis,” Vol. II, pp. 8, 9. 
 
 2 Delerot and Legrelle, p. 117. 
 
1 1 8 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 (bronze), the one at the Royal Library at Versailles (terra-cotta), 
 and the one at the Museum in Gotha (gypsum bronzed), signed 
 “Houdon, 1778.” There seems also to have been a very celebrated 
 one in the possession of a M. Duriez, Sr., who obtained it from a 
 descendant of M. Le Grand de Serant, himself an artist and friend 
 of Houdon’s, to whom Houdon had presented it. 
 
 The bronze of the Louvre is not nearly so forceful a likeness as 
 the gypsum bust at Gotha, which is different in many respects. It 
 has the shoulders draped a V antique, and a circlet or ribbon bound 
 about the head, inclosing the hair. It is a smiling head with a 
 somewhat soft expression, and lacks the accent of verisimilitude 
 conveyed in the Gotha bust. Dierks makes an allusion to the “mar- 
 ble original, the whereabouts of which are now unknown”; 1 but 
 quotes no authority for a “marble original.” The bust exhibited in 
 the Salon of 1779 is catalogued (No. 220 ) as being of “terra- 
 cotta.” In the Stephen Girard collection at Girard College, Phila- 
 delphia, is a marble bust of Rousseau in precisely the same style as 
 the Gotha gypsum bust. 2 The description of the Duriez bust, given 
 in Montaiglon and Duplessis, applies equally to this one. “Here is 
 the man himself in all truthfulness, and without false arrangement. 
 His head is slightly bowed and looking somewhat to the left; the 
 hair is cut short; and the bust only includes the neck, which is un- 
 covered.” It would be interesting to learn the history of the Girard 
 
 1 Houdon’s “Leben und Werke,” p. 45. Dr. Hermann Dierks, Gotha, 1887. 
 
 2 Can this be the “marble original” of Dierks? 
 
MCDUJS S1EAHT 
 

 
 
 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon n 9 
 
 bust; thus far, our efforts to ascertain something about it and its 
 companion, a marble bust of Voltaire a 1 ’ antique, have not met with 
 success. 1 Houdon made a third bust of Rousseau with full wig, 
 and in the costume of the period, as a companion to a similarly ar- 
 ranged one of Voltaire. A pair of these belonged to the Societe des 
 Amis de PInstruction of Geneva, and are now in the Metropolitan 
 Museum of Art, New York. It is the commonly known bust of 
 Rousseau by Houdon, and in many respects the most characteristic. 
 
 Houdon’s name is also connected with a once proposed statue to 
 Rousseau. In the enthusiasm of the Revolutionary Convention of 
 1790, it was decreed that a statue to Rousseau should be erected 
 with the inscription, “From the free French Nation to J. J. Rous- 
 seau. n 
 
 The Commune of Arts, somewhat jealous of established reputa- 
 tions, and especially of those distinguished by membership in the 
 Academy, asked that it be submitted to competition. The com- 
 mittee to whom this was referred, through its president, Camus, 
 addressed a letter to the Academy stating that a decree had been 
 passed to put the statue in competition, and asking the Academy 
 for its advice. On receipt of this letter, the Academy of Painting 
 called a special meeting, held on April 16, 1791. 2 Some members, 
 among whom were Moreau, Boizot and Vincent, maintained that 
 
 1 In the copy of the inventory of Stephen Girard’s personal estate, made out in May, 
 1839, are catalogued, “One marble bust, Voltaire; one ditto, Rousseau; one ditto, Napo- 
 leon; and two marble ornaments, all valued at $20.” 
 
 2 MSS. of the old Academy Records. 
 
120 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 under the circumstances there should be no question of a choice by 
 competition ; that Houdon, possessing the only mask moulded, and 
 having made the most lifelike busts of Rousseau, would assure the 
 happy execution of the work, which, if done by another, would 
 have value only if drawn from the proofs and documents in Hou- 
 don’s possession. 
 
 But in spite of these special reasons and the support of the acade- 
 micians named, besides the excellent argument made by Houdon 
 as to the drawbacks in general of competition, 1 they had little 
 weight with the larger number. At a moment when the Academy 
 was already being attacked, the honor of being consulted had been 
 paid it. What other answer could it make but one conformable to 
 the wish expressed by the committee, and thus avoid the risk of 
 rousing fresh hatred? Commissioners were appointed, ten in num- 
 ber, and on the 23d of April rules for the competition were drawn 
 up and sent to M. Camus in the name of the Academy. The mod- 
 els were to be sixteen inches in height. Houdon, in spite of his own 
 strong disinclination to compete, at the solicitation of his friends 
 made a model also. At what time the competition was judged, and 
 the result of it, do not seem to be ascertainable, but what is certain 
 is that a year later, without our knowing whether Houdon had 
 been selected as a result of the competition or chosen outside of it, 
 the Minister of the Interior communicates to the Session of May 
 6, 1792 : 2 “That, agreeably to the decree which votes a monument 
 
 2 “Moniteur” of Monday, May 7, 1792. 
 
 1 See Appendix “C.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 121 
 
 to the memory of Jean Jacques Rousseau, arrangements have been 
 made with M. Houdon, and that this celebrated artist has com- 
 pleted a model which he asks permission to exhibit in a chamber of 
 the Legislative Assembly.” 
 
 The letter here given, from the original in possession of Mr. 
 Hart, evidently has reference to this very model, and is interesting 
 on that account. 
 
 Paris, April 1 1, 1792. 
 
 Mr. President: 
 
 I am in receipt of the letter addressed to me by yourself and the gen- 
 tlemen composing the Department, on the 7th of this month; I have not 
 ceased occupying myself with the monumental statue of J. J. Rousseau; 
 not only have I corrected my first model but I have constructed another 
 one which I submit to your enlightened judgment; it is designed for being 
 placed against one of the four pillars in the Rotunda of the Pantheon, 
 on the right, a spot which appeared the most appropriate one to M. 
 Quatremere Quincy and to myself. This site necessitates a monument of 
 large size. The size of the one I have the honor to submit a model of is, 
 from the base, between 20 and 25 feet; thus I am in hopes it will pro- 
 duce a proper effect, although a single figure and unaccompanied by any 
 allegorical design, which frequently detracts from the central figure. I 
 send with this a detailed statement of what its cost may be, either in 
 marble or in bronze. I am highly desirous that, in spite of this differ- 
 ence in cost, the decision should be in favor of bronze as being more 
 durable and better adapted to the character of the monument. I have 
 endeavored to figure as low as possible, by only including the actual pay- 
 ments to be made. As to my own fees, the glory of being chosen to exe- 
 cute the first monument voted by the free French nation must suffice. If, 
 from the close economy now required in all disbursements, sufficient 
 
122 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 should be found to allow them, as father of a family my duty would be 
 not to refuse, but I do not claim them; I only desire to gain the approba- 
 tion and regard which have been the incentives to the work of my entire 
 life. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with respect, Mr. President, 
 
 Your very humble and very obedient servant, 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 I am not including the expenses of transportation from my studio to 
 the Pantheon, nor the placing [of the statue], because it will be much 
 cheaper, I think, for the Department to employ its own workmen en- 
 gaged about the premises. 
 
 Unfortunately, this is as far as the project ever advanced. In the 
 session of the Convention on September i, 1795, the deputy Boissy 
 inquired why Rousseau was still without a statue, 1 but his question 
 received no satisfactory answer. 
 
 It is perhaps regrettable that Houdon did not have the oppor- 
 tunity of fulfilling his purpose. He was still possessed of all his 
 powers, being but little over fifty years of age, and doubtless such a 
 subject appealed to him very strongly. On the other hand, he had 
 not had the opportunity to study his model as either in the case of 
 Voltaire or of Washington, and while a highly creditable produc- 
 tion would no doubt have been forthcoming, it is hardly suppos- 
 able, as some writers suggest, that a rival for the fame of his mas- 
 terpiece at the Comedie-Frangaise would have been the result. 
 
 This account of the proposed statue to Rousseau brings us chron- 
 
 1 “Moniteur,” note in Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 340. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 123 
 
 ologically to Houdon’s bust of Mirabeau, exhibited in 1791. This 
 was again to involve our sculptor in the contrarieties of a compe- 
 tition. Mirabeau expired on the 2d of April, 1791. Immediately 
 following his decease, the Abbe Espagnac sought out Houdon to 
 prevail on him to take a death-mask of the noted orator, to which 
 desire Houdon at once yielded. The day following, Sunday, Espa- 
 gnac communicated what he had done the day before to a society 
 known as the “Friends of the Constitution,” of which Mirabeau 
 had been a member, and proposed the ordering of a bust. He very 
 generously offered to subscribe fifty louis (1000 francs) toward its 
 cost. The motion having been carried, the Abbe ascertained the 
 price Houdon asked, which discloses to us what he was generally 
 paid; viz., 3000 francs ($600) for a marble bust, and 4000 francs 
 ($800) for one in bronze. 
 
 One account states that, the model having been completed, it was 
 deemed preferable to submit the bust to competition while a de- 
 cision was pending as to the material to be used, and recourse was 
 again had to the Academy for its advice, which again felt con- 
 strained to give in its adhesion to the project. Another version is 
 that Houdon executed the bust, which satisfied the committee, and 
 then an abrupt and inconceivable retraction by the committee fol- 
 lowed, by which it was fixed for competition. Houdon, they stated, 
 was an academician, and it was time to put an end to unjust distinc- 
 tions and to extend to the jealous mediocrity of artists without 
 special gifts the benefits of equality. This might be all very well 
 
124 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 for the new found disciples of “Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite,” but 
 it was certainly very shabby treatment for an artist of Houdon’s 
 fame and character. A further pretext advanced, that the bust was 
 not a good likeness, astonishes naturally, and yet we are not enthu- 
 siastic over the Mirabeau bust, and think with Louis Gonze that it 
 does not fulfil one’s expectations. 
 
 After this unpleasant experience, Houdon published the reflec- 
 tions suggested by it as well as by the Rousseau incident of similar 
 character, embodying at the same time his views on competitions 
 generally , 1 and their influence on art. They have been thought well 
 worthy of preservation, as being applicable at the present day. 
 
 1 Given in Appendix “D.” 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 1780 
 
 BUST OF JOHN PAUL JONES-THE QUESTION OF THE IDENTIFICATION 
 OF HIS REMAINS BY HOUDON’S BUST CONSIDERED 
 
 QI/tti [7^0 the Salon of 1781 Houdon made a grand contribution 
 few of thirteen pieces, including his two famous life-size 
 
 statues, in marble, of the Marshal de Tourville, now in 
 the Museum at Versailles, and of Voltaire, “qui devait etre placee 
 a l’Academie-Frangaise mais destinee depuis a decorer la nouvelle 
 salle de comedie, rue de Conde.” But the item of greatest interest 
 to us among those exhibited is entered, “261. Paul Jones. Buste 
 platre teinte, couleur de terre-cuite.” This bust of John Paul Jones 
 was modeled by Houdon in the spring of 1780 and so dated under 
 his signature, and has recently attained great significance and im- 
 portance from the prominent place given to it in the identification 
 of the remains, disinterred in Paris, in April, 1905, as those of the 
 dauntless commander of the B onhomme-Richar d . This fact makes 
 this bust of the first consequence and will lead us into an inquiry as 
 to the verification of the find. 
 
 Paul Jones was much admired in France even before his great 
 sea-fight. Nearly three weeks before this memorable event, Metra 
 
 25 
 
126 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 writes, 1 “The famous Paul Jones is awaited with impatience. The 
 Queen has said, in the last few days, that she wished herself to at- 
 tach a waving plume to his hat. This was thought charming, and 
 at once orders were given to the court milliner, Mile. Bertin, for 
 hats a la Paul Jones.” But it seems it was six months before Marie 
 Antoinette’s wish could be gratified. Baron Grimm writes in May, 
 1780, 2 “The intrepid Paul Jones has been here [in Paris] several 
 weeks. The Lodge of the Nine Sisters, of which he is a member, 
 engaged M. Houdon to make his bust. This portrait is another 
 masterpiece worthy of the chisel which seems destined to consecrate 
 to immortality illustrious men in every walk of life.” It is to the 
 sittings for this bust that Jones alludes in his letter addressed to the 
 Comtesse de la Vendahl, June 7, 1780, “I beseech you to accept the 
 within lock. I am sorry that it is now eighteen inches shorter than 
 it was three months ago. Before I had the honour to see you I 
 wished to comply with the invitation of my lodge.”* 
 
 At this time Paul Jones was in his thirty-third year and the lau- 
 rels he had won in his action with the Serapis were still green. He 
 was received everywhere enthusiastically and with marks of atten- 
 
 1 “Correspondance Secrete,” September 5, 1779, Vol. VIII, p. 288. 
 
 2 “Correspondance Litteraire de Grimm et Diderot,” Paris, 1880, Vol. XII, p. 394. 
 
 3 Jones MS. Correspondence, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. In the 
 Calendar of John Paul Jones Manuscripts in the Library of Congress, Washington, 
 D. C., 1903, p. 152, this last passage is epitomized, “hopes to accept the invitation of 
 his lodge to return to France Not only does the letter not say this, but “the invitation 
 of my lodge” was, clearly, to sit for his bust, for which purpose he had sacrificed the 
 length of his queue, and not “to return to France.” He was writing of what had 
 happened, not of what was to happen. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 127 
 
 tion. At the opera, to which he was invited, a wreath was arranged 
 over the seat he was to occupy, which, at an appropriate moment, 
 should descend upon his brow; but, forewarned of this bit of the- 
 atricalism, he begged that it might be omitted. 1 He was presented 
 at court, given a sword by the King, and decorated with the cross 
 of the Institution of Military Merit, the first time of its award to 
 any one not a Frenchman. Sartines, the French Minister of 
 Marine, wrote from Versailles to “Mr. Hantenydon,” 2 the Presi- 
 dent of Congress, proposing, in the name of the King, to present 
 Jones with a sword and “to decorate this brave officer with the 
 Cross of Military Merit.” At the same time he advised Jones that 
 the decoration had been forwarded to the Minister of France at 
 Philadelphia, the Chevalier de la Luzerne. Jones returned to 
 America, reaching Philadelphia, where Congress was in session, 
 on February 17, 1781, and ten days later Congress expressed its ap- 
 preciation at the approbation of his Most Christian Majesty of 
 Jones’s services, “and that his Majesty’s offer of adorning Captain 
 Jones with the Cross of Military Merit is highly agreeable to Con- 
 gress.” 3 In consequence of this action, the Chevalier de la Luzerne 
 gave a fete, on March 21st, to the members of Congress and other 
 persons of consideration, at which he invested Jones with the Order 
 of Merit, which gave him the title of Chevalier, a title which he 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” May 18, 1780, Vol. XV, p. 179. 
 
 2 Samuel Huntingdon. 
 
 3 Journals of Congress, Philadelphia, 1800, Vol. VII, p. 32. 
 
128 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 ever after proudly bore. This is the order that appears on the lapel 
 of the coat in Houdon’s bust of Jones, the vain little sailor having 
 anticipated the favorable action of Congress by requesting his 
 friend Dr. Bancroft, from L’Orient, in July of 1780, 1 to purchase 
 for him “one of the most fashionable Crosses of Merit of the small 
 size” ; as the real cross of the Institution of Military Merit had been 
 sent to the Chevalier de la Luzerne at Philadelphia, and this is how 
 it got upon the bust by Houdon when it did. In this connection it is 
 curious to note that among Jones’s effects enumerated in the inven- 
 tory of his estate were “12 decorations” which it is said were sold. 2 
 
 All of the unquestioned portraits of Paul Jones are of the exact 
 period of the Houdon bust of him, and each one confirms the other 
 by its resemblance to it. These are the miniature by the Comtesse 
 de Bourbon de la Vendahl, the medallion by Jean Martin Renaud, 
 and the drawings by C. J. Notte and Jean Michel Moreau. Of the 
 last of these, Jones wrote to Dr. Bancroft, September 23, 1780, 3 
 wishing him to give to Thevenard and to de la Grandville each 
 “one of the stamps done by M. Morau (I know not if I spell the 
 name) . I mean the one I sat for when you were once present.” In 
 writing of Houdon’s bust of Jones, James Barnes, in his study of the 
 personal appearance of Paul Jones, 4 says: “The character and the 
 individuality of the Commander of the Bonhomme-Richard are 
 
 1 Jones MS. Correspondence, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 2 “The Century Magazine” for October, 1905, p. 933. 
 
 3 Jones MS. Correspondence, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 4 “Appleton’s Magazine,” June, 1906, p. 107. 
 
IPATU1L JOifES 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 129 
 
 portrayed in so wonderful and lifelike a manner that, as we study 
 it, we feel a personal contact with him. Here is the greatest fight- 
 ing face that has ever been perpetuated in marble, bronze or clay. 
 Yet the determined, bulldog expression is relieved by the sugges- 
 tion of strong mentality and humor, and, strange to say, the features 
 have, when taken as a whole, an effect of grace and beauty, and 
 more — they have the charm of a remarkable personality.” 
 
 Jones, it would appear, was perfectly well satisfied with the bust 
 that Houdon made of him, as he presented a copy to Jefferson, for 
 the acceptance of which Jones writes Jefferson a letter of thanks 
 from Paris, February 28, 1786, 1 in which he says, “It has been re- 
 marked by professed judges that it does no discredit to the talents 
 of Mr. Houdon.” This bust was for many years in the Athenaeum 
 at Boston, but has disappeared. The following year Jones sent two 
 busts to Philadelphia, which he intended to present in person to 
 Washington and to Robert Morris upon his return, but he wrote to 
 Morris, 2 “As the moment of my return to America continues uncer- 
 tain, I beg you will now accept the bust as a mark of my affection.” 3 
 
 1 Sherburne’s “Life of Jones,” p. 270. 
 
 2 Sands’s “Life of Jones,” p. 361. 
 
 3 The story told by A. C. Buell, in his fictitious book on Paul Jones, Vol. II, page 15, 
 relative to Louis Philippe seeing this bust of Jones, when he visited the Morris family in 
 the United States, for which statement he gives as authority, “Taylor’s Louis Philippe, 
 the Citizen King,” is purely imaginative. There is no such book as the one Buell cites. 
 W. Cooke Taylor did publish “Memoires of the House of Orleans,” in which there is 
 necessarily much about “the Citizen King,” but Jones is not mentioned or the anecdote 
 referred to; moreover, it was Gouverneur Morris of New York, and not Robert Morris 
 of Philadelphia, with whose family Louis Philippe stayed when in America. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 130 
 
 He then adds, showing that the illogical and ridiculous duty upon 
 works of art was a thorn in the side then as it is now, “Mr. Nesbit 
 writes that a duty was demanded on my busts. This, I own, sur- 
 prises me. They are not merchandise; and I flatter myself that my 
 zeal and exertions for the cause of America will not be requited 
 with such a mark of dishonour. I would rather hear that the busts 
 were broken to pieces than consent that they should be subject to a 
 duty.” 1 
 
 Washington showed his appreciation of the gift by keeping 
 Jones’s bust in his study at Mount Vernon, and it appears in the 
 inventory of his estate appraised at twenty dollars. Upon its recep- 
 tion, Washington wrote to Jones from Philadelphia, September 2, 
 1787, 2 have received and have forwarded to my house the Bust 
 
 you did me the honor to present me with, and shall place it with 
 my own.” This extreme graciousness fairly overwhelmed Jones, 
 who wrote in acknowledgment, 3 “Your determination to place my 
 Bust with your own confers on me a greater Honor than I ever be- 
 fore received; an Honor which I shall ever be ambitious to merit.” 
 
 Jones had evidently by this time acquired the bust-giving habit, 
 for a year later he writes to Jefferson 4 from “On board the Woldi- 
 
 1 In a MS. “List of Furniture sold by R. M. to Thomas Fitzsimons Esq Phia May 
 18, I797>” in the autograph of Robert Morris, No. 115 is “Head of Paul Jones in 
 plaster Paris.” This was a friendly sale to protect the articles from Morris’s cred- 
 itors. 
 
 2 Washington’s Letter-book, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 3 Washington Correspondence, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
 4 Sherburne’s Jones, pp. 302-304. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 131 
 
 mir, before Cozacoff,” under date of “29 August-September 9, 
 1788”: “Some of my friends in America did me the honor to ask 
 for my bust. I inclose the names of eight gentlemen to each of 
 whom I promised to send one. You will oblige me much by de- 
 siring Mr. Houdon to have them prepared and packed up, two 
 and two; and Mr. Short, to whom I present my respects, will take 
 the trouble to forward them by good opportunities, via Havre- 
 de-Grace, writing, at the same time, a few words to each of the 
 gentlemen. I shall esteem it a particular favor.” 
 
 To William Short he wrote : 
 
 September 15-26, 1788. 
 
 List of Gentlemen to whom Busts are to be sent: General St. Clair 
 and Mr. Ross of Philadelphia; Mr. John Jay, General Irvine, Mr. 
 Secretary Thomson and Colonel Wadsworth of New York; Mr. Maddi- 
 son and Colonel Carryton of Virginia. 
 
 Admiral Paul Jones presents his respectful compliments to Mr. Short 
 and begs the favor of him to forward the eight busts mentioned in the 
 above list by the most direct opportunities from Havre-de-Grace to 
 America. Mr. Jefferson is wrote to on this subject, and Mr. Houdon, 
 who prepares the busts, will also have them carefully [put] up in four 
 boxes. The Admiral prays Mr. Short to be so obliging as to write a line 
 or two to each of the gentlemen for whom busts are destined. 
 
 That each of these busts reached its respective destination seems 
 doubtful in view of Jones’s like inquiries of Thomson and of Ross 
 in December, 1789, “I presume you have received my bust, as Mr. 
 Jefferson has forwarded it to you.” 1 At all events, only one of these 
 
 1 Sands’s “Life of Jones,” p. 504, and Hamilton’s “Life of Jones,” p. 332. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 132 
 
 eight busts is identified as being in existence to-day. It is the one 
 presented to General William Irvine, which now belongs to the 
 Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and from which that more 
 than a century old institution has recently had cast a reproduction 
 in bronze. 
 
 Houdon’s bust of Paul Jones received the unqualified approval 
 of his contemporaries. Metra writes, July 25, 1780, 1 “All Paris 
 admires the bust of Paul Jones, the resemblance of which is strik- 
 ing” ; and when Sherburne, the biographer of Jones, applied to 
 Jefferson and Madison for the best likeness of the Admiral, Madi- 
 son wrote, 2 “His bust by Houdon is an exact likeness, pourtraying 
 well the characteristic features stamped on the countenance of the 
 original”; and Jefferson wrote, 3 July 2, 1825, “Houdon’s bust of 
 him is an excellent likeness. Why have they not taken a side face of 
 him from that? Such an one would be perfect 1 ” This last was the 
 sequel to a criticism on Peale’s portrait of Jones, an engraving of 
 which was the frontispiece to Sherburne’s book, which, Jefferson 
 said, “I must in truth and candor say does not recall one single 
 feature of his face to my perfect recollection of him.” 
 
 In January, 1789, Colonel Robert Burton, who had been a mem- 
 ber of Congress from North Carolina, which State always claimed 
 Jones as her adopted son, wrote to Governor Johnston, 4 “As those 
 
 1 “Correspondance Secrete,” Vol. X, p. 841. 
 
 2 Sherburne’s “Life of Jones,” April 28, 1825. 
 
 3 Jefferson MS. Correspondence, Library of Congress. 
 
 4 “State Records of North Carolina,” Vol. XXI, p. 527. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 133 
 
 men who have fought and bled for us in the late contest cannot be 
 held in too high esteem, and as Chevalier John Paul Jones is among 
 the foremost who derived their appointment from this State that 
 deserves to be held in remembrance to the latest Ages, I take the 
 liberty of offering to the State, as a present, through you, its Chief 
 Majistrate, the Bust of that great man and good soldier to per- 
 petuate his memory. If you do me the honour to accept it you will 
 please send me a line.” To this the Governor replied, “I have 
 had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 28th of January, 
 respecting the bust of Chevalier John Paul Jones. I will readily 
 accept it on behalf of the State, and will communicate your letter 
 to the next Assembly, that they may make such order as they think 
 proper.” But the printed Journals of the House of Delegates of 
 North Carolina fail to show that the subject was brought up for 
 action. It is not unlikely that Colonel Burton was a little prema- 
 ture in his offer, for more than two years afterward Jones writes to 
 Jefferson from Paris, March 20, 1791, 1 “You will observe that the 
 Empress of Russia has decorated me with the great Order of St. 
 Ann; and I have appeared with that order ever since. I must beg 
 the favor of you to obtain and transmit to me, as soon as possible, 
 the proper authority of the United States for my retaining the 
 honor. ... I am much obliged by the trouble you took in forward- 
 ing, before you left Europe, the busts I had promised to different 
 gentlemen in America. Having lately received a letter from Mr. 
 
 1 Sherburne’s “Life of Jones,” p. 329. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 134 
 
 Burton, a former member of Congress, with whom I had the honor 
 of being acquainted at New York, requesting my bust in behalf of 
 the State of North Carolina, I have ordered Mr. Houdon to pre- 
 pare and forward it by the first ship from Havre-de-Grace for 
 Philadelphia; and as that bust will be decorated with the Order of 
 St. Ann on the American uniform, this is one reason why I wish to 
 be authorized by the United States to wear that order. I shall take 
 the liberty of addressing the bust to you, to deliver it to the North 
 Carolina delegates, who will be so good as to forward it to the Gov- 
 ernor of that State.” Whether this bust, decorated with the order 
 of St. Ann, was ever made and forwarded to this country, is not 
 known, but there is no record of its having been received by the 
 State of North Carolina, and it is not now in the possession of that 
 State. 
 
 A few months later Jones presented one to Baron Grimm, 1 who 
 has preserved for us the genesis of the bust. From a passage in 
 Jones’s “Journal of the Campaign of the Liman,” dated St. Peters- 
 burg, July 29, 1 789, 2 in which he says, “A Washington, a Franklin, 
 a D’Estaing, a La Fayette think the bust of Paul Jones worthy of 
 being placed side by side with their own,” it would seem that he 
 had also made presents of his bust to Franklin, D’Estaing and La 
 Fayette, making sixteen in all that he gave away, and yet of these 
 only the one given to Irvine can be identified as in existence at this 
 
 2 Sands’s “Life of Jones,” p. 469. 
 
 1 Sands’s “Life of Jones,” p. 527. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i3 5 
 
 day. Two of Houdon’s busts of Jones belong to the National Acad- 
 emy of Design, New York, and there was one in the old Boston 
 Museum, which since its extinction has become the property of Mr. 
 C. H. Taylor, Jr., of Boston; but the pedigrees of these three are 
 unknown. Each is signed and dated, “houdon f. 1780.” From one 
 of those at the Academy of Design, which came from the old Amer- 
 ican Academy of Arts, presided over by Colonel Trumbull, twenty 
 reproductions were made in the spring of 1904 under the direction 
 of Mr. Frank D. Millet, and copies in bronze were placed in the 
 Navy Department at Washington and in the Naval Institute at 
 Annapolis; while plaster copies were deposited in the Corcoran 
 Gallery of Art, Washington, D. C.; the South Kensington Mu- 
 seum, London, England; the National Museum at Berlin; and the 
 Trocadero Museum in Paris. It was the copy in the Trocadero 
 Museum that was used in the identification of the exhumed body in 
 Paris. These reproductions are noted here as a warning against 
 future misstatements as to their being originals. 
 
 The French experts for the identification of the remains also had 
 the use of a bust known as “the Biron bust of Jones,” from the name 
 of its then owner, but which has since passed into the hands of Mr. 
 J. Pierpont Morgan, of New York, two views of which are repro- 
 duced in the commemorative volume on Paul Jones, published by 
 the government. This bust also is attributed to Houdon, an at- 
 tribution of authorship, judging from the reproductions, I feel quite 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 1 3 6 
 
 sure is apocryphal. Not only does the work lack the breadth, 
 virility and naturalism of Houdon’s work, but it lacks also the well 
 known signature of the artist, which was almost always placed on 
 the original works that this master created. I am also clearly con- 
 vinced that it is not a bust of Paul Jones or of any naval com- 
 mander, but the bust of some junior officer in the army, the proof 
 of which is found in the bust itself. It is not only wholly unlike the 
 unquestioned bust of Jones by Houdon in contour and in character, 
 as also all other authentic portraits of him, but is decorated with 
 only one epaulette, worn on the right shoulder, which was the in- 
 signia of rank of a junior officer in the armies of France and of 
 Great Britain in the eighteenth century. Paul Jones, as captain in 
 the navy, was entitled to and always wore two epaulettes, as Hou- 
 don represents him in his veritable bust of 1780. Apart from these 
 undeniable and unanswerable facts, it will not bear comparative 
 dissection with the unquestioned Houdon bust of Jones, and it is 
 not decorated with either of the orders that we have seen Paul Jones 
 was so eager to have represented on the busts that Houdon surely 
 did make of him. 
 
 Neither was this bust an heirloom in the Biron family, as has 
 been stated, but was purchased by the late Marquis de Biron, from 
 an artist, who had bought it at a public sale, outside of Paris, as a 
 bust of an unknown man and not as a portrait of Paul Jones, 
 wholly for its artistic merit as a terra-cotta by Houdon; and 
 it was not until a supposed resemblance of it to the profile on the 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 137 
 
 Dupre medal of Jones, which was modeled from the Houdon bust 
 of 1780, was pointed out to the Marquis de Biron by an American 
 visitor, that it was given the name of Paul Jones. 1 Mr. Frank D. 
 Millet, the distinguished painter, who saw this terra-cotta in Paris, 
 is of the opinion that it is not a portrait-bust of Paul Jones, while 
 he thinks it may be by Houdon; and Mr. Charles Grafly, the emi- 
 nent sculptor, who has seen only the photograph, thinks the bust is 
 neither by Houdon nor of Jones. 2 It was not unreasonable to sup- 
 pose the bust was an heirloom in the Biron family, as Jones was 
 acquainted with his contemporary Marquis de Biron, whose 
 nephew, the Due de Lauzun, was serving with the French army in 
 America, and Bachaumont preserves a very good story apropos of 
 this. 3 “Some days since the Marechal de Biron, desirous of enter- 
 taining all strangers of distinction and merit, gave a dinner to Paul 
 Jones. This nobleman asks many questions, and by two answers of 
 the American, which have been preserved, one can judge of his 
 spirit. The Marechal, speaking to him of Captain Pearson, Com- 
 mander of the Serapis, the adversary who gave him his victory and 
 glory, remarked that he had been made a Knight. Would that I 
 might some day cause him to be made an Earl.’ The Marechal 
 
 1 Letters from the Marquis de Biron to Mr. Hart, March 30 and May 2, 1907; 
 Loubat’s “Medallic History,” p. xxi; Saunier’s “Augustin Dupre,” p. 26. 
 
 2 Lady Dilke, in her “Sculptors of France,” prints a remarkable foot-note to her list of 
 Houdon’s works exhibited at the various Salons. Under date of 1781, “Paul Jones. — 
 This bust is now in the possession of M. le Marquis de Biron, B.B.” Our text shows 
 the inaccuracy of such a statement. 
 
 8 “Memoires Secrets,” May 20, 1780, Vol. XV, p. 181. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 138 
 
 some time afterward asked if he had seen the review and observed 
 closely the manoeuvres of the Regiment of the Guard. £ I should 
 much rather,’ he answered, £ have seen them manoeuvring in Hyde 
 Park.’ The rest of the conversation was carried on through an in- 
 terpreter, as Jones was not completely master of our language.” 
 
 This brings us to the identification of the body of Paul Jones by 
 comparisons with the Houdon bust of him; and, to begin, let it be 
 distinctly understood that the bust of Paul Jones, signed “houdon 
 f. 1780,” is a life-size bust, a fact that has been disputed; owing, 
 doubtless, to its beautiful proportions making it appear slightly 
 small, when in fact it is decidedly a large head. 
 
 The American Ambassador, in his official report to the United 
 States Government upon the remains of Jones, says: 
 
 To furnish the anthropologists with the required data, there was 
 obtained, upon personal application, permission to make all the desired 
 measurements of the Houdon bust of Paul Jones, a little more than 
 three-quarter size , owned by the Marquis de Biron, a very artistic work 
 representing the Admiral in court dress , with the hair curled in rolls 
 upon the temples. These rolls were identical with those found upon the 
 body. There was procured, through the courtesy of the Director of the 
 Trocadero Museum, a copy of the other well known bust of Paul Jones 
 by Houdon, one of the most accurate works of the famous sculptor, who 
 was also an admirer of the subject. It represents Paul Jones in the uni- 
 form of an Admiral, and was found more useful for the purpose of mak- 
 ing the comparative measurements on account of its being life size . 1 
 
 1 Papers relative to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Washington, 1906, 
 p. 435. The official report is the article previously published in “The Century Maga- 
 zine” for October, 1905, by General Horace Porter. 
 
SIGNATURE OF HOUDON ON BUST OF JOHN PAUF JONES 
 In Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia 
 
 (Houdon’s usual signature on his works.) 
 

 
 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon I39 
 
 The italics in the above are to note the inaccuracy of statement in 
 a matter of such importance that correctness and exactness are of 
 primary necessity. As already stated, the subject of the Biron bust 
 is represented in military uniform and not “in court dress” as that 
 expression is commonly understood, the only court dress for an 
 officer in the service being his full-dress uniform. By comparison 
 with what has it been determined that the Biron bust is a little less 
 than a quarter under life size? There is no undeviating standard 
 life size by which the proportions of a head are determined; and if 
 the comparison was made with the cadaver the Ambassador was 
 seeking to establish as the body of Jones, it was making the unknown 
 quantity the canon by which to fix its own value. Or were the com- 
 parisons made with the unquestioned Houdon bust of Jones? If so, 
 did not the great dissimilarity of form and contour and character 
 between the two busts strike the Ambassador and the experts so as 
 to make them question, if not actually doubt, whether the Biron 
 bust was of Paul Jones? These are mere introductory guide- 
 posts to lead the reader to a serious consideration of the greater 
 subject. 
 
 One of the French experts, Dr. Georges Papillault, seems to coin- 
 cide in this view. He says in his report : 1 
 
 There exist two busts of the Admiral made by the well known French 
 sculptor of the period, Houdon. One of these belongs to the Marquis 
 de Biron and the other is from a Philadelphia gallery. A replica of the 
 
 1 “The Independent,” July 13, 1905, p. 68. 
 
140 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 latter is to be found in the collection of casts in the Trocadero Museum, 
 here in Paris. Both of these were placed at my disposal, but after a care- 
 ful examination I utilized only the Philadelphia bust; and for this reason, 
 though both of the busts appear to be authentic, one was evidently far 
 more valuable for my purpose than the other. They were surely made 
 at widely different periods , and the aim and method of the sculptor were 
 not the same in both instances. The Philadelphia bust represents the 
 Admiral in uniform. The head is energetic and the pose that of one 
 commanding. It is plain that the artist is copying life. The modeling is 
 very studied and precise. Every wrinkle of the skin is reproduced. You 
 feel that this is a likeness. 
 
 A very different impression is made upon you by the terra-cotta be- 
 longing to the Marquis de Biron. The rough sailor has become a cour- 
 tier. The hair is not smooth as in the first bust, but is curled and done 
 up in elegant braids. The face is made more refined. The artist has 
 attenuated its energy and diminished its robustness. The protuberances 
 of the forehead are effaced. It is a work full of grace and spirit, but 
 rather conventional. Ploudon wished to flatter the weakness of him 
 who had become “so careful in his dress that it was remarked.” There 
 was but one detail in this bust that was worthy of note in connection with 
 the matter in hand; and this detail was an important one: the hair was 
 arranged exactly as on the corpse before me. 
 
 This dissection and analytical criticism of the Biron bust show 
 that it cannot be the work of “the first sculptor of his century,” as 
 Charles Blanc properly calls Houdon , 1 and that it is not in the least 
 likely to be of Paul Jones. Think of Houdon, “the true master of 
 his epoch,” as Paul Mantz names him , 2 “the great evocator of phy- 
 
 1 “Gazette des Beaux Arts,” Vol. VI, p. 16. 2 Ibid., Vol. X, p. 308. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 141 
 
 siognomies,” as Andre Michel styles him, 1 in his resistless natural- 
 ism and originality, producing a mere conventional head “to flatter 
 the weakness” of his sitter; robbing the rugged face of the valiant 
 sailor of all its character and characteristics; making it more re- 
 fined, attenuating its energy, diminishing its robustness, and ef- 
 facing the protuberances of the forehead. Just think of Houdon, 
 the man and the artist as we know him, who marked the face of 
 Gluck with the pits of the smallpox, listening to such a proposition, 
 much less carrying it out. To do so seems to be to out-Herod Herod! 
 
 And as to the subject being Paul Jones: Did Jones ever show 
 himself to be so sapless that he would be stripped of his energy and 
 robustness, and have the characteristic protuberances of his fore- 
 head effaced? He was a vain man, it is true; but he was vain, as he 
 had a right to be, of what he had accomplished through the posses- 
 sion of those very qualities that the Biron bust absolutely lacks ; and 
 he was vain, very vain, of the honors his prowess and manhood had 
 won for him, his sword and his title and his orders that he always 
 wore; and as he was “so careful in his dress,” would he not have 
 had these orders fastened on this Biron bust, if it were of him, as he 
 did upon the unquestioned Houdon bust of 1780? Dr. Papillault 
 says of it and the bust of 1780, “they were surely made at widely 
 different periods,” an impression that would strike any one, but a 
 physical impossibility if both are from life and by Houdon, as the 
 
 ^‘Journal des Debats,” July n, 1905. 
 
I 4 2 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Biron bust is of a much younger man than the Paul Jones of 1780, 
 before which year Jones had done nothing to be immortalized by 
 the genius of Houdon, nor had he been in Paris to meet the sculptor. 
 
 We know that Paul Jones was in his thirty-third year when Hou- 
 don did model his bust. His hard and hazardous seafaring, fighting 
 life had seared his face and added half his years to his appearance, 
 so that the bust looks like that of a man of fifty and is an invaluable 
 human document. The Biron bust, on the contrary, by whomever 
 it is and of whomever it is, represents a man under thirty, with a 
 weak, characterless, untoiled face, which leaves one to choose only 
 whichever horn of the dilemma is preferred,— either that it is not 
 of Paul Jones, as it surely is not, or that it is so poor and emascu- 
 lated a likeness as to be absolutely valueless as a portrait of a dis- 
 tinguished historical personage. And remember, the Marquis de 
 Biron did not acquire it as a portrait-bust of Paul Jones, but merely 
 as a work of art by Jean Antoine Houdon. This, we think, disposes 
 of the Biron bust, as to its being by Houdon or of Paul Jones. 
 
 Let us now critically inquire into the identification of the cad- 
 aver, unearthed by General Porter, by means of comparisons with 
 the true Houdon bust of Paul Jones and “historical documents.” 
 
 Dr. Papillault says very correctly in his report (p. 68) : 
 
 One must not expect to find the traits exactly the same in a bust and in 
 the dead face. The former represents living tissues, filled out by the 
 blood which animates them; whereas in the second case we have before 
 us a skeleton covered with tissues hardened in this instance by alcohol. 
 
H.3 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 Furthermore, a sculptor rarely takes many measurements. When he has 
 noted the principal guiding marks, he generally lays aside his compasses 
 and devotes his attention to catching the expression of the face and get- 
 ting a likeness. 
 
 He then refers to the many and great “variations of the human 
 face and its different parts,” compares the resemblance that he finds 
 in the bust and in the head of the cadaver, and concludes that there 
 is “a strong general likeness between bust and face.” The measure- 
 ments that Dr. Papillault took in accordance with the methods that 
 he teaches, he finds, “produce still more conclusive results”; but he 
 says, naively, that he does “not know what system Houdon em- 
 ployed” in making measurements of the head, after having pre- 
 viously said, with less naivete and more truth, that “a sculptor 
 rarely takes many measurements.” He then explains his endeavor 
 to prove that sculptors are merely mechanics in their work, and not 
 creative artists, by the comparative measurements he made of a bust 
 by Dalou, “who was remarkable for veracity in art and whose ex- 
 cessive use of the compasses was even criticized by his fellow-ar- 
 tists,” and its original; yet he “found that in this instance there 
 were errors,” thus disproving the very hypothesis he was seeking to 
 uphold. In a forlorn hope to sustain the brief he had been given 
 to advocate, he adds, “Houdon’s exactness is notable, and was most 
 valuable in this labor which I now have in hand.” If, by Houdon’s 
 exactness being notable, Dr. Papillault means, as it would seem, 
 mensuration— mathematical exactness in measurements,— we chal- 
 
144 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 lenge him, or any one else who may be willing to take up the 
 gauntlet, to show that Houdon followed any system of exact meas- 
 urements in modeling from nature the superb creations of his ar- 
 tistic brain that are the admiration of the art world to-day. It is 
 the acme of absurdity and art ignorance to suggest such a thing, as 
 much so as to think of any other great master of the plastic art, from 
 Phidias down, doing such a mechanical job. The consensus of 
 opinion of the most eminent of American sculptors which the writer 
 has obtained, is against the measurements of a bust being accepted 
 as the exact measurements of the living head reproduced, as the 
 true artist makes but little moment of measuring and is likely to 
 vary in his work from the measurements of nature, exaggerating 
 parts, either plus or minus, to produce a desired effect. The truth is 
 that the sculptor seeks to express character and general lifelikeness, 
 not the mathematical measurements of the subject, and therefore, 
 while Houdon unquestionably was very exact, he may have been 
 also very inaccurate; consequently, to take a work of art to prove a 
 scientific fact seems, to say the least, most unscientific. 
 
 I have thus given a complete summary of all the points made by 
 Dr. Papillault in his report, which is the only rational one offered 
 to us , 1 so as to give him its full benefit, but cui bono? Has he not 
 cut the measuring-ground from under his own feet when he says, 
 
 1 I take no note of the autopsy and the anatomo-pathological remarks thereon of 
 Dr. Capitan, as I have no qualification for the task, and medical men of the first rank in 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 145 
 
 “One must not expect to find the traits exactly the same in a bust 
 and in the dead face”? This is undeniably true. Then of what 
 value are his respective measurements of the Houdon bust of Paul 
 Jones and of the disinterred cadaver? All their comparison can 
 possibly signify, if anything, is a remarkable coincidence, such as is 
 frequently met with in daily affairs by each one of us— “only this 
 and nothing more.” The coincidence of the two restored noses on 
 the two different busts of La Fayette by Houdon, as related on an- 
 other page, seems to be much more remarkable. Had Dr. Papil- 
 lault frankly avowed this position, as the only logical sequence to 
 be deduced from his premise, he would have commanded greater 
 respect for his work, as would General Porter did he not ask the 
 people of this broad land and the world at large, scientific as well 
 as lay, to accept his proposition upon what he calls “the principle 
 of elimination,” that, because five leaden coffins were found and 
 “four having been easily identified” as not of Paul Jones, “the other 
 must be the coffin sought .” 1 
 
 That the veritable coffin containing the remains of so distin- 
 guished a personage as Paul Jones, whose body at the time it was 
 interred was interred only temporarily,— as it was supposed most 
 naturally that his adopted country, which he had served so signally 
 
 this country consider it impossible to make a scientific autopsy, that could be of any 
 value or significance in an examination of this character, upon a body that had been 
 buried for more than a century. 
 
 1 Official Report, p. 433. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 146 
 
 and so well, would desire to disinter and remove it to its own land, 
 for permanent burial, 1 — was put into the ground without a plate, 
 or any other sign of identification upon it, to indicate whose body 
 was contained therein, is taxing credulity too far. 
 
 Dr. Papillault sums up (p. 69) that “the age, height, color of the 
 hair and six dimensions of the face which were known, were also 
 repeated on the corpse.’’ He forgets that he has said (p. 66), “The 
 age of a person cannot be exactly fixed by the examination of the 
 corpse . . . . The body before us had reached maturity and could 
 have the age which Paul Jones had.” So the first point of the four 
 that “were known” — the age — was not found repeated in the 
 corpse, because, as Dr. Papillault himself says, the examination of 
 a corpse will not fix the age. 
 
 The second point— height— of the four that Dr. Papillault says 
 “were known,” I challenge. The height given by General Porter 
 to the experts— “5 feet 7 inches”— and which Dr. Papillault says 
 was a most important fact (p. 67), is a forgery by Buell in his cap- 
 tivating book of fiction, which every scholar knows is unauthentic 
 and valueless. On this point of Jones’s height and appearance, 
 General Porter, in his “Official Certification of the American Em- 
 bassy and Consulate of the Identification of the Body of Ad- 
 miral John Paul Jones,” 2 says that Paul Jones “was 5 feet 7 
 inches tall, slender in build, of exquisitely symmetrical form, with 
 noticeably perfect development of limbs (Anecdotes of the Court 
 
 1 Official Report, p. 428. 
 
 2 Official Report, p. 443. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i 47 
 
 of Louis XVI).” From this quotation and citation of authority, 
 it would naturally be supposed that General Porter was citing di- 
 rect from the work he names, even though he does fail to give refer- 
 ence to the page of his citation. But he is not . His quotation is 
 copied, without any attempt at verification, or he would have had 
 some insight into its character, from Buell, Vol. I, p. 322, where it 
 is ascribed to the “Anecdotes,” also without the page being given 
 for reference. Now Buell was a very cunning and adroit literary 
 forger, quite worthy of entering the ranks with Chatterton and 
 Ireland. He was wary and surveyed his field well before commit- 
 ting the overt act, in his endeavor to conceal the perpetration of 
 his forgeries. This is admirably illustrated in his use of the 
 “Anecdotes.” In his list of the works he pretends to have con- 
 sulted in the preparation of his book (Vol. II, p. 358), there 
 appear “Historical Anecdotes of the Court of Louis XV, by Sou- 
 lavie,” and “Historical Anecdotes of the Court of Louis XVI, 
 anonymous,” without any imprint or edition being given of either. 
 A thorough examination of bibliographies and catalogues of public 
 libraries here and abroad has discovered the fact that books with 
 these titles have never even been published, both being Buell’s in- 
 vention. Soulavie did publish, in 1802, “Memoires historiques et 
 politiques du Regne de Louis XVI,” in six volumes, but it contains 
 no reference whatever to Paul Jones from the first page to the last. 
 The deduction is obvious. Buell fabricated every word that he 
 pretended to quote from the “Anecdotes,” just as he did Jones’s 
 
148 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 bequest of his sword to Dale, 1 and a mass of other entertaining mat- 
 ter in his volumes, so that the “historical documents” for Jones’s 
 height, given by Ambassador Porter to the experts, instead of being 
 from the volume he gives as though his own original authority, are 
 Buell’s forgery. 
 
 The only statement of any value that we have of Jones’s stature is 
 that given by Sands, who compiled the memoir for the family: “He 
 was of the middle size, if not rather under.” 2 This Buell made “5 
 feet 7 inches,” and Brady, with rather more show of reason but no 
 greater right, “5 feet 5 inches.” 3 Thus the ground again is cut 
 completely from under the feet of General Porter and Dr. Pa- 
 pillault, and the height of Jones, which they put down among the 
 points that “were known,” is still an unknown quantity, and conse- 
 quently the comparative measurements of the height of the cadaver 
 are utterly worthless in identifying the body as that of Paul Jones. 
 
 Likewise, the color of the hair, which General Porter accepts, is 
 that given by Buell from the forged “Anecdotes”: “His hair and 
 eyebrows are black.” General Porter, seeing that the hair of his 
 cadaver was not black, and not wishing publicly to stultify the star 
 authority he was using, makes it “very dark brown— generally 
 speaking, might be called black.” This, however, was not the 
 color of Paul Jones’s hair. We have the very best evidence pos- 
 
 1 “History of the Sword Presented by Louis XVI to John Paul Jones,” by Charles 
 Henry Hart. Proc. U. S. Naval Inst., Vol. XXXIII, p. 712. 
 
 2 Sands’s Jones, p. 550. 
 
 3 Brady’s Jones, p. 424. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i 49 
 
 sible as to the color of Jones’s hair, and that is the hair itself. 
 As if to provide against just such a contingency as has happened, 
 Jones had preserved for us a lock of the hair of his head; and not 
 merely a few strands, but a long coil. As we have already stated, 
 at the same period as Jones sat for Houdon, he sat to the Comtesse 
 Bourbon de la Vendahl, an accomplished amateur, for a miniature 
 which she painted of him, and for the setting of which she doubt- 
 less wanted the lock of his hair that he sent to her in the letter of 
 June 7, 1780, heretofore quoted. This miniature, with the finely 
 braided lock of Jones’s hair in the back, around a blue enameled 
 medallion bearing Jones’s initials, “J. P. J.,” interlaced in gold, is 
 in the museum of the United States Naval Institute at Annapolis, 
 Md., 1 and the color of the hair is reddish brown, a dark sandy, as it 
 should be on the head of a typical Scotsman, and not “very dark 
 brown,” that any one could possibly call black. So that as to the 
 third point— the color of the hair, instead of being “identical” with 
 that on the exhumed body, as General Porter says it is, is nothing 
 whatever like it. 
 
 The last of the four propositions that Dr. Papillault says “were 
 known”— six dimensions of the face— is certainly a most unwar- 
 rantable and audacious assertion. What semblance of authority is 
 there for this statement? Not even the romance-writer Buell goes 
 so far. Doubtless what Dr. Papillault meant was that six dimen- 
 
 1 “The Naval Academy Miniature of John Paul Jones,” by Prof. Philip R. Alger. 
 Proceedings U. S. Naval Inst., Vol. XXXI, p. 585. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 150 
 
 sions of the Houdon bust were known, not six dimensions of the 
 human face of Paul Jones. Of course he knew the dimensions of 
 the bust, for had he not taken them himself? But of what value are 
 the measurements of the bust, for comparison with other measure- 
 ments, until it is proved first, beyond peradventure, that Houdon, 
 whom Louis Gonze calls “the magician interpreter of the human 
 face,” 1 was a mere mechanic, with his calipers and his tape-line 
 always in his hand, if his measurements have the scientific value 
 sought to be given them in this matter of the identification of the 
 remains of Jones, and not, as he is universally esteemed, easily the 
 first creative sculptor of his time and of his land? This seems to be 
 so palpably true that he who runs may read, and therefore it can 
 profit nothing to discuss this point further. Thus the four props 
 of the foundation of the identification of the unearthed cadaver are 
 cut away, with the inevitable result of a definitive collapse, leav- 
 ing the identity of the body taken to Annapolis, for governmental 
 ceremonial and interment 2 as the veritable body of Paul Jones, to 
 say the least, “ Not proven” ; and it is not, in the most distant degree, 
 likely to be the true remains of that distinguished man. This result 
 flows of a necessity from the situation as it exists, and which is ex- 
 actly in accord with the dogma of Dr. Papillault when he says (p. 
 66), “The problem which we had to solve was especially difficult 
 and complex. In the first place, it was necessary to study all the 
 
 1 “Les Chefs d’CEuvres des Musees de France.” 
 
 2 It has not yet— December, 1911 — been interred. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 151 
 
 historical documents concerning the Admiral which it had been 
 possible to bring together, and to compare them with the data fur- 
 nished by a careful examination of the body. A single well estab- 
 lished discord between these two sets of facts would suffice to put an 
 end to the demonstration ” As we have shown, beyond a doubt or 
 question, that the “historical documents” used are forgeries, pure 
 and simple, the parallel between them and the body signifies noth- 
 ing but coincidence, and, as Dr. Papillault himself says, puts “an 
 end to the demonstration.” 
 
 Notwithstanding this conclusive judgment in the case, there is 
 one point to be considered, of great importance and significance, 
 as cumulative evidence against the identity of the exhumed remains. 
 The coffin containing these remains was taken from the ground on 
 April 7, 1905, and in the night of the 8th was transferred to the 
 Ecole de Medecine, where a photograph of the body was taken, 
 which is now before me, signed “F. Monpillard, 11 avril, 1905.” 
 This photograph shows that the nose of the man buried in the ex- 
 humed coffin was “terribly arched and aquiline,” to use Cowper’s 
 expression in “The Task,” from the root, a pronounced Roman 
 nose, almost Semitic in its convexity; while the most casual glance 
 at the Houdon bust of Jones will show the nose there to be “con- 
 cave from the root and enlarged at the tip,” 1 almost a pug nose, or 
 perhaps, in its thickness at the nostrils, more like the nose in the 
 negroid races. This marked difference can be seen in a poor repro- 
 
 1 Brady’s Jones, p. 425. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 152 
 
 duction of the head, enlarged from this photograph, in “The Cen- 
 tury Magazine” for October, 1905, page 944, where, however, the 
 flattened appearance below the bridge of the nose must have been 
 introduced into the plate, as it is not like this in the original photo- 
 graph. The query naturally arises, What do the experts say on this 
 notable difference, the most important problem that confronted 
 them? Not one word . The only reference to the nose in the re- 
 ports of the experts is on page 68, where Dr. Papillault says, “The 
 root of the nose does not turn in, as frequently happens, and the 
 bridge is thin. ,y The importance of these words, in this connection, 
 cannot be lost. The root of the nose in the true Houdon bust of 
 Jones does turn in and the bridge is thick . 
 
 A variance so irreconcilable as this induced the writer, in July 
 of 1905, to make a personal inquiry of General Porter, as to how 
 he and the French savants “reconcile the utter dissimilarity of the 
 noses in the cadaver and the Houdon bust.” To this General Porter 
 courteously replied that “when Paul Jones was buried his long hair 
 was gathered in a bag at the back of his head. This raised the head 
 so high that the lid of the coffin flattened it, pressed it over to the 
 right and distorted this feature. At the angle at which the photo- 
 graph was taken the nose appears Roman or aquiline, instead of 
 straight. The anthropologists pay no attention to the cartilaginous 
 portions of the body in making their comparisons, as these are sub- 
 ject to change in the best preserved body. They measure only the 
 bony or solid structures.” In acknowledging General Porter’s 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon I5 3 
 
 communication I said, with absolute frankness, “Accepting all that 
 you say on the subject, I do not feel that the case is made out. This 
 view is very materially strengthened by the publication of the re- 
 port of the professors of the Paris Anthropological School, in ‘The 
 Independent’ for July 13, which I have only seen since the receipt 
 of your reply, in which not one word is said, either for or against, 
 of the differences between the nose on the cadaver and on the Hou- 
 don bust. This I consider a crucial point against the opinion of the 
 experts and their identification of the body. Why silent upon a 
 point so prominent that it cannot be given the go-by? You very 
 properly say in your letter to me, ‘The anthropologists pay no at- 
 tention to the cartilaginous portions of the body, as they are subject 
 to change.’ For the purposes of this inquiry it is not necessary to 
 consider the cartilaginous portions of the nose at all. The nasal 
 bone is all-sufficient for the purpose. In the cadaver it starts out 
 from the root direct— aquiline, Roman, Hebraic. Impossible for 
 it to be more pronounced in its form, and this is the nasal bone, not 
 the cartilage. It is absolutely convex from the root. In the Phila- 
 delphia Houdon bust— the identical one the experts say they used 1 
 — the nasal bone, from its root direct, is positively concave, beyond 
 the possibility of a doubt. This is so plainly and clearly a fact, 
 apparent to the most casual and inexpert observer, that it is beyond 
 the dogma of opinion. Such being the case, the fact is hardly ex- 
 
 1 In fact, they did not use the Philadelphia Houdon bust of Jones, but a recent cast, 
 in the Trocadero Museum, Paris, from a bust in New York. 
 
154 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 plained away by the statement that the bag containing the body’s 
 hair raised the head into contact with the lid of the coffin and 
 changed the nose from a concave to a convex. Pressure from above 
 might possibly have changed a convex to a concave, but impossible 
 to have pushed a depressed nasal bone up from below, so as to be- 
 come convex. The identity of a body that is to receive the homage 
 and honor of a great nation is too important to allow any senti- 
 mental feeling to stand in the way of a most thorough investigation 
 by those competent to form an opinion, as well in this country as in 
 France.” 
 
 General Porter’s answer was that he was writing a full account 
 of the recovery of Paul Jones’s body, and “as you take so much in- 
 terest in the case, I shall have great pleasure in sending you a copy.” 
 This account was his official report, published as a magazine article 
 in “The Century” for October, 1905, to which frequent reference 
 has been made in this discussion, so that it can be examined in con- 
 nection with the views here expressed, always bearing in mind that 
 the most important of the “historical documents” upon which it is 
 based are nothing but forgeries, without any authority whatever, 
 and that the bust of John Paul Jones, by Jean Antoine Houdon, is 
 an artistic creation and not an artisan’s construction. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 1776-1848 
 
 LA LOGE DES NEUF-SCEURS-MEMBERSHIP OF HOUDON, VOLTAIRE, 
 FRANKLIN AND PAUL JONES 
 
 HE Lodge of the Nine Sisters, meaning the nine Muses, 
 for which Houdon made the bust of Paul Jones, and 
 where he is said to have first met Franklin, is so closely 
 and intimately connected with our quartette— Houdon, Voltaire, 
 Franklin and Paul Jones— that some account of it is not only ap- 
 propriate and interesting, but important from the fact of its curious 
 history and the close relations which the distinguished characters 
 named had with it. So far as I have been able to learn, the career 
 of this unique body has never been traced in our tongue, and al- 
 though Dixmerie, Melchior Potier and Louis Amiable appear to 
 have written memorials of the lodge, I have been unable to find 
 copies of any one of these publications. The source of almost all 
 the data I have been able to glean for this chapter has been that 
 mine of recondite information and gossip, Bachaumont’s “Me- 
 moires Secrets .” 1 
 
 1 The “Memoires Secrets,” in thirty-six volumes duodecimo, is a daily chronicle cov- 
 ering the period of twenty-six years from 1762 to 1787; and although the first volume 
 did not appear until 1777, six years after the death of Bachaumont, the entire publication 
 
 55 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 156 
 
 La Loge des Neuf-Soeurs was a Masonic lodge, but wholly and 
 entirely different from what such bodies now are. Freemasonry 
 assumed in France a very remarkable form. “The attachments of 
 that people to innovation and external finery produced the most 
 unwarrantable alterations upon its principles and ceremonies. . . . 
 The lodges were transformed into lecturing rooms where the more 
 learned of the Brethren propounded the most extraordinary and 
 extravagant theories.” 1 While the Lodge of the Nine Sisters was 
 not chartered by the Grand Orient of Paris until March 11, 1776, 
 it was the outgrowth of an association founded by the philosophers 
 Helvetius and Lalande in 1769, under the name of the “Atelier des 
 Sciences,” and therefore these two distinguished men were gener- 
 ally looked upon as the founders of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters. 
 These facts, not properly understood and explained, caused so noted 
 a French writer as Gustave Desnoiresterres, in his elaborate work 
 on Voltaire, to make the anachronous statement that Helvetius, who 
 died five years before the foundation of the Nine Sisters, was, with 
 Lalande, its founder. 2 As can be understood, this lodge was not in 
 the least a close body in the meaning of ancient Freemasonry, but 
 rather a meeting-place or club for persons of distinction, intelli- 
 
 is known by his name. His volumes were edited by Pidansat de Mairobert, who con- 
 tinued the record down to his suicide in 1779, when it was taken up by Moufle d’Anger- 
 ville and carried on until 1787, and then ceased. The volumes bear the imprint of 
 “Londres, John Adamson,” and Paul Lacroix wrote an erudite introduction to a new 
 edition of the Bachaumont “Memoires” proper, issued in 1883. 
 
 1 “History of Freemasonry,” by William Alexander Laurie, Edinburgh, 1859, p. 58. 
 
 2 Desnoiresterres’s“Voltaire et la Societe au XVIII Siecle,” Part VIII, p. 306. 
 
(Q) I £§> II ]hff IK. 
 

Jean Antoine Houdon 157 
 
 gence and talent, where young men and old men, in science, in 
 letters and in arts, met on a much freer and more familiar footing 
 than was possible elsewhere. 
 
 It was the coming of the Sage of Ferney to Paris, in the second 
 year of its existence, that brought the Lodge of the Nine Sisters 
 prominently into the social life of the French capital. Voltaire 
 arrived in Paris, after his exile of twenty-eight years, on the 10th 
 day of February, 1778, and in less than four months he was dead. 1 
 He was received with extravagant demonstrations of enthusiasm, 
 and it is needless to say the event was a stirring one to all classes of 
 the community; but its story is too well known to bear repeating. 
 Voltaire was a Freemason, 2 though for a long while one of its most 
 pronounced opponents, and the Masonic body at this time, after the 
 persecutions in Naples, was playing a not inconsiderable role in 
 France, having taken part in various patriotic events. Bachau- 
 mont says, 3 “Among the lodges of the capital, that of the IX Sisters 
 holds distinguished rank, it being composed of men of letters, etc. 
 At a meeting held on the 10th of this month, one of the members, 
 M. de la Dixmerie, proposed the health of the aged invalid Vol- 
 taire, and sang some verses of his own composition in his honor.” 
 Afterward a resolution was passed naming a deputation to call and 
 
 1 Desnoiresterres, Part VIII, p. 191. 
 
 2 Condorcet says that Voltaire “received the light” in England in 1728. Bachaumont 
 likewise says he was a Freemason, but Wagniere, his private secretary, says positively 
 he was not. 
 
 3 “Memoires Secrets,” March 21, 1778, Vol. XI, p. 192. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 158 
 
 congratulate him on his return to Paris and to testify to the interest 
 the lodge took in his welfare. It was not, however, until the 21st 
 instant that Voltaire was able to receive them, when, it being but a 
 step from the lodge-room to the house of the Marquis de Villette, 
 where Voltaire was living, a body of thirty or forty brothers, 
 headed by their Venerable, Lalande, visited the aged philosopher 
 “to see and gaze at leisure at this extraordinary man.” They in- 
 vited him to visit the lodge, which he accepted for Tuesday, the 7th 
 of April. It was to be an informal visit, but the Masons took ad- 
 vantage of his presence to initiate him into their mysteries 1 with an 
 elaborate ceremonial, presenting him with the apron and Masonic 
 jewels of Helvetius, which the widow of that illustrious man had 
 given to the Lodge of the Nine Sisters. 
 
 J. F. Sachse, librarian of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, has 
 published “The Masonic Chronology of Benjamin Franklin,” 2 
 wherein he sets down, under “February 7, 1778. Assists at the 
 initiation of Voltaire in the Lodge of the Nine Sisters.” This state- 
 ment he elaborates and repeats in his “Franklin as a Freemason.” 3 
 The date thus given for the initiation of Voltaire into the Lodge of 
 the Nine Sisters is not only two months earlier than the correct 
 date, but it is also three days before Voltaire arrived in Paris; 4 and 
 
 1 Desnoiresterres, Part VIII, pp. 304-308. 
 
 2 “Pennsylvania Magazine,” Vol. XXX, p. 240. 
 
 3 Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Bicentenary Celebration, Philadelphia, 1906, p. 155. 
 
 4 “Materials for the History of Freemasonry in France,” The New Age, January, 
 1906, p. 55, gives the date of Voltaire’s initiation as “June 17, 1778,” or eighteen days 
 after he was dead. So much for history “as she is wrote”! 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 159 
 
 in none of the contemporary accounts of this ceremony is the name 
 of Franklin mentioned as even being present. Indeed, Franklin 
 was not received into membership with this lodge until the follow- 
 ing July, which would make it nearly certain that he could not 
 have been a participant at the initiation of Voltaire in April, and 
 that he was not seems to be conclusively shown by the absence of his 
 name from among those mentioned as taking part in the initiation 
 in the official report of the same. 1 
 
 Voltaire died on the 30th day of May, and in Bachaumont we 
 find, under date of July 17, 1778 : 2 “Much surprise has been occa- 
 sioned through Dr. Franklin’s taking part in the celebration ten- 
 dered him by the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, charged as Dr. 
 Franklin is with so many grave matters; spending an entire day 
 with a mass of young people and poetasters, who intoxicated him to 
 a degree by their meaningless and puerile praise. They gave him 
 the apron of Voltaire 
 
 This last sentence shows that this “celebration tendered him” was 
 his initiation into the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, and among the 
 Franklin papers in the American Philosophical Society at Phila- 
 delphia there are preserved no fewer than fifty-four notices of the 
 meetings of this lodge between the “9th of 2d mo. 5779” and the 
 
 1 “Relation de Deux Seances de la Loge des Neuf-Soeurs en 1778. Extrait de la 
 planche a trace de la respectable loge des Neuf-Soeurs a l’Orient de Paris, le septieme 
 jour du quatrieme mois de Fan de la vrai luminiere 5778.” — Grimm-Diderot Corre- 
 spondance, Vol. VIII, p. 185. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets,” Vol. XII, p. 48. 
 
i6o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 “4th of 5th mo. 5785.” Why his earlier notices were not preserved 
 with equal care we do not know, but the oversight is to be regretted. 
 If Franklin did not assist at Voltaire’s initiation, he was present at 
 the Lodge of Sorrow commemorative of the dead Voltaire, held 
 November 28, 1778, at which were present, with the brethren, 
 Mme. Denis, the niece, and the Marquise de Villette, the adopted 
 daughter of the philosopher. Bachaumont, in referring to the 
 coming event, says, 1 “It is not to be doubted but that Dr. Franklin, 
 a member of the same lodge, the inheritor of Voltaire’s apron and 
 an admirer of the defunct, will take part and distinguish himself 
 by some happy effort on this memorable day.” The details of this 
 elaborate ceremony have been recorded by Bachaumont, in the 
 Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, by Desnoiresterres, and pic- 
 torially in “Le Tombeau de Voltaire.” 2 There are, however, two 
 incidents connected with the event that are of especial interest here. 
 At the end of the hall was seen an arch of triumph, formed of gar- 
 lands of flowers, in which appeared suddenly the bust of Voltaire 
 by Houdon, given to the lodge by Mme. Denis. 3 The following 
 February, Houdon presented the lodge with another bust of Vol- 
 taire, 4 presumably different from the one received from Mme. 
 Denis. And as the ceremonial closed, the Venerable of the Lodge, 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” October 25, 1778, Vol. XII, p. 161. 
 
 2 Vide “Franklin in Allegory,” by Charles Henry Hart. The Century Magazine for 
 December, 1890, p. 202. 
 
 3 Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, Vol. XII, p. 193. 
 
 4 Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 247. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 161 
 
 M. Lalande; Greuze, the painter, who had just been initiated a 
 member; and Mme. la Marquise de Villette, having previously 
 crowned the orator, the painter and Dr. Franklin, all three placed 
 their crowns at the feet of Houdon’s image of Voltaire, and the 
 Lodge of Sorrow was ended. 
 
 At this time a living incident was dividing the attention of Paris 
 with the dead. Marie Antoinette was approaching her first ac- 
 couchement, and all loyal subjects were praying for the birth of a 
 Dauphin. Instead, on December 19, 1778, at Versailles, was born 
 Marie Therese Charlotte, afterward Duchesse d’Angouleme, who 
 escaped the guillotine and lived into the second half of the last 
 century. “To celebrate the happy deliverance of the Queen,” 1 the 
 Lodge of the Nine Sisters arranged a festival to be held on the 9th 
 of March, 1779, at the Royal Circus, in the Boulevard Montpar- 
 nasse. Bachaumont says, “It is felt that such a festival cannot be 
 carried out without the aid of the Graces, thus it will become a 
 lodge of adoption ; that is to say, where the fair sex will be admitted 
 and will form the chief ornament.” He then adds with latent sar- 
 casm, “It is the Abbe Cordier de St. Fermin, as usual burning with 
 zeal for the glory of Masonry , who is the inventor, promoter and 
 director of the fete.” The festival took place, and with dire conse- 
 quences to the lodge, which were averted largely through the in- 
 fluence of Franklin. 
 
 It was arranged that, after the introduction of the ladies, the 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” February 22, 1779, Vol. XIII, p. 339. 
 
162 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 proceedings should begin by the initiation of a sister, to be followed 
 by addresses, the reading of poems, a concert by the most celebrated 
 performers, a banquet with military music, and finally a ball. 
 Everything had been arranged apparently to perfection. “The 
 prettiest women and the most distinguished of the court were there 
 in crowds, as well as the highest nobles ; but the lack of order caused 
 the assemblage to degenerate into a mob where silence was unat- 
 tainable. An unlooked-for incident added to the confusion. The 
 candidate for initiation was Mile. Roily, niece of the Farmer-Gen- 
 eral of that name. She had not taken her uncle and aunt into her 
 confidence, as they had wished she should not go to the fete, for 
 according to their ideas it would be too worldly an entertainment 
 for so young a person. She, however, had slipped in, closely veiled, 
 with a lady who was in the plot. What a surprise then for M. and 
 Mme. Roily to see their niece in the midst of the Freemasons! They 
 wanted to take her away, and made formal complaint to the offi- 
 cials, but they were told that this would produce worse effects than 
 what had already happened, and so they had to swallow their indig- 
 nation and let the initiation proceed .” 1 This is not saying, how- 
 ever, that Masonic mysteries were revealed to her, as they had a 
 particular form for women . 2 
 
 But such proceedings were too much for the Grand Orient, which 
 was the mother lodge of all the lodges of Freemasons in France, 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” March 14, 1779, Vol. XIII, p. 365. 
 
 2 “Correspondance Secrete,” June 15, 1779, Vol. VIII, p. 66. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 163 
 
 with high prerogatives of jurisdiction and disciplinary powers. 
 Charges against the Lodge of the Nine Sisters were brought by the 
 orator of the Grand Orient, in consequence of the disorders that had 
 taken place at the fete, and “this tribunal of conscript brothers, 
 without hearing the accused, pronounced an order to suppress, or 
 rather, for this is the consecrated term— to demolish the Lodge 
 of IX Sisters .” 1 In addition to this, the Venerable Lalande was 
 suspended for six months, all the other brothers for eighty-one 
 days, including, of course, Houdon and Franklin, who were also 
 members of the Grand Orient, and Brother Abbe Cordier de St. 
 Fermin, the leader and organizer of the rout, for eighty-one 
 months . 2 
 
 Other brothers suddenly seemed to be “burning with zeal for the 
 glory of Masonry,” in the same way as had the Abbe Cordier. The 
 Lodge of Thalia proposed giving a festival and holding a Lodge 
 of Adoption, similar to that of the Nine Sisters; but the Count de 
 Maurepas, on behalf of the King, forbade the assemblage and 
 placed fifty guards at the lodge door to prevent the guests from 
 entering. This prohibition was founded on the improprieties and 
 disorders that had happened at the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, of 
 which the King had been advised . 3 But, as Metra says , 4 “the 
 Muses do not submit themselves so easily to violation,” and the ac- 
 
 1 “Correspondance Secrete,” Vol. VIII, p. 66. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets,” March 22, 1779, Vol. XIII, p. 378. 
 
 8 “Memoires Secrets,” March 25, 1779, Vol. XIII, p. 381. 
 
 4 “Correspondance Secrete,” June 15, 1779, Vol. VIII, p. 66. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 164 
 
 tion of the Grand Orient was not accepted without protest. The 
 Freemasons were furious and the Lodge of the Nine Sisters refused 
 to acquiesce in the order of demolition and suspension and threat- 
 ened a schism. The lodge held several solemn conclaves upon the 
 subject, and finally it was determined that, as the festival had been 
 a public one, “of which all Paris was informed/’ it was necessary 
 “to disabuse the mind of all Paris,” and a memorial, addressed to 
 the profane as well as to the illumined, was ordered to be written in 
 a manner that could be read and understood by all the world. This 
 was too bold a stand for the Worshipful Master Lalande, who was 
 dubbed in this relation “a pusillanimous and timid man,” 1 so he 
 resigned. The Nine Sisters, not so easily conquered, pleaded to the 
 Grand Orient that its action had been misunderstood and miscon- 
 strued, and great injustice had been done the lodge and the Masonic 
 fraternity, with the result that after many pourparlers , the Grand 
 Orient on the 21st of May, 1779, rescinded its orders of demolish- 
 ment of the lodge and suspension of its members and restored both 
 to good standing. At this time the proposed memorial had not been 
 issued, but it had been printed, and there was great opposition to its 
 distribution after the restoration by the Grand Orient; but it was 
 held that, as it had been prepared rather for “the justification of the 
 lodge before the public than for the Grand Orient, the justice just 
 granted it by the Grand Orient was not made sufficiently clear to 
 the profane, whom it was necessary to illumine.” Bachaumont says 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” May io, 1779, Vol. XIV, p. 531. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 165 
 
 of this memorial , 1 “It is of an entirely new kind, like the subject, 
 and is accompanied by pieces in prose and in verse.” 
 
 It was at this critical period that Franklin was elected to succeed 
 Lalande as Venerable, or Worshipful Master, of the Lodge of the 
 Nine Sisters. The election took place on May 20, 1779. A week 
 later Bachaumont records the event . 2 “It is wonderful to see Mr. 
 Franklin, in spite of the great and numerous matters he is bothered 
 with, finding sufficient time to occupy himself seriously with useless 
 and frivolous things , 3 and attending the assemblies of the Free- 
 masons like the most idle brother. On Thursday last he was elected 
 Venerable of the Lodge of Nine Sisters, and a deputation went to 
 Passy to notify him. This election falls in very happily at this 
 critical time, when a violent persecution has been aroused against 
 the lodge on account of the memorial in its favor spread abroad in 
 the past few days. The Keeper of the Seals has ordered M. le Noir 
 to prevent its distribution and to have searching inquiries made to 
 discover the printer, which is matter for the exercise of zeal by the 
 new Venerable.” 
 
 The memorial was written by the poet Nicholas Bricaire de la 
 Dixmerie, who was orator of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, and 
 signed by him, by Comte de Gibelin, the secretary, and by Comte 
 Persan, the master of ceremonies. It sets forth that “this society 
 has been in existence barely three years, and its work embraces two 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” May 23, 1779, Vol. XIV, p. 69. 8 “Jouer 4 \ a Chapelle.” 
 
 2“Memoiies Secrets,” May 26, 1779, Vol. XIV, p. 73. 
 
1 66 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 objects— Freemasonry, which brings men together, and cultivation 
 of the arts, science and letters, which enlightens them.” This is 
 followed by an enumeration of some of its most distinguished mem- 
 bers, Voltaire, Franklin, Houdon, Lalande, Cailhava, de Fontanes, 
 Imbert, Vernet, Greuze, Piccini and others. The memorial then 
 proves the exactitude of the lodge in following the Masonic work, 
 and its zeal in practising works of benevolence. It gives an account 
 of the object of the festival of the 9th of March, and of what tran- 
 spired, and asserts that nothing reprehensible occurred. It refutes 
 all imputations against the lodge, exposes the injustice of the 
 accusations and shows the illegality of the judgment that was passed 
 upon it and its members. 1 
 
 The lodge, having justified itself from the accusations and rig- 
 orous rulings against it by the Grand Orient, proceeded to celebrate 
 the event by another fete, and the circular announcing it has been 
 preserved by Franklin. It is entitled, “Fete Academique pour la 
 Cloture de la Loge des Neuf-Sceurs au Wauxhal de la Foire Saint 
 Germain le Mercredi, 1 1 Aout, 5779.” It did not take place until a 
 week later, however, owing to the indisposition of several members 
 who were suffering from la grippe , and “the ladies, without whom 
 there could not be a perfect celebration,” were admitted; but, to 
 avoid confusion and disorder, there was not any dancing; it was 
 purely an academic spectacle interspersed with music and ad- 
 dresses. “Dr. Franklin, though having accepted the post of Vener- 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” May 30, 1779, Vol. XIV, p. 79, 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 167 
 
 able, made the condition of not holding himself bound to discharge 
 its functions with the scrupulous exactitude devolving on the office ; 
 and as it was, above all, his name that it was desired to add to the 
 roll of the grand officers of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, he was 
 left free to absent himself whenever his important occupations de- 
 manded it. This assembly was deprived of his presence, his place 
 being filled by the First Warden, the Comte de Milly ; and the gal- 
 lery of the lodge-room was decorated by examples of the works of 
 the brethren. Houdon in sculpture and Greuze in painting shone 
 among the others.” 1 
 
 A month later the whole civilized world was startled by what 
 was then, and has remained since, the greatest and most marvelous 
 naval battle recorded, the fight between the Bonhomme-Richard 
 and the Serapis , when the infant navy of the United States won the 
 circlet she has never ceased to wear. The following spring Paul 
 Jones visited Paris, where he was acclaimed a hero, and the Lodge 
 of the Nine Sisters, to which he had made application, on August 
 16, 1779, for affiliation, was not backward in doing him honor. As 
 has been told, it engaged Houdon to make his bust, and he was 
 initiated to membership in the lodge on the 1st of May. Here is 
 what Bachaumont says of this occasion: 2 
 
 All the world knows that the celebrated Paul Jones was a sailor, fol- 
 lowing in the footsteps of our greatest characters in this line; but it was 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” August 25, 1779, Vol. XIV, p. 183. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets,” July 18, 1780, Vol. XV, p. 250. 
 
1 68 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 not known that he courted Apollo before he enrolled himself under the 
 banner of Mars. This is what we learn from a discourse addressed to 
 him by the first Orator of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, M. de la Dix- 
 merie, on Monday, May I, 1780. ... In this discourse Brother de la 
 Dixmerie recalls the origin of Freemasonry, which he connects with an- 
 cient chivalry, the latter itself taking title from the ancient initiated. 
 The Lodge of the Nine Sisters desired to imitate this illustrious mother 
 which received, with as much joy as solemnity, those among its valiants 
 who had accomplished some adventure. The brothers were assembled, 
 and a solemn lodge was convoked for the ceremony of initiating Paul 
 Jones. . . . The address, a little masterpiece in its way, for which one 
 must feel grateful to the author, as in it he resists the spirit of blind dis- 
 paragement which is often launched against the English, and seeing that 
 he would heighten his Hero’s fame better in giving the justice that is 
 due to these proud islanders, has placed the valor of Jones and of his 
 rival Pearson on an equal footing. After the eulogy a quatrain, also by 
 M. de la Dixmerie, was read, which is original enough to be preserved. 
 
 “Jones, resourceful in battle, when met, 
 
 Acts toward enemies, so ’tis said, 
 
 As acts toward us a clever coquette ; 
 
 One thinks to take him and is taken instead.” 
 
 It is to this discourse that Jones refers in his letter to the Com- 
 tesse de la Vendahl of June 7, 1780, in which he regrets that the 
 lock of his hair he incloses her is eighteen inches shorter than it 
 was. “Before I had the honor to see you I wished to comply with 
 the invitation of my lodge. 1 I say this in answer to your question 
 on reading the address with which I was honored.” 
 
 1 To sit to Houdon for his bust. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 169 
 
 The next year the much hoped for national event occurred, a son 
 was born to the Queen, and in the Franklin papers 1 we find the 
 notice that was sent to him, announcing a celebration by the Lodge 
 of the Nine Sisters of the glorious event— the birth of a Dauphin 
 and the return to health of the Queen— to be given on Monday, the 
 14th of January, 1782, in its “Local, rue Coqueron.” There were 
 again a Reception of Adoption, concert, address, music, banquet, 
 a comedy in two acts, and a ball. Subscriptions were fixed at eigh- 
 teen livres, for which each member could take a lady, but her name 
 had to be registered with the secretary, Gaucher the engraver, at the 
 time of subscription. It is to be assumed that nothing untoward 
 happened on this occasion, as Bachaumont, Metra and the other 
 contemporary chroniclers of scandal make no mention of it what- 
 ever. It may be recalled that a special day— May 13, 1782— was 
 fixed for delivery, by the Minister from France to the Congress 
 assembled in Philadelphia, of a letter from his Most Christian 
 Majesty Louis XVI, announcing to his “well-beloved allies” the 
 birth of a Dauphin, which was made a most elaborate affair. 2 It 
 was announced to the American army by General Orders on May 
 28th, at Newburg on the Hudson ; and three days later Washington 
 gave a commemorative dinner at which thirteen toasts were drunk, 
 followed by an exhibition of fireworks and a ball to close the fes- 
 tivities. Later, in July, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, at Philadel- 
 
 1 American Philosophical Society. 
 
 2 “Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,” Vol. XXIX, p. 497. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 170 
 
 phia, had a magnificent celebration of the occasion with a ball, at 
 which both Washington and Rochambeau were present. These 
 fete-days, when looked back upon, seem almost as heralds of the 
 misfortunes that were so soon to overwhelm France. 
 
 The next important incident that brought the Lodge of the Nine 
 Sisters to the front was the signing of the definitive treaty of peace, 
 on the 3d of September, 1783, between Great Britain and her re- 
 volted colonies. Her Worshipful Master had occupied the leading 
 position in the negotiations which concluded the treaty, and to 
 honor him the lodge gave, on the 17th of December, a public fete 
 commemorative of peace. Franklin’s farewell meeting with the 
 Lodge of the Nine Sisters was on May 4, 1785, and the following 
 month he bade good-bye to France, but his influence did not end 
 with the closing of his personal intercourse with the people with 
 whom he had lived for more than eight years on terms of the most 
 familiar intercourse, so that the last action of the Lodge of the Nine 
 Sisters that we have to note was a greeting to him across the seas. 
 Bachaumont records, under date of March 29, 1786, 1 “The Society 
 known under the name of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, composed 
 of savants, artists and literary men, and presided over by Benjamin 
 Franklin, the year following the one we had the misfortune to lose 
 Voltaire, wishing to-day to show publicly its admiration of the 
 celebrated American, whose presence they may no longer hope for, 
 proposes to the Arts and Eloquence, two Prizes which will be two 
 
 1 “Memoires Secrets,” Vol. XXXI, p. 214. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i 7 i 
 
 medals of gold, each of the value of 600 livres. The prize of 
 eloquence shall be given for a eulogy in praise of Benjamin Frank- 
 lin living, requiring a half-hour in its reading. The art prize shall 
 be given to an allegorical drawing, height two feet and width one 
 foot and a half, representing the services rendered by Benjamin 
 Franklin to science and to American Liberty. All persons, except- 
 ing members of the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, may compete. The 
 competition is open only until the last day of January, 1787, and the 
 prizes will be distributed in a solemn assembly on the first Monday 
 in May, 1787.” 
 
 These proposed medals, if they were ever awarded, of which we 
 have no knowledge, were not the only medallic distinctions con- 
 ferred on Franklin by this lodge. Marvin, in his painstaking work 
 on Masonic medals, 1 notes four medals issued by the Lodge of the 
 Nine Sisters, two of which bear the bust of Franklin, one engraved 
 by Pingret and issued to commemorate Franklin’s initiation as a 
 Master Mason of the lodge, in 1778, which was reissued in 1829; 
 the other engraved by Bernier and issued to commemorate peace in 
 September, 1783. The lodge also issued two other medals: an 
 earlier one in 1776, the year of its incorporation, and a later one in 
 honor of Comte de Milly, its president. 
 
 The life of Freemasonry in France was drawing to a close, and 
 with the Revolution virtually ceased to exist. In 1806 the Lodge of 
 the Nine Sisters was revived, however, in which Houdon took a 
 
 1 “The Medals of the Masonic Fraternity,” by W. T. R. Marvin, Boston, 1880, p. 40. 
 
iy 2 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 very active part; and Besuchet, writing in 1829, 1 says, “This lodge 
 still exists and, faithful to the principles of Freemasonry, it always 
 wished to keep clear of so-called higher Masonic associations. It 
 continued as a symbolic lodge, disdaining the title of Capitular 
 lodge or Capitular and Areopagitic lodge, that is to say, of a lodge 
 serving as source for a Chapter or a Council of the Thirtieth De- 
 gree.” It had a fitful existence until the Revolution of February, 
 1848, when it received its coup de grace. 
 
 1 “Precis Historique de l’Ordre de la Franc-Magonnerie,” par J. C. B., Vol. I, p. 62. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 1781-1785 
 
 STATUES OF TOURVILLE AND OF “LA FRILEUSE”— HOUDON’S REVIVAL 
 OF THE ART OF CASTING IN BRONZE 
 
 r^HE Salon of 1781 was Houdon’s great year and the date 
 which helps to recall the most brilliant memories con- 
 nected with his name. There were to be found the busts 
 in marble of the Due de Praslin; of Tronchin, doctor of medicine; 
 of Mile. Odeoud, of Geneva; and those in plaster of the Princesse 
 d’Ashkoff; Mme. de Serilly; Quesnay, the physician; Gerbier, the 
 distinguished advocate; Palissot; and, finally, Paul Jones. His 
 three principal works, however, were the “Diana,” exhibited at his 
 own studio, and the statues of Tourville and Voltaire, shown at the 
 Salon. 
 
 For a long time it had been matter of surprise that the govern- 
 ment had failed to commission Houdon for any of the four statues 
 annually ordered, and intended to form eventually a collection rep- 
 resenting all the illustrious men of France. A critic of the day 
 went so far as to ask Houdon, whether the cause of such neglect, on 
 the part of the Ministry, was known to him. Pie vouchsafed no 
 reply; but he had now won too great celebrity not to take sooner or 
 
 73 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 174 
 
 later, without any effort or intrigue, a place of high distinction 
 among the group of official artists. In the year 1778 the public 
 learned with great satisfaction that Houdon had been commissioned 
 to execute a statue of Tourville. He took two years to complete the 
 statue, choosing to perpetuate in marble that incident, in the Ad- 
 miral’s career, when he exhibits to his crew the order of the King 
 to engage at Cape La Hogue. In one hand the Admiral grasps and 
 exhibits the order unfolded, in the other he holds his naked sword, 
 pointing with it to the signature of the King. In this figure of the 
 gallant Admiral, Houdon was to essay for a second time the vivid 
 representation of one long since deceased, and to endeavor, from 
 picture and story, to evolve a satisfactory and convincing figure. It 
 was shown in the Salon of 1781, but contemporary criticism does 
 not accord it very high praise. Stress is laid upon the perfection 
 with which the details of the costume are carried out, showing again 
 Houdon’s perfect mastery over his material, but the general effect 
 is judged as being too theatrical; a hat with plumes that the Ad- 
 miral wears coming in for considerable adverse comment. Certain 
 accessories introduced— the prow of a vessel, with guns protruding 
 — are harshly criticized, and the suggestion is made that an anchor 
 or a coil of rope would have been sufficient for purposes of illusion. 
 
 We note here something of the same overcrowding of symbols as 
 in the case of Washington’s statue, although there the lifelike char- 
 acter and distinction of the figure sweep aside these minor faults. 
 But it is evident that the statue of Tourville must have lacked the 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 175 
 
 inspiration displayed in Houdon’s noble bust of Moliere, which 
 Voltaire is said to have kissed on bended knee when he himself was 
 tottering to his final end. Yes, portraiture and lifelike resemblance, 
 with just the touch of idealization that true art demands, were the 
 distinguishing traits of Houdon’s genius; and that splendid galaxy 
 of likenesses scattered over Europe and America is its triumphant 
 vindication. We would not change the result for whole galleries 
 of the finest imaginative work, if through that we were to be denied 
 these masterpieces of living marble and bronze, forever perpetu- 
 ating Houdon’s fame. 
 
 The plaster model for a “Baigneuse,” “to be executed in marble,” 
 mentioned in the Salon catalogue of 1775, was carried out in 
 1782, and a marble bearing Houdon’s name, but not his sig- 
 nature, is in a New York collection. Lady Dilke, who saw it at 
 “Bagatelle,” writes quite enthusiastically about it, and in the large- 
 paper edition of her “French Architects and Sculptors of the Eigh- 
 teenth Century” gives a reproduction of it. At the time she saw it, 
 and as the illustration shows, the statue occupied a grotto, evidently 
 constructed for the purpose of exhibiting it to the best advantage. 
 The figure is seated, nude, and with one foot about to be dipped in 
 the water. Since its removal from such appropriate surroundings 
 and its installation upon a pedestal in a gallery, the effect is very 
 much diminished, and the writers, who have seen it, class it as a 
 very inferior production for any other purpose than the plein air, 
 for which it was originally intended. There seems to have been an 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 i7 6 
 
 attempt recently— perhaps an accidental mistake— to identify the 
 figure as having formed part of the group, “Female Bathing and 
 Black Slave,” exhibited at the Salon of 1783, the principal figure 
 of which was of marble, while the slave was reproduced in lead to 
 carry out the semblance of a negress. This fountain, originally in 
 the garden of the Due de Chartres, at Monceaux, near Paris, was 
 destroyed during the French Revolution, and no trace of it exists, 
 nor is there any record of it after that period. 
 
 To the Salon of 1783 our artist also contributed a “Diana,” in 
 bronze, and a new work, a figure in marble of life size, known as 
 “La Frileuse” or “The Shivering One.” The “Diana” has been 
 described already in a previous chapter. The bronze reproduction 
 here mentioned was that made for Girardot de Marigny, at whose 
 house it was exhibited. “La Frileuse” became one of the most 
 popular of Houdon’s productions. “There was hardly a country 
 house without a plaster cast of it ornamenting some niche on its 
 facade, or standing conspicuously in the garden.” 1 Houdon him- 
 self reproduced it more than once. At the Salon of 1791, it was 
 shown in bronze, and this particular figure was acquired by the 
 King of Prussia. At the Salon of 1793, a small “Frileuse” was 
 exhibited. This may be the one now at the Louvre, a nude figure, 
 without any drapery over the shoulders, but in the same attitude as 
 the semi-draped one, the arms clutching the figure itself, instead 
 
 1 Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 265. 
 
TT/1 yf\ ) TT TT/i T® TTT ) hfl 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 177 
 
 of the drapery. In both, the idea of the human form shrinking 
 from the cold is admirably expressed. It is really intended for an 
 allegory of “Winter,” for later Houdon gave it a companion in 
 his “Summer,” which was not exhibited at the Salon. The two 
 marbles, being pendants, were in the possession of M. Creuze de 
 Lesser in 1829, and from him passed to the Museum at Montpellier, 
 where they have remained ever since. This “Summer” was shown 
 at Houdon’s studio, but received little attention from the critics, 
 so that all his other contributions to the Salon in 1783 were 
 busts: a bust of La Fontaine, the model of which had been made 
 in 1781, for President Aubry; and of living persons, Mile. Rob- 
 ert, daughter of the Painter to the King; and the surgeon Louis, 
 the real inventor, it is said, of the tragic instrument ascribed to Dr. 
 Guillotin. This latter bust, we believe, is now in the Paris Academy 
 of Medicine. Then a bust of Buffon, the great naturalist, made for 
 the Empress of Russia. This bust, which from a contemporaneous 
 account was probably the best in the group, was equaled only by the 
 model of the bust of La Rive, the marble of which was exhibited at 
 the Salon following (1785). The celebrated actor is represented 
 in the character of Brutus. Barere, speaking of this bust in his 
 “Memoirs,” Vol. IV, p. 247, says, “It is not merely a striking 
 likeness, it is one of the most expressive heads imaginable, the finest 
 perhaps that Houdon ever executed.” It now forms a part, as it 
 should, of the splendid collection of busts at the Theatre-Francais. 
 
i7« 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 It seems appropriate at this point to draw attention to another 
 great service rendered the fine arts by Houdon. We allude to the 
 great progress brought about by him in the art of casting statues in 
 bronze. When he first began at it and bravely undertook both 
 sculpture and casting, this last art was little practised and often 
 proved ruinous. Casting in bronze, an operation requiring a great 
 expenditure of time as well as money, had in his day produced but 
 few satisfying works, and these attended with infinite trouble and 
 frequent bankruptcy. It certainly required great perseverance on 
 the part of Houdon, and still more devotion to the arts, for him to 
 risk his savings and his modest independence, so much prized, in so 
 hazardous an undertaking. His own words describe best his strug- 
 gles and the many difficulties which he succeeded in overcoming. 
 
 “In summing up a description of my work, I can truthfully say 
 that I have occupied myself with but two studies which have ex- 
 tended over my entire life, to which I sacrificed all that I gained, 
 and which I should have rendered of greater use to my country had 
 I been either seconded by some one, or possessed of fortune; these 
 studies were Anatomy and the art of Casting. 
 
 “Occupying for a long while the workshops of the Municipality, 
 I profited by this to be both Statuary and Caster or Founder. In 
 modern days these two arts have always been exercised by separate 
 persons, and to revive this useful art in my own country, — an art 
 which might become lost, those having exercised it being dead 
 when I took it up, — I constructed furnaces, I trained workmen, 
 and, after numerous unsuccessful and expensive essays, I succeeded 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 179 
 
 in casting two statues of Diana, one of which I still possess, and my 
 ‘Frileuse.’ 
 
 “Turned out of these workshops, in 1787, by Breteuil, on three 
 weeks’ notice, I purchased a house opposite, constructed new fur- 
 naces, and here cast my Apollo. Since the Revolution, not receiving 
 orders, nearly all my works being ordered and paid for by foreign- 
 ers, and wishing to keep up my workshop and prevent my precious 
 workmen from carrying their talents abroad, I took from the prin- 
 cipal of a moderate fortune sufficient to continue work of this kind 
 and cast the busts of great men, Moliere, Buffon, Voltaire and 
 Rousseau. Always spurred on by love of my art, by the desire to 
 leave to posterity an enduring monument and to give young students 
 a subject for study, although having a family to support, I cast my 
 large ‘Ecorche,’ skinless figure, in 1792. 
 
 “When it was desired to cast the statue for the Pantheon, it was 
 in my workshop they were obliged to seek for a caster, and they 
 selected a man of great merit but one who had always worked under 
 me and who owed to my advice, my means and perseverance, his 
 knowledge of the art, for on coming to me he was a mere moulder. 
 
 “This, Citizen, is the narrative you have required of me. As a 
 result, I may be considered under the double aspect of Statuary and 
 Founder. Under the first, I can create, and under the second, I can 
 execute in a durable manner the creations of others, for I repeat, 
 without fear of contradiction, that I am the sole artist uniting these 
 two species of knowledge.” 1 
 
 1 Letter to the Citizen Bachelier of the 20th Vendemiaire, Year III. 
 
i8o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 The accounts of the Salon of 1785 are somewhat meagre. Busts 
 of the King of Sweden, Prince Henry of Prussia, M. le Pelletier de 
 Mortfontaine, and M. de Bire, are in the catalogue, and besides the 
 La Rive bust in marble, one of M. Le Noir. This last is spoken of 
 in very high terms by art writers of the period. It figured at the 
 sale of Houdon’s effects in 1828, but since then seems to have been 
 lost sight of. 
 
 For some inexplicable reason a number of portrait-busts were 
 entered at this Salon by Houdon under a single number, so that we 
 are unable to specify them ; but among them was undoubtedly the 
 superb marble bust of Condorcet, signed “houdon f. 1785,” now in 
 the hall of the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, 
 where it was placed by William Short, who was Secretary of Lega- 
 tion to Jefferson when he was in France, and subsequently became 
 Charge d’Affaires. The history of the bust as given by Short, in a 
 letter to Jefferson, is curious and most interesting. He writes, Oc- 
 tober 21, 1819: 
 
 “Apropos of Philosophers : you recollect, without doubt, the mar- 
 ble bust of Condorcet, which stood on a marble table in the Salon 
 of the Hotel de la Rochefoucauld. When it was determined no 
 longer to receive him in that house, it was thought unbecoming to 
 keep the bust there. The grandchildren, who never liked him, 
 availed themselves of this to have the bust transported to the lumber 
 store-room without consulting the old lady, whose leave was gener- 
 ally asked on every occasion. She passed this over in silence, how- 
 
IBUJIFIFCQW 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 181 
 
 ever, and never made a remark or enquiry as to the disappearance 
 of the bust. It had cost her a great effort to signify to the original 
 that his presence had become disagreeable; she had really a paren- 
 tal affection for him and had given him a remarkable proof of this 
 at the time of his marriage. 1 On her death, I asked this bust of the 
 granddaughter, who gave it to me with great pleasure. It has been 
 on its way here ever since I left France, in 1795, and has passed 
 through as many casus and discrimina rerum as Eneas himself, or 
 perhaps it was Ulysses, on its way. It has finally arrived and is at 
 present placed, in the Philosophical Hall, in the most suitable com- 
 pany— the busts of Franklin, yourself, Turgot.” 
 
 A month before this last exhibition had opened, our sculptor had 
 set sail for America. We shall follow him across the Atlantic in 
 the next chapter, giving the history of his visit to General Washing- 
 ton at Mount Vernon, and of the splendid artistic results therefrom, 
 both for his own fame and for the admiration of future generations. 
 
 1 Condorcet married, in 1786, Sophie, sister of General Grouchy, who was noted for 
 her beauty. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 1785 
 
 WASHINGTON-HOUDON’S VISIT TO AMERICA— DOMICILED AT MOUNT 
 VERNON FOR A FORTNIGHT— MASK AND BUST FROM LIFE- 
 STATUE AT RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 E have now reached the event in Houdon’s career that 
 was to make his name a household name among the cul- 
 tivated people of this land. On Tuesday, the 22d day of 
 June, 1784, the Legislature of Virginia resolved, “That the Execu- 
 tive be requested to take measures for procuring a statue of General 
 Washington, to be of the finest marble and the best workmanship, 
 with the following inscription on its pedestal : 
 
 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia 
 Have caused this statue to be erected 
 As a monument of affection and gratitude to 
 George Washington; 
 
 Who, 
 
 Uniting to the Endowments of the Hero the Virtues of the Patriot 
 And exerting both in establishing the liberties of his country, 
 
 Has rendered his name dear to his fellow citizens 
 And given the World an immortal example 
 Of true Glory . 1 
 
 1 Hickey’s “Constitution of the United States,” Philadelphia, 1847, p. 206. 
 
 182 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 183 
 
 This action was destined to come to fuller fruition than the action 
 of Congress, proposed a year earlier, “that an equestrian statue 
 should be erected to General Washington.” Yet it was the anticipa- 
 tion of making this equestrian statue for Congress that enabled 
 Jefferson to secure the services of Houdon, then the greatest living 
 statuary, and without a peer since, to model the pedestrian statue 
 for the State of Virginia. At its very outset, however, the project 
 was beset with financial difficulties. The ruinous War of the Revo- 
 lution was ended and had left exhausted treasuries in the indi- 
 vidual States and in the General Government which sorely needed 
 replenishing. This was a difficult task which, at times, seemed as 
 though it would be an impossible one. A week after the passage of 
 the above resolution, the Treasurer of the State of Virginia was 
 directed to pay to the order of the Executive, “out of the first money 
 that shall arise under the law for recruiting this State’s quota of 
 men to serve in the Continental army,” any sum he may direct for 
 the purpose of procuring a statue of General Washington. 1 The 
 Treasurer communicated this resolution to the Governor, inform- 
 ing him at the same time, “There is no money in the Treasury at 
 present arising from this law, and very uncertain when any may 
 come in.” 2 He therefore asked advice of the Governor, if he 
 thought it proper that the money should be taken from any other 
 fund. This plan the Governor evidently sanctioned, for on July 1, 
 1784, prior to the reception of the Treasurer’s letter, Governor 
 
 1 Calendar of State Papers of Virginia, Vol. Ill, p. 595. 2 Ibid., p. 597. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 184 
 
 Harrison wrote to Charles Willson Peale, the eminent portrait- 
 painter at Philadelphia: 
 
 The Assembly of the state have voted a statue of our late worthy 
 commander-in-chief, General Washington, and that I may be enabled to 
 discharge the pleasing trust reposed in me in the most perfect manner 
 possible, I have to request the favor of you to draw a full-length picture 
 of him immediately, and, as soon as it is sufficiently dry, to have it packed 
 up in the most secure manner and shipped in the first ship bound for 
 France to the address of the honble Thomas Jefferson. The expense of 
 which and your charge for drawing shall be remitted you as soon as you 
 shall be pleased to favor me with the amount . 1 
 
 On the 20th of the month the Governor advised Jefferson: 
 
 The Assembly of this state have voted a statue of our late worthy 
 commander-in-chief, General Washington, and have directed their in- 
 tentions to be carried into execution by the Executive. For particulars, I 
 refer you to the enclosed resolution. You will observe they have only 
 provided for one side of the pedestal, and that the others, with the dress, 
 etc., are left for the exercise of the genius of the Executive. This would 
 be a very pleasing employment for us, if we had ever turned our 
 thoughts that way or were adepts in the Science of devices, emblems, etc. 
 But as we are not, we have unanimously fixed on you and my friend Dr. 
 Franklin, who, we all know, are fully competent to the task. I therefore 
 most earnestly request the favor of you to undertake it. . . . To enable 
 the Artist to finish his work in the most perfect manner, I have ordered 
 Mr. Peale to send to your address a full-length picture of the General as 
 soon as possible. The intention of the Assembly is that the statue should 
 be the work of the most masterly hand. I shall therefore leave it to you 
 
 2 Governor’s MS. Letter-book, State Library, Richmond, Va. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 185 
 
 to find out the best in any of the European states. To defray the expense 
 certain funds are appropriated that will undoubtedly produce the money, 
 and it shall be remitted you long before the work can be completed. . . . 
 You will be so obliging, as soon as you have fixed on the devices and 
 agreed for the statue, to favor me with the particulars of the former and 
 a copy of the agreement, that there may be no deficiency in the remit- 
 tances, either in point of time or quantity . 1 
 
 A week later he similarly advised Dr. Franklin, and, on August 
 15, Peale acknowledges the Governor’s letter of six weeks before, 
 telling him he has begun a whole-length portrait of the General 
 and will make all despatch with it that he can, consistently with his 
 endeavors to do well. He adds : 
 
 In the background I intend to introduce the best idea I have of a per- 
 spective view of York and Gloster, and the surrender of the British 
 army, which I believe may be useful to the statuary, if any pieces of his- 
 tory are to be made in bas-relief on the pedestal of the Statue . 2 
 
 On October 30, Peale advises Governor Harrison that he has 
 finished the portrait of Washington, which shall go to France by 
 the first ship. 
 
 “Besides the view of York and Gloster,” he writes, “I have in- 
 troduced in a nearer ground French and American officers with 
 their colors displayed , and between them the British with their 
 colors cased. These figures serve to tell the story at first sight, 
 which the more distant could not do.” He then adds this very in- 
 teresting postscript: “The price of a coppy of General Washing- 
 
 1 Governor’s MS. Letter-book, State Library, Richmond, Va. 
 
 2 “American Historical Record,” Vol. I, p. 81. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 1 86 
 
 ton’s in large whole length is thirty guineas.” 1 A copy of this 
 letter the Governor sent to Jefferson, in order that he might know 
 the meaning of the devices in the picture, at the same time in- 
 closing him a bill of exchange for 8957 livres tournois at a cost of 
 £55°, “which will be sufficient to set the work a going.” 2 A few 
 days later— November 20— the Governor expressed his apprecia- 
 tion of Peak’s readiness to comply with his request and expedition 
 in fulfilling it, and inclosed him a bill on Robert Morris for $143.33 
 in payment for the work. 3 The painting was duly forwarded to 
 Jefferson, who, on April 15, 1785, acknowledges its safe arrival to 
 the Governor, 4 but what became of it has been an interesting inquiry 
 for many years. It may be resting somewhere in France, unknown ; 
 but the minute particulars of its details given by the painter should 
 lead easily to its identification. 
 
 Upon receiving this commission from the State of Virginia, Jef- 
 ferson wrote to Washington, December 10, 1784 : 5 
 
 The Executive of our State have remitted, to Dr. Franklin and myself, 
 the care of having the statue made, which the Assembly directed as a 
 mark of their gratitude to you. I was unwell when I received the letter 
 and have not yet been able to see and confer with Dr. Franklin on the 
 subject. I find that a Monsieur Houdon, of this place, possesses the 
 reputation of being the first statuary in the world. I sent for him and 
 had some conversation with him on the subject. He thinks it cannot be 
 
 1 “American Historical Record,” Vol. I, p. 82. 
 
 2 Governor’s MS. Letter-book, State Library, Richmond, Va. 
 
 3 Ibid. 
 
 4 Calendar of State Papers of Virginia, Vol. IV, p. 24. 
 
 5 Sparks, “Correspondence of the American Revolution,” Vol. IV, p. 83. 
 

 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 perfectly done from a picture, and is so enthusiastically fond of being the 
 executor of this work, that he offers to go to America for the purpose of 
 forming your bust from the life, leaving all his business here in the mean- 
 time. He thinks that being three weeks with you would suffice to make 
 his model of plaister, with which he will return here, and the work will 
 employ him three years. If Dr. Franklin concurs with me, we shall send 
 him over, not having time to ask your permission and await your an- 
 swer. I trust that, having given to your Country so much of your time 
 heretofore, you will add the short space which this operation will re- 
 quire, to enable them to transmit to posterity the form of the person 
 whose actions will be delivered to them by history. Monsieur Houdon is 
 at present engaged in making a statue of the King of France. A bust of 
 Voltaire executed by him is said to be one of the finest in the world. 
 
 It was not until the 12th of January, 1785, that Jefferson ac- 
 knowledged Governor Harrison’s letter of the 20th of July, which 
 had come to his hands on the 29th of November. 1 He writes: 2 
 
 There could be no question raised as to the Sculptor who should be 
 employed; the reputation of Mons. Houdon, of this city, being un- 
 rivalled in Europe. He is resorted to for the statues of most of the 
 sovereigns in Europe. On conversing with him, Dr. Franklin and my- 
 self became satisfied that no statue could be executed so as to obtain the 
 approbation of those to whom the figure of the original is known, but on 
 actual view by the artist. Of course no statue of Genl. Washington 
 which might be a true evidence of his figure to posterity could be made 
 from his picture. Statues are made every day from portraits; but if the 
 person be living they are always condemned by those who know him for 
 want of resemblance, and this furnishes a conclusive presumption that 
 
 1 These dates emphasize what is so generally lost sight of in the present days of rapid 
 transit — the long intervals between the mailing and receipt of letters at the period of 
 which we are writing. 2 Ford’s “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. IV, p. 26. 
 
1 8 8 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 similar representatives of the dead are equally unfaithful. Mons. Hou- 
 don, whose reputation is such as to make it a principal object, was so 
 anxious to be the person who should hand down the figure of the Gen- 
 eral to future ages, that without hesitating a moment he offered to aban- 
 don his business here, to leave the statues of Kings unfinished, and to go 
 to America to take the true figure by actual inspection and mensuration. 
 We believe from his character that he will not propose any very con- 
 siderable sum for making this journey; probably two or three hundred 
 guineas, as he must necessarily be absent three or four months, and his 
 expenses will make at least a hundred guineas of the money. When the 
 whole merit of the piece was to depend upon this previous expenditure, 
 we could not doubt your approbation of the measure ; and that you would 
 think with us that things that are handsome or just should never be done 
 by halves. We shall regulate the article of expense as (Economically as 
 we can with justice to the wishes of the world. This article, together 
 with habit, attitude, devices, etc., are now under consideration, and till 
 they be decided on, we cannot ultimately contract with Mons. Houdon. 
 We are agreed in one circumstance, that the size shall be precisely that 
 of life. Were we to have executed a statue in any other case, we should 
 have preferred making it somewhat larger than life ; because, as they are 
 generally a little elevated, they appear smaller, but we think it impor- 
 tant that some one monument should be preserved of the true size as 
 well as figure, from which all other countries, and our own, at any future 
 day when they shall desire it, may take copies, varying them in their 
 dimensions as may suit the particular situation in which they wish to 
 place them. The duty as well as the glory of this presentation belongs 
 peculiarly to Virginia. We are sensible that the eye alone considered 
 will not be quite as well satisfied; but connecting the consideration 
 that the whole and every part of it presents the true size of the life, we 
 suppose the beholders will receive a greater pleasure on the whole. 
 Should we agree with Mons. Houdon, he will come over in the April 
 packet and of course may be expected in Virginia about the last of May. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 189 
 
 His stay with the General will be about a month. This will be employed 
 in forming his bust of plaister. With this he will return to Paris, and 
 will then be between two and three years in executing the whole in 
 marble. . . . 
 
 These two letters from Jefferson, to Washington and to Harrison, 
 establish this interesting and important point concerning Houdon, 
 that his position as “the first Sculptor of his day” was firmly estab- 
 lished among his contemporaries in Europe— a reputation that a 
 century has not succeeded in lessening, but, on the contrary, has 
 served to establish more firmly. For Jefferson was not confined to 
 France in the selection of a sculptor, as has often been stated, out of 
 regard for the amity shown by that country to this, but he was given 
 “all the European states” from which to select the most masterly 
 hand, and that hand was, without question, Jean Antoine Houdon. 
 
 Houdon’s refusal to make the statue except from life, and his 
 perfect willingness to cross the ocean for the purpose, which was no 
 inconsiderable undertaking in 1785, showed the true spirit of the 
 artist and should never be forgotten by lovers of art and by ad- 
 mirers of Washington. La Fayette sent by Houdon’s hand a letter 
 to Washington, written July 4, 1785, 1 in which he says, “Nothing 
 but the love of glory and his respect for you could induce him to 
 cross the seas, as his business here far exceeds his leisure, and his 
 numerous and gratified friends make him very happy at home.” 
 
 Before the final agreement for the work could be consummated, 
 
 1 Sparks, “Correspondence of the American Revolution,” Vol. IV, p. 106. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 190 
 
 however, Houdon was taken seriously ill, and for a time his life was 
 despaired of. This made it impossible for him to take the April 
 packet, as Jefferson had anticipated; and as Dr. Franklin was pre- 
 paring to return home, Houdon’s departure was deferred until the 
 two could journey together. In order to make this possible, the 
 French government, on June 30, granted Houdon permission to 
 travel for six months. One prudent condition that he exacted be- 
 fore he would leave France gave Jefferson no little tribulation. He 
 required that his life should be insured for 10,000 livres for the 
 benefit of his family, who were dependent upon him, which, after 
 much negotiation, was finally effected in London by John Adams. 1 
 
 Jefferson did everything possible to provide for Houdon a warm 
 welcome, both as an artist and as a man, in the new country, to 
 whose tongue, even, he was a stranger. He wrote Washington, July 
 10, 1785 : 2 
 
 Mr. Houdon would much sooner have had the honor of attending you, 
 but for a spell of sickness, which long induced us to despair of his recov- 
 ery, and from which he is but recently recovered. He comes now for the 
 purpose of lending the aid of his art to transmit you to posterity. He is 
 without rivalship in it, being employed from all parts of Europe in what- 
 ever is capital. He has had difficulty in withdrawing himself from an 
 order of the Empress of Russia, a difficulty, however, that arose from a 
 desire to show her respect, but which never gave him a moment’s hesita- 
 tion about his present voyage, which he considers as promising the bright- 
 est chapter of his history. I have spoken of him as an artist only; but I 
 
 1 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
 2 Randolph’s Jefferson, Vol. I, p. 248. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon I9I 
 
 can assure you also that, as a man, he is disinterested, generous, candid 
 and panting for glory; in every circumstance meriting your good opinion. 
 He will have need to see you much while he shall have the honor of 
 being with you ; which you can the more freely admit, as his eminence and 
 merit give him admission into genteel society here. He will need an 
 interpreter. I suppose you could procure some person from Alexandria, 
 who might be agreeable to yourself, to perform the office. He brings 
 with him one or two subordinate workmen, who, of course, will associate 
 with their own class . 1 
 
 Two days later he addressed letters of introduction to Richard 
 Henry Lee, Monroe, and the entire Virginia delegation in Con- 
 gress. The last cited letter is very important as showing Houdon’s 
 status in relation to the proposed equestrian statue . 2 
 
 In consequence of the orders of the Legislative and Executive bodies 
 of Virginia, I have engaged Mons. Houdon to make the statue of Genl. 
 Washington. For this purpose it is necessary for him to see the Gen- 
 eral. He therefore goes with Doctr. Franklin, and will have the honor 
 of delivering this himself. As his journey is at the expense of the state, 
 according to our contract, I will pray you to favor him with your patron- 
 age and councils and to protect him as much as possible from those im- 
 positions to which strangers are but too much exposed. I have advised 
 him to proceed in the stages to the General’s. I have also agreed, if he 
 can see Generals Green and Gates, whose busts he has a desire to make, 
 that he may make a moderate deviation for this purpose, after he has 
 done with General Washington. But the most important object with 
 him is to be employed to make General Washington’s Equestrian statue 
 for Congress. Nothing but the expectation of this could have engaged 
 
 1 Houdon took with him three “eleves.” The names of two of them, M. Begler and 
 M. Micheli, have been preserved by Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 319. 
 
 2 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
192 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 him to have undertaken the voyage, as the pedestrian statue for Virginia 
 will not make it worth the business he loses by absenting himself. I was 
 therefore obliged to assure him of my recommendation for this greater 
 work. Having acted in this for the state, you will, I hope, think your- 
 selves in some measure bound to patronize and urge his being employed 
 by Congress. I would not have done this myself nor asked you to do it, 
 did I not see that it would be better for Congress to put this business into 
 his hands than those of any other person living, for these reasons : ( 1 ) 
 He is, without rivalship, the first statuary of his age; as a proof of which 
 he receives orders from every other country for things intended to be 
 capital. (2) He will have seen General Washington, have taken his 
 measures in every part, and of course whatever he does of him will have 
 the merit of being original, from which other workmen can only furnish 
 copies. (3) He is in possession of the house, the furnaces, and all the 
 apparatus provided for making the statue of Louis XV. If any other 
 workman is employed, this will all be to be provided anew, and of course 
 to be added to the price of the statue, for no man can ever expect to make 
 two equestrian statues. The addition to which this would be to the price, 
 will much exceed the expectation of any person who has not seen that 
 apparatus. In truth, it is immense. As to the price of the work, it will 
 be much greater than Congress is aware of, probably. I have enquired 
 somewhat into this circumstance and find the prices of those made for 
 two centuries past have been from 120,000 guineas down to 16,000 
 guineas, according to the size. And as far as I have seen, the smaller 
 they are the more agreeable. ... In making a contract with Mons. 
 Houdon, it would not be proper to advance money but as his disburse- 
 ments and labor advance. As it is a work of many years, this will render 
 the expense insensible. The pedestrian statue in marble is to take three 
 years. The equestrian, of course, much more. Therefore the sooner it 
 is begun, the better. 
 
 This letter is of primary interest. Its very opening sentence 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 193 
 
 shows that while Franklin had been invited by Governor Harrison 
 to assist Jefferson in the selection of a suitable statue, the selection 
 of a sculptor was Jefferson’s alone. “I have engaged Mons. Hou- 
 don, ” are his words, showing that when Governor Harrison wrote 
 him in his first letter, “I shall therefore leave it to you to find out 
 the best in any of the European states,” the personal pronoun was 
 used literally for Jefferson and not for Jefferson and Franklin. 
 This is important because many biographers of Franklin have 
 stated, and other writers have followed them, that it was Franklin 
 who selected Houdon to make this now famous statue of Washing- 
 ton, which we show is clearly erroneous. There is every reason, 
 too, why Jefferson should have had the laboring oar. He was in the 
 prime of life, just past forty years, a Virginian, and had been al- 
 ready Governor of the State before he was sent to Paris as Minister 
 to the Court of France, where he had only recently arrived. Frank- 
 lin was approaching his eightieth year, was suffering the physical 
 infirmities of age, and was preparing to lay down his public bur- 
 dens and return home to rest during his remaining years— that is, 
 if such a man could rest— so that Jefferson, single-handed, would 
 have to attend to the completion of the work during the ensuing 
 three years it was to require. Of course, it is not to be questioned 
 but that Jefferson took counsel with Franklin over the selection of 
 the sculptor, though Jefferson, as we have seen by his letter of 
 December 10 to Washington, suggested Houdon’s name before he 
 had even been able “to see and confer with Dr. Franklin on the 
 
194 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 subject.” That Houdon would meet with Franklin’s full approval 
 is clear from the relations that existed between the sculptor and the 
 philosopher, as shown in our chapter on “Busts of Franklin”; and 
 the letter we there give, of November 8, 1783, from Houdon, rela- 
 tive to the book that Franklin wanted, “touching the mould of 
 Louis XV,” 1 taken in connection with Houdon’s known ambition to 
 model the equestrian statue that Congress had voted should be 
 erected to Washington, and, without the hope of receiving which 
 we are told he would not have journeyed here, must have been the 
 occasion of Houdon’s introduction to Franklin. 
 
 This ambition and hope Houdon seems to have tenaciously clung 
 to, for on July 8, 1786, we find Jefferson writing to John Jay, Secre- 
 tary of Foreign Affairs, 2 “At the desire of Monsieur Houdon I 
 have the honor to enclose to you his propositions for making the 
 Equestrian statue of General Washington.” 
 
 Enclosures . 3 — Mr. Houdon is in possession of the workhouse of the 
 city of Paris, employed for casting large works in Bronze and Drilling 
 on the spot where they are erected, and requires for the execution of an 
 Equestrian Statue of General Washington in bronze the sum 600,000 
 livres and the term of ten years from the present instant for the furnish- 
 ing of it, in case the bargain should be signed by both parties in the course 
 of the present year. The price being agreed on, he submits the distribu- 
 
 1 “Description des travaux qui ont precede, accompagne et suivi la fonte en bronze 
 d’un seul jet de la statue equestre de Louis XV, le bien-aime. Dresse sur les memoires 
 de M. Lempereur par M. Mariette. Paris, 1768.” 
 
 2 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
 3 Ibid. 
 
r 9S 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 tion of the payments to the convenience of the Congress, submitting, 
 however, for their consideration that the heaviest part of the expense 
 will fall on him in the first years. He thinks he ought to recommend to 
 have the work performed in two separate casts, — that is, the General in 
 one cast and the horse in another,— since this method would not be any 
 prejudice to the uniformity of the whole work; which, on the contrary, 
 would be benefited in every part as well in its execution as in its solidity 
 and facility of transporting it. Mr. Houdon insists the rather upon this 
 point from the experience he and his workmen have acquired in their 
 endeavor to perfect themselves, as he knows of no founder at present 
 equal in ability to those which he has himself instructed, at a great ex- 
 pense, during fifteen years that he has been in possession of the city’s 
 foundry, where the equestrian statue of Louis XV was cast, and those 
 who were employed in that work are now dead. 
 
 The second proposition was in the same words, except that the 
 time was shortened to “eight years” and the cost correspondingly 
 increased to “ 1,000,000 livres.” 
 
 Houdon was so full of the project that he did actually model an 
 equestrian statuette “en platre d’environ 1 pied,” which was exhib- 
 ited in the Salon of 1793. Unfortunately, all trace of this model is 
 lost. It was not even in the sale of 1828, or we might yet hope to 
 have it reproduced and thus do tardy honor to Houdon and have 
 an equestrian statue worthy of Washington. 1 In 1804 Houdon 
 
 1 Delerot and Legrelle, in writing of Houdon’s desire to execute the equestrian statue 
 of Washington, say that he was so preoccupied with the idea that, with such an end in 
 view, he made a cast of a skinless horse, which he later presented to the Academy of 
 Fine Arts. But they are mistaken when they add that this project “never reached even a 
 beginning looking to its execution.” They have overlooked the model in the Salon 
 of 1793. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 196 
 
 must have had his hope of yet making this equestrian statue of 
 Washington, an object so near to his heart, rekindled by a corre- 
 spondence that he had with Chancellor Livingston, then the Amer- 
 ican representative in France. We find Houdon writing to Liv- 
 ingston, “5 Germinal [26th of March], 1804, m a repetition of the 
 terms and conditions he gave to Jay, adding that 
 
 This price is one that several sculptors asked for the statue of Peter 
 the Great in Russia, and which was given to M. Falconet some thirty or 
 forty years since. In spite of the increase in the price of everything, I 
 ask no other, because I desire to respond worthily to the confidence with 
 which the United States honor me, and I recall with gratitude that, 
 in 1785, I was chosen by them to execute the pedestrian statue of the 
 General; that then I was given the hope of executing this equestrian one, 
 and for which I then made the necessary measurements upon the Gen- 
 eral himself. 
 
 But nothing came of this, and the subject seems to have been 
 dropped for half a century, when Clark Mills was employed to 
 make the equestrian statue now in Washington— in the words of 
 the Act of Congress, “to substantially carry into effect the resolu- 
 tion passed August 7, 1783. ” 
 
 Three days after Jefferson wrote his letter to the Virginian dele- 
 gates in Congress, he gives Patrick Henry, the new Governor of 
 Virginia, the terms of the contract with Houdon. He writes, July 
 15, 1785 : 2 
 
 1 Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Esq., of Philadelphia. 
 
 2 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
i 9 7 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 Mr. Houdon’s long and desperate illness has retarded till now his de- 
 parture for Virginia. We had hoped from our first conversations with 
 him that it would be easy to make our terms, and that the cost of the 
 statue and expense of sending him would be but about a thousand guineas. 
 But when we came to settle this precisely he thought himself obliged to 
 ask vastly more, insomuch that one moment we thought our treaty at an 
 end. But, unwilling to commit such a work to an inferior hand, we made 
 him an ultimate proposition on our part. He was as much mortified at 
 the prospect of not being the executor of such a work as we were not to 
 have it done by such a hand. He therefore acceded to our terms, tho’ 
 we are satisfied he will be a considerable loser. We were led to insist on 
 them because in a former letter to the Governor I had given the hope 
 we entertained of bringing the whole within 1000 guineas. The terms 
 are 25,000 livres or 1000 English guineas, the English guinea being 
 worth 25 livres, for the statue and pedestal. Besides this, we pay his 
 expenses going and returning, which we expect will be between four and 
 five thousand livres; and if he dies in the voyage, we pay his family 
 10,000 livres. This latter proposition was disagreeable to us. But he 
 has a father, mother and sisters who have no other resource but in his 
 labours; and he is himself one of the best men in the world. He there- 
 fore made it a sine qua non ) without which all would have been off. . . . 
 I enclose you for a more particular detail a copy of the agreement. 1 Dr. 
 Franklin, being on his departure, did not become a party to the instru- 
 ment, tho* it has been concluded with his approbation. He was disposed 
 to give 250 guineas more, which would have split the difference between 
 the actual terms and Mr. Houdon’s demand. I wish the state, at the 
 conclusion of this work, may agree to give him this much more, because I 
 am persuaded he will be a loser, which I am sure their generosity would 
 not wish. But I have not given him the smallest expectation of it, chus- 
 ing the proposition would come from the state, which will be more 
 honorable. You will perceive by the agreement that I pay him imme- 
 1 This agreement has not been preserved in the Archives of Virginia. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 I98 
 
 diately 8333% livres, which is to be employed in getting the marble in 
 Italy, its transportation, etc. The package and transportation of his 
 stucco to make the moulds will be about 500 livres. I shall furnish him 
 with money for his expenses in France, and I have authorized Dr. 
 Franklin, when he arrives in Philadelphia, to draw on me for money for 
 his other expenses, going, staying and returning. . . . Dr. Franklin 
 leaves Passy this morning. 1 As he travels in a litter, Mr. Houdon will 
 follow him some days hence, and will embark with him for Philadelphia. 
 I am in hopes he will not stay in America more than a month. 
 
 On the 20th, Houdon joined Franklin at Havre; thence they 
 crossed together to England and sailed from Southampton on July 
 28, landing in Philadelphia on September 14, 1785. But poor 
 Houdon had trials and tribulations before he sailed that were not 
 easily cured on his arrival. We knew that he was disappointed by 
 the non-arrival at Havre of his tools and materials, and that he had 
 to leave without them and delay his visit to Mount Vernon until he 
 could supply himself anew. But we did not know to what sore 
 straits the sculptor was really put, until the recent discovery, among 
 the Franklin MSS. in the American Philosophical Society, of a 
 letter from Mons. Le Veillard 2 to Temple Franklin, and a draft of 
 Temple Franklin’s reply, 3 bearing on the subject. The story is 
 very graphically told in a few words by M. Le Veillard: “I have 
 learned with pain that your belongings are still lying at Havre. . . . 
 
 1 Franklin sets down in his private journal (Sparks’s Franklin, Vol. I, p. 587) : 
 “Set out on my return home, July 12, 1785, leaving Passy.” This was three days earlier 
 than Jefferson writes and shows the uncertainty of even contemporaneous records. 
 
 2 October 9, 1785. 
 
 3 March 27, 1786. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon i 99 
 
 Poor M. Houdon, with his half-dozen shirts for four persons! 
 He must have passed through several Sundays without a clean one. 
 And the tools and the material for the Genl. Washington will be of 
 American clay with American tools.” To which Temple Franklin 
 replied : “Our belongings have reached here after a voyage of three 
 months. Yes! M. Houdon has suffered much. During the pas- 
 sage we took up a subscription of Shirts and Stockings in his favor, 
 and on arrival here he was obliged to make purchases for himself 
 and for his workmen.” These letters, telling so plainly of Hou- 
 don’s plight, make clear what before seemed very odd when we 
 found, in Houdon’s account of expenses of his journey to and from 
 America, so many items for clothing, of all kinds, purchased for 
 himself and his three “eleves.” 1 Such details add much interest to 
 the picture, and surround it with an atmosphere which otherwise 
 would be lacking. 
 
 On September 20 Franklin advised Washington of his arrival, 
 with Houdon, and that the latter would wait upon him as soon as 
 he had supplied himself with materials and instruments. On the 
 26th Washington replied to Franklin: “When it suits M. Houdon 
 to come hither I will accommodate him in the best manner I am 
 able and shall endeavor to render his stay as agreeable as I can.” 
 The same day he wrote to Houdon : 
 
 By a letter, which I have lately had the honour to receive from Dr. 
 
 1 This important document is printed in Appendix “A” from the original in Houdon’s 
 autograph in the Archives of Virginia in the State Library at Richmond. 
 
200 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Franklin, at Philadelphia, I am informed of your arrival at that place. 
 Many letters from very respectable characters in France, as well as the 
 Doctor’s, inform me of the occasion, for which, though the cause is not 
 of my seeking, I feel the most agreeable and grateful sensations. I wish 
 the object of your mission had been more worthy of the masterly genius 
 of the first statuary in Europe; for thus you are represented to me. It 
 will give me pleasure, Sir, to welcome you to the seat of my retirement; 
 and whatever I have, or can procure, that is necessary to your purposes, 
 or convenient and agreeable to your wishes, you must freely command, 
 as inclination to oblige you will be among the last things in which I shall 
 be found deficient, either on your arrival or during your stay. 
 
 Houdon, having remained in Philadelphia over two weeks, ar- 
 rived at Mount Vernon in the night of Sunday, October 2, 1785, 
 under which date Washington enters in his diary: 
 
 After we were in bed (about eleven o’clock in the evening), Mr. Hou- 
 don, sent from Paris by Dr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson to take my Bust, 
 in behalf of the State of Virginia, with three young men assistants, in- 
 troduced by a Mr. Perin, a French gentleman of Alexandria, arrived 
 here by water from the latter place. 
 
 The next entry is under “Friday, October 7th” : 
 
 Sat this day, as I had done yesterday, for Mr. Houdon to form my 
 bust. 
 
 Then follows: 
 
 Monday, October 10. Observed the process for preparing the 
 plaister of Paris and mixing of it according to Mr. Houdon. 
 
 Wednesday, October 12. In the evening Mr. Madison came. 
 
 Friday, October 14. Mr. Madison went away. 
 
 Wednesday, October 19. Mr. Houdon, having finished his business 
 which bro’t him hither, went up on Monday [17th], with his people, 
 
201 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 work and implements, in my barge, to Alexandria, to take a passage in 
 the Stage for Philadelphia the next morning. 
 
 These autograph entries by Washington are of the first impor- 
 tance in the history of the Houdon portrait of Washington, for they 
 fix the exact time that the sculptor was at Mount Vernon to have 
 been a fortnight, 1 and also the exact day when the mould of the liv- 
 ing face was made. The latter was made in the presence of James 
 Madison, and the notation of Madison’s arriving on the evening of 
 October 12 and leaving on October 14 gives us, without the slight- 
 est doubt, Thursday, October 13, 1785, as the day and date when 
 the cast of Washington was made. Fortunately, and most mar- 
 velous to relate, the mask of Washington’s face, cast from the 
 matrix taken from his living features, exists to-day, and has recently 
 come into possession of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 2 It was taken to 
 Paris by Houdon, who showed it to Rembrandt Peale in his studio 
 in 1808, when Peale painted Houdon’s portrait, now in the Penn- 
 sylvania Academy of Fine Arts. 3 At the sale of Houdon’s effects 
 after his decease in 1828, this mask was purchased by Robert 
 Walsh, of Philadelphia, who brought it to America, and later it 
 became the property of John Struthers, a Scotch stone-cutter in 
 
 1 Delerot and Legrelle’s account of Houdon’s visit to America is nearly as erroneous 
 as the statement in the new “Biographie Generale,” 1861, Vol. XXV, p. 254, which says 
 that “Houdon resided with Washington in Philadelphia and there made the bust,” etc. 
 
 2 It is a great pity that Houdon opened the eyes in this mask, and the reason for his 
 doing so is unaccountable. 
 
 3 Letter from Rembrandt Peale to John Durand, Editor of “The Crayon,” September 
 5, 1857, in possession of Mr. Hart. 
 
202 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 that city, who had in his employ a German sculptor named Ferdi- 
 nand Pettrick, to whom in 1839 he gave the Houdon life-mask of 
 Washington. Pettrick returned to Europe and settled in Rome, 
 where he was known and assisted in his old age by the eminent 
 American poet and sculptor, William Wetmore Story; and from 
 his death-bed at Palestrina, Pettrick sent his wife with the life- 
 mask to Story, desiring that he should become the possessor of this, 
 the most important iconographic memorial of the great Washington 
 that exists, and Story bought it. 1 It was the choicest treasure of 
 Mr. Story’s studio, in the Palazzo Barberini, until his death, when 
 it passed to his sculptor son, Waldo Story, who in February, 1908, 
 disposed of it to Mr. Morgan. This is the history and pedigree of 
 the only mask from Washington’s face that is authentic, the plaster 
 faces exhibited in many public collections as “Houdon’s mask of 
 Washington” being nothing but casts from the face of a Houdon 
 bust, and a very much worn one at that, of no artistic or historical 
 value whatever. 
 
 Mr. Story, in his article already cited, makes a long and labored 
 argument to show that Houdon did not model a bust of Washing- 
 ton from life at Mount Vernon, but satisfied himself with the mask 
 and made the bust from it after his return to Paris. He sees great 
 differences between the bust and the life-mask, all of which favor 
 
 the mask, notwithstanding which he admits that “a mask from the 
 
 / 
 
 living face, though it repeats exactly the true forms of the original, 
 
 1 “The Mask of Washington,” by W. W. Story, Harper’s Weekly of February 26, 1887. 
 
JLIIFIE CD) IF 5 WAS'HIWcaTOT 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 203 
 
 lacks the spirit and expression of the real person.” But Mr. Story 
 does not tell us with what bust of Washington by Houdon he com- 
 pared the mask, and we have found, in pursuing our studies and in- 
 vestigations of this subject, that there are great differences among 
 them, owing, of course, to the distance the example is removed from 
 the original. 1 The value of masks from life or after death, as por- 
 traits, I shall not discuss here, as I have already written fully upon 
 that subject; 2 but we have positive affirmative proof of the fallacy 
 of Mr Story’s argument in the present instance. 
 
 Houdon did model a bust of Washington from life at Mount 
 Vernon in October, 1785. 
 
 Washington not only records in his diary sitting “for Mr. Hou- 
 don to form my Bust,” but it was exhibited to Congress and to 
 Franklin, Hopkinson, Thomson and others, who have recorded it. 
 
 Houdon arrived in Philadelphia, on his return from Mount 
 Vernon, in the evening of October 20, 3 and on the 24th wrote 
 Franklin the following letter: 4 
 
 I have the honor to recall to Mons. Dr. Franklin before Mons. his son 
 makes an estimate of the amount I shall be obliged to draw before leav- 
 
 1 These endless reproductions, some of them having even the audacity to forge his 
 signature, are so many counterfeits of Houdon’s work, from which he was not free even 
 in his lifetime, and of which he often bitterly complained as being detrimental to his 
 fame as to his pocket. His Ecorche, Voltaire, Rousseau and Washington were those 
 most commonly pirated, and this accounts for the dissimilarity between casts of what is 
 intended for the same head. 
 
 2 Browere’s “Life-Masks of Great Americans,” by Charles Henry Hart, New York, 
 
 1899. 
 
 3 Letter of Franklin to Ferdinand Grand. Smyth’s Franklin, Vol. IX, p. 471. 
 
 4 Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Esq., Philadelphia. 
 
204 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 ing, that I owe here to M. Thovarre [?], partner in the house of de 
 Heyder Veydt, 25 louis borrowed at Baltimore in order to pursue my 
 journey. To the tailor since my return from the General’s about 8, also. 
 The expenses at the Inn here as well, which I cannot as yet estimate. 
 Other like unavoidable expenditures. What I re-owe in the house of 
 M. Dr. F. The journeys and stays before embarking for our return to 
 France. Those of our passage money there from Orient to Paris, or 
 from London to Paris, if there is time to be gained in following the 
 shortest route. The cost of these routes I have no knowledge of and I 
 ask pardon for it. A sum for unforeseen happenings or letters of credit 
 available at different points, a matter which appears to be very essential, 
 judging by my experience in Virginia. Houdon 
 
 The next day, while Houdon was still in Philadelphia, Francis 
 Hopkinson, poet, artist, lawyer and statesman, wrote to Jefferson: 1 
 
 This will be delivered to you by Mr. Houdon, the artist who came 
 over to make a model for a statue of Gl. Washington. I yesterday saw 
 the head he has modelled of that great man. I am charmed with it. He 
 is certainly a most capital artist. There is no looking at this bust without 
 admiration and delight. The noble air, sublime expression and faithful 
 likeness evince the hand of a master. You will be charmed with it. Mr. 
 Houdon, having executed the purpose of his voyage, is impatient to re- 
 turn. 
 
 The following day— October 26— William Temple Franklin 
 writes to John Jay at New York: 2 
 
 Mr. Houdon, of whom you have heard me speak, will have the honor 
 of delivering this to you. He is lately returned from Virginia, where he 
 
 1 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
 2 Johnston’s Jay Correspondence, Vol. IV, p. 174. 
 
205 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 has been fulfilling the object of his coming to America, in modelling the 
 bust of General Washington, in which he has been singularly successful. 
 He is now about returning to France by the way of N. York. I have 
 persuaded him to take with him the Genl’s bust that he has given us, in 
 order to show to Congress what he is capable of doing and thereby ob- 
 taining the preference in being employed to make the Equestrian Statue 
 voted long since. 
 
 Truthful Charles Thomson, who was never carried away by his 
 emotions, wrote to Jefferson from New York, November 2, 1785 r 1 
 
 Mr. Houdon has been to Mount Vernon and taken the bust of our 
 amiable General. He exhibited it to the view of Congress. It appears 
 to me to be executed in a masterly manner. I acknowledge my want of 
 skill to judge of performance of this nature, but there is in the air and 
 attitude of this, something that pleases me. Most other pictures seem 
 to have their attention turned on the objects around them, but in this the 
 artist, by elevating the chin and countenance, has given it the air of one 
 looking forward into futurity. But I will not venture any criticisms for 
 fear of betraying my ignorance. 
 
 What became of the bust that, Temple Franklin wrote Jay, 
 “Houdon has given us” no one can tell. Doubtless, made as it 
 was of comparatively fragile material, it long since w r as ground to 
 dust. That it was returned to the Doctor’s possession is shown by 
 his letter to Houdon, November 30, 1785 : 2 “The bust is returned 
 perfectly safe, and continues to be the admiration of all that see it.” 
 Surely, after this array of contemporaneous evidence, now brought 
 
 1 Collection of the New York Historical Society, 1878, p. 214. 
 
 2 Autograph Collection of Oliver K. Brooks, Esq., Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
20 6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 together for the first time, there can be no question as to the fact 
 that Houdon did model his bust of Washington direct from life, 
 and not from the mask that he took ex majori cautela. That he 
 prized this mask, however, very highly, is evidenced by the fact 
 that when he returned to France, reaching his home on Christmas 
 day of 1785, he took with him, as Jefferson wrote Washington, 
 January 4, 1786, 1 “the mould of the face only, having left the other 
 parts of his work with his workmen to come by some other con- 
 veyance.” 
 
 Among the articles thus brought to him by his workmen 2 was the 
 bust he had modeled and cast at Mount Vernon. This bust Hou- 
 don preserved with as reverent care as he did the life-mask, until 
 his death ; and at the sale of his effects it was bought by M. Walfer- 
 din, who bequeathed it to the Louvre, 3 where it now is, and from 
 which our reproduction has been made. It will be seen to be very 
 different from the ordinary commercial “Houdon bust of Wash- 
 ington” ; and, while a comparison between it and the life-mask will 
 show a marked similarity in form and contour, the bust has the 
 advantage of the mask “in spirit and expression,” and shows plainly 
 
 1 Randolph’s Jefferson, Vol. I, p. 393. 
 
 2 “Houdon is arrived in Paris, but has not yet brought your bust, which he expects 
 by water from London.” La Fayette to Washington, February 8, 1786. Memoirs and 
 Correspondence of La Fayette, 1837, Vol. II, p. 125. 
 
 3 “The terra-cotta original bust of Washington, modelled from life, which was sold 
 at the sale of the artist’s effects in 1828 and which was bought by M. Walferdin, was 
 bequeathed by him to the Louvre.” Grimm-Diderot Correspondance, Paris, 1880, Vol. 
 XIV, p. 297, n. 
 
WA S m I WtUrlF (DOT 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 207 
 
 that Mr. Story never could have studied this bust in the Louvre, 
 when he commented upon the dissimilarity between the two, as one 
 of the reasons for his claiming that the bust was not modeled from 
 life but from the mask was “the nudity of the neck and shoulders .” 1 
 The original bust in the Louvre, as the plate shows, is draped, with 
 a tunic and band, over the shoulders, which could not have 
 escaped Mr. Story, had he ever seen it. He doubtless only knew 
 the ordinary casts called “Houdon’s Washington,” which have the 
 neck and shoulders bare, and which, from being constantly cast and 
 recast, have so much deteriorated and are so far removed from the 
 original as to be next to worthless . 2 
 
 The bust of Washington that Houdon presented to Franklin was 
 not the only bit of his handicraft that he left in this country. 
 Among his belongings that did not arrive here until he had been 
 at home several months, were a “Diana and several other works of 
 his own composition,” of which Temple Franklin in his letter to M. 
 le Veillard, already cited, says: 
 
 I fear that we shall find no one here capable of putting together the 
 principal figures, the different parts of which having been separated for 
 convenience in packing. As it is, not one of the cases has been as yet 
 opened, awaiting the arrival of Mr. Pyne, the Painter, now in Mary- 
 
 1 Delerot and Legrelle also err in saying that Houdon modeled his bust from the 
 cast of the mould of Washington’s face. 
 
 2 A very interesting comparison can also be made between the Houdon original bust, 
 the life-mask and Stuart’s first portrait of Washington, when the harmony of the three 
 will be seen to be very convincing as to their truthfulness. 
 
208 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 land , 1 to whom the matter was confided. I beg of you to inform M. 
 Houdon of this and assure him that I shall do all that in me lies for the 
 sale of the objects designed to be sold. 
 
 What became of these art treasures we are unable to say, but 
 we know from the letter of Dupont de Nemours to Jefferson, that 
 among them was a marble bust of Franklin that was offered for sale 
 to the State of Virginia but not purchased. 
 
 No sooner had Houdon returned than several important ques- 
 tions arose in regard to the statue ; the most essential being the cos- 
 tume in which Washington should be represented, and the 
 inscription it should bear. On the first question, Jefferson, in his 
 letter to Washington of January 4, 1786, writes: 
 
 Dr. Franklin, who was joined with me in the superintendence of this 
 just monument, having left us before what is called the costume of the 
 statue was decided on, I cannot so well satisfy myself, and I am per- 
 suaded I should not so well satisfy the world, as by consulting your own 
 wish or inclination as to this article. Permit me, therefore, to ask you 
 whether there is any particular dress, or any particular attitude, which 
 you would rather wish to be adopted. 
 
 To this Washington replied, August 1, 1786 : 2 
 
 In answer to your obliging enquiries respecting the dress, attitude, etc., 
 which I would wish to have given to the statue in question, I have only to 
 observe that, not having sufficient knowledge in the art of sculpture to 
 
 1 Robert Edge Pine, the English painter, who came to this country and settled in 
 Philadelphia in 1784, and died there in 1788. It is not at all unlikely that some of these 
 works of Houdon became the attraction of Pine’s public exhibition of works of art, 
 which after his death were sold and finally became the nucleus of the Boston Museum 
 collection, as in the latter, when dispersed in 1892, was a Houdon bust of Paul Jones. 
 
 2 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
209 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 oppose my judgment to the taste of Connoisseurs, I do not desire to dic- 
 tate in the matter. On the contrary, I shall be perfectly satisfied with 
 whatever may be judged decent and proper. I should even scarcely have 
 ventured to suggest that perhaps a servile adherence to the garb of an- 
 tiquity might not be altogether so expedient as some little deviation in 
 favor of the modern costume, if I had not learned from Colo. Humphrey 
 that this was a circumstance hinted in conversation with Mr. West to 
 Houdon. This taste which has been introduced in painting by Mr. West, 
 I understand is received with applause and prevails extensively. 
 
 There is nothing whatever to indicate that Houdon had sug- 
 gested the classic style for the statue of Washington, and it is very 
 unlikely that he did, but what was doubtless in the mind of Wash- 
 ington, and what he desired to guard against, when he replied to 
 Jefferson’s inquiry as to his “wish or inclination” on the subject of 
 costume, was the provision in the resolution of Congress for the 
 equestrian statue that “the General be represented in a Roman 
 dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand and his head encircled 
 with a laurel wreath.” But it is quite clear that Houdon made a 
 sketch or model for the statue different from its final execution, for 
 a German tourist in Paris, quoted by Montaiglon and Duplessis 
 (p. 326), 1 says he saw in the sculptor’s studio a model for the statue 
 in which Washington is portrayed in the character of the Protector 
 of Agriculture. Meyer says : 
 
 The figure is clothed in the plain and noble habiliments appropriate to 
 a man of rural pursuits, a light pleated vest, half buttoned, sandals on 
 
 1 “Fragments sur Paris. Par Frederic- Jean-Laurent Meyer.” Translated from the 
 German by Genl. Dumouriez. Hamburg, 1798. Vol. II, p. 222. 
 
210 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 the feet, with a cloak fastened across the chest and enveloping the back 
 and shoulders, suggesting protection to the Agriculturist against bad 
 weather. One hand rests upon a walking-stick, the other is placed upon 
 the Republican Fasces, crowned by a Liberty cap. At his feet stands a 
 plough. 
 
 And this explains what would be a puzzle without it. On 
 August 25, 1790, after Jefferson’s return home, he wrote to Wil- 
 liam Short in Paris: 1 
 
 I must beg the favor of you to get Houdon to have made of a light 
 cheap silk, couleur d’ardoise, the actual costume he formed for the Presi- 
 dent’s statue. It consisted of a gilet and cloak, which fell behind the 
 back so as to show the form of the body clear of it. Let it be made of 
 the size of life. This is not meant to bring into doubt the original order 
 to make the statue in the real costume, to wit, the military uniform. 
 
 But the puzzle is unanswered as to the purpose for which Jeffer- 
 son could have wanted this costume of the discarded sketch and in 
 a special color, but his letter confirms Meyer’s statement, without 
 which we might have been a little sceptical. 
 
 The objection to the inscription, raised by Houdon, was the very 
 just one, from the artistic standpoint, 2 that it was too long to be 
 placed upon a pedestal of the small size necessary to support a life- 
 size statue, and the result was that when the statue was completed 
 and sent to Virginia, the pedestal was barren of any inscription, but 
 
 1 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
 2 Jefferson to Madison, February 8, 1786, and Madison to Jefferson, May, 12, 1786. 
 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 211 
 
 with the name “George Washington” simply cut on the base upon 
 which the figure stands, and “fait par houdon Citoyen frangais 
 1788” below the cane. The original inscription, as provided in the 
 Assembly’s resolution, written by Madison, was, however, cut upon 
 the pedestal in 1814, and shows what a proper appreciation of the 
 situation Houdon entertained. 
 
 The “Memoires Secrets,” from which we have in other chapters 
 quoted so generously, announce under date of December 16, 1 786 : 1 
 “M. Houdon began to show to amateurs in his studio the bust of 
 General Washington, the object of his voyage to America and per- 
 fectly modelled, as we are assured.” And in the issue of January 
 2 7, 1787: 2 “This work is finished and will be ready for the next 
 Salon,” 3 where it was exhibited in marble and catalogued “259. Le 
 General Washington fait par l’auteur dans le terre de ce general 
 en Virginie.” Of it Bachaumont says, on the day of the opening, 
 August 25, 1787 : 4 “Here is . . . General Washington, whose fine 
 head has the true calm of the real hero and above all appropriate to 
 the modern Fabius, but having little resemblance, according to 
 those who have had the happiness to see the illustrious American.” 
 This final sentence is of much import as being so wholly contrary 
 
 1 Vol. XXXIII, p. 274. 2 Vol. XXXIV, p. 91. 
 
 3 At the period of which we are writing the Salon opened on August 25 and lasted one 
 month. The first was held in 1737 and thereafter annually until 1745, after which they 
 were held every two years until 1796, which was an annual exhibition. Again from 
 1798 to 1802 they were held annually, after which they were held every two years until 
 a comparatively recent date, since which they have been held annually. 
 
 4 Vol. XXXVI, p. 396. 
 
212 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 to the accepted criticism of Houdon’s work, as we have seen in the 
 original bust modeled at Mount Vernon and in the statue at Rich- 
 mond, and causes us to pause and wonder if the change was wrought 
 by the chisel of the practicien in transferring the model into stone. 1 
 The whereabouts of this marble, exhibited in the Salon of 1787, are 
 unknown, but may it not be the bust from which the commonly seen 
 casts of the undraped “Houdon’s Washington” were made, which, 
 if the final sentence of the criticism we have quoted is correct, 
 might account for their dissimilarity with the original in the 
 Louvre? 
 
 But the statue that bears date “1788” was not completed, it would 
 seem, until 1791, 2 when Gouverneur Morris records in his diary, 3 
 under date of July 13 : “At eleven go to breakfast with Lady Suth- 
 erland and afterward attend her to M. Houdon’s to see the statue of 
 Genl. Washington.” Even then the State of Virginia was not ready 
 to receive it, owing to the incompleteness of the State Capitol, at 
 Richmond, where it was to be housed. But on February 5, 1795, 
 we find Governor Brooke writing to James Monroe, then the 
 American envoy to France, asking him to ascertain “the situation 
 of the business,” as the statue was not finished when Jefferson left 
 Paris, “and we have no information since with respect to its prog- 
 
 1 For an interesting account of this mechanical part of sculpture, see Lawton’s “Life 
 and Work of Auguste Rodin,” New York, 1907, pp. 28-30. 
 
 2 Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 327, citing Le Breton’s Report on the Fine Arts, make 
 it a year later — 1792. 
 
 3 Diary of Gouverneur Morris, New York, Vol. I, p. 433. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 213 
 
 ress.” 1 The letter was delayed in reaching Monroe, but he ac- 
 knowledged it August 20, promising to make the inquiries desired, 
 and in every way to further the wishes of the Executive of his State. 
 This action resulted in the statue being shipped at Havre, with a 
 workman to put it up, toward the close of January, 1796, on the ship 
 Planter, whereof Ayres Stockley was master, bound for Philadel- 
 phia. The bill of lading reads: “For account and risk of the Gov- 
 ernor and Council of the town of Richmond, State of Virginia. 
 Three cases, one of which contains the marble pedester statue of 
 General Washington, and the two others contain the marble pedes- 
 tal of said statue, weighing together thirty-six thousand pounds, 
 weight going for eighteen tons, being marked and numbered as in 
 the margin, and to be delivered in like good order at the aforesaid 
 port of Philadelphia (the danger of the seas only being excepted), 
 unto the order of Mr. William Pennock, of Norfolk, Virginia, who 
 is to convey the same to said Governor and Council of Richmond, 
 or to his order or assigns, he or they paying freight for the said 
 goods.” 2 The statue reached Philadelphia in April, and it was at 
 once forwarded to Richmond, where it was placed in the rotunda 
 of the Capitol on the main floor, between the House of Delegates 
 and the Senate Chamber, on the 14th of May, 1796, apparently 
 without any ceremony or exercises whatever. 3 
 
 1 Governor’s Letter-book, Archives of Virginia. 
 
 2 MS. Archives of Virginia, in State Library, Richmond. 
 
 3 The freight and expenses on the statue from France were $315.28; and the cost of 
 putting it up, $90 plus £26 6s. 10 d. 
 
214 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Three years before the delivery of the statue, Houdon had been 
 paid, literally, the full amount he was to receive for the work, but 
 the last payment was made in assignats, the depreciated money of 
 the French Republic, and he made claim for payment of the loss 
 occasioned by the depreciation. This claim Monroe communicated 
 to the Executive of his State, July 29, 1796. He writes : 
 
 I herewith enclose you a note of the amt. of what I paid to Mr. Hou- 
 don, the artist, for the charges annexed and which he requested imme- 
 diately. Mr. Houdon has also another demand of abt. the like sum for 
 depreciations and wh. I promised to communicate to you and pay him in 
 case you permitted. I believe from his statement that he actually lost 
 that amt. and in that mode, but at the same time I also believe the State 
 of Virginia did not profit thereby, as likewise that the only claim he has, 
 if any, is upon the candor and liberality of the State. 
 
 Houdon followed this up with a personal letter to the Governor 
 under date of September 8, 1796, which is amusing for the attempt 
 at English in which it is written. 1 
 
 The eight July 1785 he was agreed between his excellency Mr. Jeffer- 
 son in the Virginia state’s name and me that I should executed in marble 
 the statue of Mr. Washington, for the price of 25,000 french money to be 
 paid in three times— at the period of the last payment at the end of 1792, 
 I received 9000 which would formed the whole sum I ought to received 
 if it had not been paid in assignats who losting in that time 60/100 only 
 give the value of 5625 silver; I remains due 3375. 
 
 By a letter to his excellency Mr. Morris I immediately claim against 
 this sort of payment; I enclose here the answer Mr. Grand make for him 
 to me— Mr. Morris and Mr. Short didn’t received answer from the 
 1 MS. Archives of Virginia, State Library. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 2 i 5 
 
 Virginia’s state to the several letters they wrote on this account. When 
 at the end of 1795 his excellency Mr. Monroe ordered the Statutes de- 
 parture, I renewd my claim for being paid of the sum of 3375 but neither 
 the minister or the consul won’t take any determination on this object, 
 they and me wrote to the Virginia’s State on this account, but again no 
 answer; Now I address myself directly to you Sir, and I hope you will 
 find my request as right as any of the three Ministers above mentioned, 
 and that I shall received a satisfactory answer. I am with the respect 
 due to your caracter sir of your excellency the most obedient servant, 
 
 Houdon 
 
 Sculpteur au Louvre a Paris. 
 
 Copie de la lettre de M grand a M houdon Sculpteur en datte du 28 
 9bre 1792. 
 
 M. Morris trouve juste la reclamation de M. houdon, mais comme 
 if ne puis disposer des fonds du Congres sans son consentement, il en fera 
 la demande au Congres, main en attendant il conseille a M houdon de 
 recevoir toujours le solde sur un cette motive, c’est aussi ce que peuse M 
 grand. 
 
 Pour copie conforme. Houdon . 1 
 
 What action was taken on this letter at the time, we are not in- 
 formed, but the claim was not presently adjusted or for several 
 years thereafter as we find in a letter from Jefferson to Monroe, 
 when the latter occupied the gubernatorial chair of Virginia, dated 
 February 28, 1802, 2 commenting upon what Dupont de Nemours 
 had written to him— “Houdon, to whom Virginia still owes a thou- 
 sand crowns on the statue of Washington, is in great need of the 
 
 1 Houdon’s chirography is extremely difficult to decipher, so that the copyist has been 
 unable intelligently to render it, being, as it is, in a foreign language, which may also 
 in part account for some of the peculiarities in his English letter that covered this one. 
 
 2 Dreer MSS., Pennsylvania Historical Society. 
 
21 6 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 money.” He says: “In the latter branch of the quotation I feel a 
 personal interest as having been the instrument of the contract of 
 the state. But I imagine this matter must hang on some difficulty 
 of which I am uninformed.” From the subsequent correspondence 
 it would seem that the matter had simply been allowed to lie dor- 
 mant and only required the magic wand of Jefferson to give it life 
 and bring about a just settlement. Thus Monroe answers Jefferson 
 under date of March 14 : 1 “I am authorized to inform you that 
 whatever sum you state to be due shall be paid on yr. certificate of 
 the same. I send you a letter of yours to Governor Brooke, one of 
 Houdon to the Governor of Virg., and a copy of one from the 
 banker Grand to Houdon, certified by the latter, which show that 
 the contract was in specie, that the assignats were accepted by him, 
 with the approbation of Mr. Morris, on the principle and in the 
 expectation that they should be scaled. I hope and presume that 
 Mr. Morris will be able to establish the facts, not known to you, 
 necessary to adjust the account to your satisfaction, so that we may 
 be able to pay the artist what is justly his due.” 
 
 But it was not until Monroe went to France, the following year, 
 to negotiate with Livingston for the cession of Louisiana, thatthemat- 
 ter was finally settled and Houdon received his due. From Paris, 
 August 12, 1803, Monroe writes to the Governor of Virginia: 
 
 At present I have only to . . . transmit you a receipt from the artist 
 Houdon at Paris for the amount of his claim of balance due him on ac- 
 1 Hamilton’s Monroe, Vol. Ill, p. 339. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 217 
 
 count of the statue of Genl. Washington, which I have paid him. You 
 will recollect . . . that it was decided that the artist should not lose by 
 the depreciation of the paper in which the payment was made to him; 
 that the payment of the balance claimed was only delayed to have been 
 correctly ascertained by Mr. Jefferson. On my arrival in Paris this 
 poor man applied to me for justice, and I thought it best to pay him. It 
 did not suit the character of the state or the transaction that a just claim 
 should be delayed on account of that statue. 
 
 Accompanying this letter was a certificate from the United States 
 commercial agent of the adjustment, which is of enough interest to 
 print, showing, as it does, that the statue was completed in Novem- 
 ber of 1792, when the last payment was made. 
 
 The undersigned Commercial Agent of the United States at Paris, 
 having by desire of James Monroe, Envoy Extraordinary, etc., to the 
 French Republic, examined the several papers exhibited by Mr. Houdon 
 in support of his claim against the State of Virginia, for the loss by 
 depreciation on the sum of 9000 Livres paid him in Assignats by the late 
 bankers of the U. S., Messrs. Grand & Co., on the 29th of November, 
 1792, on account of the statue of General Washington made by him for 
 the State of Virginia, does hereby certify that by the scale of depreciation 
 established by law in this country it appears that, on the aforesaid 29th 
 of November, 1792, the sum of 9000 Livres in assignats was worth 
 6200 Livres specie and therefore that the said Houdon did sustain a loss 
 of 2800 Livres. In witness whereof I have signed the 10th of June, 
 1803, at Paris. Fulmer Skipwith. 
 
 The receipt of Houdon, which closes the transaction, has never 
 been printed. It is as follows: 
 
 J’ai regu de son excellence Monsieur Monroe pour le compte de l’etat 
 de Virginie la somme de deux mille huit cent Livres pour solde ce qui me 
 
218 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 restait du sur le statue pedestre du general Washington que j’ai executee 
 et livree au dit etat. Paris ce 27 prairial an 1 1 ; 16 juin 1803. 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 So that Houdon was not only underpaid for his work, as we have 
 seen by the testimony of Jefferson, but he had to wait eleven years 
 after he had finished the statue before he received settlement in full 
 for it. But his reward was far greater than the mere dollars he was 
 paid. He had the distinguished honor of coming in close personal 
 relations with the Pater Patriae, and he has received the homage of 
 the whole American people for his great work. We are told by his 
 son-in-law, Raoul Rochette, that his visit to Mount Vernon was an 
 incident in his life “which in his memory always shone with pe- 
 culiar radiance, for, though not knowing English and having to 
 speak through an interpreter, the pleasure of having been close to 
 Washington left memories which he was fond of recurring to when 
 many others of various kinds had long been forgotten.” 
 
 While persons see likenesses through many different visions, no 
 two persons seeing exactly alike, yet there can be no doubt, from the 
 consensus of Washington’s intimate friends and contemporaries, as 
 well as from the known skill of Houdon as a portrait sculptor, that 
 future generations can feel, when they look upon his statue of 
 Washington, that they have before them the verisimilitude of the 
 original in feature and in stature. At the same time, Houdon was 
 human, and Washington’s supreme manhood seems to have affected 
 him, as it did so many of the artists who undertook to portray the 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 219 
 
 Father of his Country, so that our sculptor essayed in his work to 
 convey too complete an idea of the man and thus has overcrowded 
 his statue with symbolism. The cane, the sword, the ploughshare 
 and the fasces take away from the simple dignity and majesty of the 
 figure, until one might suppose that the Father of his Country 
 needed a support on either side or in boyish awkwardness knew not 
 what to do with his hands. The truthfulness and artistic qualities 
 of the head are beyond criticism, and must be accepted as the canon 
 of comparison for all other portraits . 1 As they approach this or 
 fall away from it, their relation to the original can be assigned. 
 The portrait is both real and ideal, the perfection of true art. 
 Truth has not been sacrificed to imagination; they have been 
 blended and commingled, but not lost in each other. It is a very 
 dignified statue, but being the exact size of life— six feet, two inches 
 — and elevated on its pedestal five feet above the floor, appears 
 smaller than life, and in this position the delicate and subtle model- 
 ing is lost, so that its full value cannot be discerned. The pedestal 
 should be sunk in a pit, so that the base of the figure would be on 
 the floor line; then its full value would assert itself and the beauty 
 of Houdon’s work be seen. Unfortunately, no reproduction gives 
 an adequate idea of its character, and therefore scant justice is done 
 it in the illustration, which, however, is the best we have ever seen . 2 
 
 1 This was the view expressed by Gilbert Stuart, America’s master painter, who 
 placed Houdon’s bust of Washington before his own familiar Athenaeum head — the one 
 that may be called “the household Washington.” His first portrait of Washington, 
 however, as already noted, measures well up with the Houdon head. 
 
 2 According to Montaiglon and Duplessis, p. 325, Houdon “in his old age” made, in 
 
220 Life and Works of 
 
 Mr. Lorado Taft, the well-known sculptor, says of this statue : 1 
 
 The head and shoulders of the figure are superbly illuminated and the 
 effect is noble beyond any expression given by replicas 2 of the statue in 
 other localities. The workmanship is exceedingly skilful and grows upon 
 one with study; but there is, it must be confessed, a feeling of leanness 
 and angularity in the lower portion of the statue. It may be that it was 
 inherent in the subject, and it is doubtless accentuated by the costume — 
 the uniform of a Revolutionary officer. Whatever may be the cause, 
 there is, in spite of irreproachable drawing, an effect as of pasteboard or 
 tinware about the lower limbs. This is further enhanced by the wide 
 angle of the feet, wdiich gives the figure from one view the look of having 
 been cut out of folded paper and then spread open. The close-fitting 
 nether garments, combined with their “tightness” of treatment, and the 
 unheroic but doubtless circumstantial swell of the abdomen , 3 produce a 
 result more curiously individual than majestic, until the eye returns to the 
 noble head, which is one of the finest examples of simplification to be 
 found in modern art. It has in it the serenity and greatness of all time. 
 Nearer approach discovers the perfection of drawing and of marble cut- 
 ting in the gloved right hand, which rests upon a long cane, and in the 
 bared left, which lies upon a cloak thrown over the fasces— a bundle 
 large, tall, and insistingly prominent. This strange accessory rests in 
 turn upon a ploughshare. The sharp lines of cane and ploughshare and 
 fasces are unpleasant and unsculptural, but the transfigured head wel- 
 comes the gaze after each bewildering excursion. 
 
 the year io (1802), for the Gallery of the Consuls, a bust of Washington, larger than 
 life, which is in the Museum at Versailles. They add, “It is singularly tame, feeble and 
 of no value whatever.” 
 
 1 “The History of American Sculpture,” by Lorado Taft, New York, 1903, p. 17. 
 
 2 There is no replica of the statue anywhere. Mr. Taft doubtless means reproduction. 
 
 3 The “leanness and angularity” of Washington’s legs, as also the “swell of the abdo- 
 men,” criticized by Mr. Taft, are clearly shown likewise in Charles Willson Peale’s 
 well-known whole-length portrait of the General, painted in 1779. Washington was 
 never heavy of weight for his large frame. 
 
WAS m I^CBTCCDM 
 

Jean Antoine Houdon 221 
 
 Houdon’s statue of Washington has been removed from its con- 
 secrated place twice, or perhaps three times. In 1851, on March 
 21, the General Assembly of Virginia, in view of the liability to 
 injury and destruction of the statue, provided for the taking of casts 
 of the statue for the colleges of the State; but it was not until 
 January 14, 1853, that any steps were taken to carry this resolution 
 into effect, when, by joint resolution of the Assembly, William J. 
 Hubard, of Richmond, was authorized to take casts of Houdon’s 
 statue of Washington, with exclusive rights for seven years, subject 
 to certain limitations. What was Hubard’s particular qualification 
 for this work I do not know, but his early life would not seem to 
 have been spent in the direction to equip him specially for the diffi- 
 cult art of bronze-founder. Yet he did his work well, and one of 
 his reproductions was the introduction of Felix Regamey, the well- 
 known French artist, when he visited this country in 1879, to Hou- 
 don’s statue, and called forth his high praise. Hubard was 
 English-born, and landed in New York a youth of seventeen, with- 
 in a few days of La Fayette’s arrival in 1824. 1 He was under 
 “management” as an infant prodigy, being advertised as several 
 years under his actual age, in the art of cutting “with common 
 scissors in a few seconds” a correct likeness in silhouette. He was 
 exploited in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, meeting in the 
 latter city Thomas Sully, under whose guidance he essayed paint- 
 
 1 Vide “The Last of the Silhouettists,” by Charles Henry Hart, “The Outlook” for 
 October 6, 1900. 
 
222 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 ing, and thereafter he was known as an expert painter of whole- 
 length portraits in cabinet size, which were well executed and full 
 of character. He finally settled in Richmond, Va., married, and 
 went abroad for three years’ study; but just what was his vocation 
 in Richmond we do not know until he undertook the casting of the 
 reproductions of the Houdon statue, and it was doubtless at the 
 same factory where this peaceful work was done that he met with 
 his death in February, 1862, by the explosion of a shell he was fill- 
 ing with a compound of his own invention for the use of the Con- 
 federacy. 
 
 It was three years after Hubard received the authority to make 
 his copies of Houdon’s work when he accomplished the task, and in 
 March, 1856, the Governor of Virginia was authorized to pur- 
 chase from him “a bronze cast of Houdon’s statue of Washington 
 to be placed in the Military Institute at Lexington, Va.” The 
 price paid for it is said to have been $10,000, or twice as much as 
 was the price paid Houdon for the original. This is an interesting 
 commentary upon the comparative commercial values of the work 
 of the artist and of the artisan. Hubard made in all six casts in 
 bronze of the statue, which are, besides the one mentioned, respec- 
 tively in Raleigh, North Carolina, in Columbia, South Carolina, in 
 St. Louis, Missouri, in New York and in Washington, the latter 
 being the only one owned by a private person. He also made one 
 plaster cast of the statue, which his widow sold to the Government 
 in 1870 for $2000, and which is now in Statuary Hall of the Capi- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 223 
 
 tol, but is much impoverished by successive coats of white paint. 
 Whether the statue was not replaced in the rotunda of the Capitol 
 when Hubard was through with it, or whether it was again removed 
 for any other purpose, we do not know, but on April 1, 1873, it was 
 directed to be restored to its former place in the Capitol and an 
 appropriation was made “to defray the expense in giving that 
 stability to the floor necessary to the safety of the statue.” Thirty- 
 one years later, in July of 1904, the statue was again removed owing 
 to the work in progress for remodeling the old Capitol, and it was 
 housed for eighteen months in an iron fire-proof building, con- 
 structed specially for the purpose, in Capitol Square, until on 
 January 6, 1906, it was restored to its wonted place in the rotunda. 
 
 It would be impossible to locate all of the Houdon busts of 
 Washington that are genuine; the majority of those seen are not. 
 Jefferson doubtless had one, as Levasseur in his “La Fayette in 
 America,” 1 speaks of seeing in Jefferson’s dining-room at Monti- 
 cello “four beautiful busts of Washington, Franklin, La Fayette 
 and Paul Jones.” These four busts did belong to the Boston Athe- 
 naeum, and are so recorded in the Catalogue of the Twenty-fifth 
 Exhibition in 1852. 2 In the Pavilion National de la Repubiique 
 Frangaise, at the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893, there was 
 exhibited a bronze bust of Washington, signed, “HOUDON FECIT,” 
 which the French official catalogue states was given by Houdon to 
 
 1 Vol. I, p. 215. 
 
 2 Nos. 55, 56, 57 and 58. “Original Casts of the busts of Washington, Franklin, 
 La Fayette and Paul Jones, by Houdon, presented by the artist to Mr. Jefferson.” 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 224 
 
 General La Fayette. This bronze, being signed, has a peculiar in- 
 terest, as the original in the Louvre is not signed, neither is the one 
 that belonged to Jefferson. In the inventory of Washington’s estate 
 we find, in the study, “One Bust of General Washington in Plaster 
 from the Life.” This we can assume with almost a certainty was 
 an original cast by Houdon made at Mount Vernon in October, 
 1785. It is said to have remained at Mount Vernon until 1849, 
 when the proprietors gave permission to Clark Mills, the sculptor, 
 to copy it, who, it is claimed, left a reproduction at Mount Vernon 
 in place of the original, which he kept and gave in 1873 to one 
 Wilson MacDonald of New York. But from reproductions of the 
 bust in MacDonald’s possession, it is plainly very different from 
 the original in the Louvre, so that the story which so badly be- 
 smirches Clark Mills does not bear the guinea-stamp and must be 
 relegated to the realm of romance, where on its face it would seem 
 to belong. 
 
 In the fall of 1881, at the time of the celebration of the centennial 
 anniversary of the surrender at Yorktown, a body of distinguished 
 Frenchmen visited this country as official representatives of the 
 French government, and among them came again M. Regamey. 
 This time he visited Richmond, and saw Houdon’s original marble, 
 which so much impressed him that he made an official report to 
 the Minister of Arts, urging that France should secure a reproduc- 
 tion to be placed in the Louvre by the side of the Diana. He 
 says: “My astonishment was great to discover in the Capitol at 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 225 
 
 Richmond a masterpiece of French statuary generally ignored in 
 France— the statue of General Washington by Houdon. Im- 
 mediately it struck me that we could not remain without a repro- 
 duction of this work in Paris.” Although he continued at frequent 
 intervals to agitate the subject by communications to “Le Figaro” 
 and by the publication of a brochure as late as 1905, nothing, un- 
 fortunately, had resulted from his efforts at the time of his death 
 three years later. But had his life been spared for a few years more, 
 he would have seen that the seed he had planted bore some fruit. 
 The State of Virginia, having had a cast in bronze made of the 
 Houdon statue of Washington to be placed in the rotunda of the 
 National Capitol, determined to present a duplicate to France, and 
 on August 18, 1910, it was officially presented to the French gov- 
 ernment and placed, with appropriate ceremonial, in the Museum 
 at Versailles. While this gives France a copy of the famous Hou- 
 don Washington, its location puts it upon a historical rather than 
 an artistic basis, and still leaves the Salle Houdon, in the Louvre, 
 without this art treasure. On the occasion of its installation M. 
 Etienne Charles wrote in “La Liberte”: “Houdon’s Washington 
 represents less the successful general in the War of Independence 
 than the organizer who carries in his brain a complete plan of gov- 
 ernment, less the man of action and more the thinker. What par- 
 ticularly attracts one in his countenance is his expression of gravity, 
 of steady reflection and perfect calm, — all in him reveals method, 
 reflection, foresight and admirable balance.” 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 1785-1790 
 
 MARQUIS DE LA FAYETTE-BUSTS FOR AMERICA AND FOR FRANCE- 
 DESTRUCTION OF THE LATTER, AUGUST 10, 1792 
 
 ILBERT DU MOTIER, Marquis de la Fayette, who 
 was appointed by the Continental Congress a Major- 
 General in its army before he was twenty years of age, 
 and whose first important duty upon his return from France in 
 1780 was to sit upon the court-martial that condemned Andre to 
 death, was sent to Virginia early in 1781 to oppose the invasion of 
 that State by the traitor Arnold with a British force. La Fayette 
 successfully kept the enemy at bay until Washington and Rocham- 
 beau reached the Chesapeake early in September, unknown to 
 Cornwallis, to prevent whose escape La Fayette threw his troops 
 across the peninsula at Williamsburg, thus cutting off Cornwallis’s 
 retreat and sealing his doom at Yorktown, October 17, 1781. Vir- 
 ginia recognized that she owed her deliverance to the young 
 French officer who had just entered his twenty- fifth year, and 
 whose conduct of this campaign proved him to be endowed with the 
 highest qualities of generalship. Accordingly, two months later, 
 on December 17, 1781, the House of Delegates adopted the follow- 
 ing resolution: 1 
 
 1 Hening’s “Statutes of Virginia,” Vol. X, p. 569. 
 
 226 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 227 
 
 “ Resolved unanimously , that a Bust of the Marquis de la Fayette 
 be directed to be made, in Paris, of the best marble employed for 
 such purpose, and presented to the Marquis with the following in- 
 scription on it ; — 
 
 “This bust was voted on the 17th day of December, 1781, by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the State of Virginia, to the Honorable the Marquis 
 de la Fayette (Major General in the service of the United States of 
 America and late Commander-in-Chief of the army of the United States 
 in Virginia), as a lasting monument of his merit and of their gratitude. 
 
 “ Resolved , that the Commercial Agent be directed to employ a 
 proper person in Paris to make the above Bust.” 
 
 Owing to the omission to name the Governor of the State as the 
 person to carry out this resolution, as also the fact that the commer- 
 cial agent named therein had resigned before the passage of the act, 
 nothing was done in the premises further than to communicate a 
 copy of the resolution to La Fayette. This apparent discourtesy 
 La Fayette mentioned in a letter to Washington of September 8, 
 1783 and Washington, acknowledging the letter on February 1, 
 1784, 2 says: “From a letter which I have just received from the 
 Governor of this State, I expect him here in a few days, when I 
 shall not be unmindful of what you have written about the bust, 
 and I will endeavor to have matters respecting it placed on their 
 proper basis.” 
 
 1 Unfortunately, this letter is not preserved in the collection of letters to Wash- 
 ington in the Library of Congress at Washington, D. C. 
 
 2 Ford’s “Writings of Washington,” Vol. X, p. 349. 
 
228 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Governor Harrison did visit Mount Vernon on March 29th, and 
 immediately upon his return to Richmond, laid the matter before 
 his Council, and the minutes contain this entry: 1 
 
 Monday, April 5, 1784. The Governor having laid before the Board 
 a resolution of the General Assembly passed on the 17th of December, 
 1781, directing a Bust of the Marquis Fayette to be made, in Paris, of 
 the best marble employed for such purposes, and presented to him as a 
 lasting monument of his merit, and of their gratitude, which resolution 
 has never been executed; It is advised that his Excellency write to Mr. 
 Barclay, the American Consul at Nantz, enclosing a copy of the said 
 resolution, and requesting to have it carried into effect; and the better to 
 enable him to do this business, His Excellency is advised to draw on the 
 Contingent Fund for 160 pounds sterling and transmit it to Mr. Barclay, 
 desiring him to defray the expenses of the Bust thereout. 
 
 The same day Governor Harrison wrote to Thomas Barclay, 
 agent at Nantes: 2 
 
 Sir: In Council, April 5, 1784. 
 
 I enclose you a resolution of the Assembly of this Commonwealth 
 which I request the favor of you to have carried into immediate execu- 
 tion, and by one of the best artists that can be procured. The cause of 
 its being so long delayed will appear on the face of the resolution, which 
 directs the Commercial Agent to carry it into effect, which officer resigned 
 his appointment before the resolution ever came to his hands and it was 
 not thought advisable to give him a successor. It may be necessary to 
 explain to you why the business was not taken up by me sooner, to enable 
 you to give an answer, if the question should be asked, or you should 
 think it proper to make an apology to the Marquis (for whom no man 
 
 1 MS. Council Journal, Virginia, 1783, 1784, 1785, p. 70. State Library, Richmond, Va. 
 
 2 MS. Letter-book of Benjamin Harrison, 1783 to 1786, p. 291. State Library, 
 Richmond, Va. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 229 
 
 on earth has a greater or more perfect esteem and regard than I have), 
 for the seeming neglect. The usual and indeed proper channel thro’ 
 which the resolution should have been transmitted was the Executive of 
 the State, which the Assembly not adverting to or, for some other cause, 
 not known to me, directed their Speaker to perform. From this cause I 
 became a stranger to the steps that had been taken, ’til I was the other 
 day informed, by my friend General Washington, that the Speaker had 
 not attended farther to the vote of the Assembly, than transmitting the 
 resolution, and that the Marquis had not received the intended compli- 
 ment. I have herewith sent you a Bill of Exchange of Wm. Alexander & 
 Co. for one hundred and sixty pounds sterling, which you will apply in 
 the first instance for the above purpose of paying for the bust, and the 
 remainder to the credit of the state with yourself, in part of the compen- 
 sation so justly due to you, for the services you have rendered her. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that the period of which we are writing 
 was not the era of steam and of electricity, and that it required 
 months for the transmission of letters from America to Europe and 
 return; for, not only was the passage a long one, but the ships that 
 carried the mails were few and far between, so that before Barclay 
 could receive his advices and progress very far with his commis- 
 sion, the Legislature of Virginia, for some reason that we know not 
 of, made a change in the destination of the bust, which change is 
 made to wear an air of mystery, by the careful silence preserved 
 regarding it in all subsequent correspondence and proceedings. 
 However this may be, on December i, 1784, the House of Dele- 
 gates enacted another law, reciting the earlier one, and, without 
 any explanation, changed the destination of the bust. 1 
 
 1 Hening’s “Statutes of Virginia,” Vol. XI, p. 553. 
 
230 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 “Whereas, it was unanimously resolved, on the 17th day of 
 December, 1781, that a bust of the Marquis de la Fayette be di- 
 rected to be made in Paris, of the best marble employed for such 
 purposes, with the following inscription: [ Vide p. 227.] 
 
 “Resolved unanimously , that the Governor, with the advice of the 
 Council, be authorized and desired to defray the expense of carry- 
 ing the said vote into execution, out of the fund allotted for the 
 contingencies of government; that he cause said bust to be pre- 
 sented, in the name of the Commonwealth, to the city of Paris, with 
 a request that the same may be accepted and preserved in some pub- 
 lic place of the said city. 
 
 “Resolved unanimously, that as a further mark of the lasting 
 esteem, of this Commonwealth, for the illustrious qualities and ser- 
 vices of the Marquis de la Fayette, the Governor, with the advice 
 of the Council, be authorized and desired to cause another bust of 
 him, with a similar inscription, to be procured by draught on the 
 said fund, and that same, when procured, be fixed in such public 
 place, at the seat of government, as may hereafter be appointed for 
 the erection of the statue voted by the General Assembly to General 
 Washington.” 
 
 At this time Patrick Henry was Governor of Virginia, and he 
 communicated the new enactment to La Fayette in the following 
 letter: 1 
 
 1 Henry’s “Life of Patrick Henry,” Vol. II, p. 262. 
 
231 
 
 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 In Council, January 29, 1785. 
 
 When the duties of office correspond with the feelings of the indi- 
 vidual, there is a double pleasure in discharging them. This satisfaction 
 I feel most sensibly when I forward the enclosed and am happy in the 
 opportunity of assuring you how perfectly I coincide in opinion, with the 
 Legislature, on this subject. That the gratitude of those who claim you 
 as their fellow-citizen may be as conspicuous, as the merit it wishes to 
 perpetuate, the Bust, which was to have been presented to yourself, is 
 now to be erected in the city of Paris, and as we cannot have the happi- 
 ness of your personal residence, another is to grace our capitol, which 
 none will behold with more lively sensations of affection and admiration 
 than, Sir, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 P. Henry. 
 
 To Barclay and Jefferson the Governor forwarded copies of the 
 act under cover of June 16, 1785, 1 saying to each: “The enclosed 
 resolution will inform you of the change which has taken place re- 
 specting the Bust formerly voted to the Marquis de la Fayette.” 
 Barclay had already selected Houdon as the sculptor for the La 
 Fayette bust, doubtless not only because he was the greatest living 
 sculptor, but because he had been chosen as well to make the statue 
 of Washington, also for Virginia. On August 23, 1785, Barclay 
 wrote Governor Henry: 2 
 
 I had the honor of receiving by the last packet the letter which you 
 wrote me of the 16 June, together with the Resolutions of the Assembly, 
 respecting the Busts of the Marquis de la Fayette, and I beg leave to 
 
 1 Governor’s MS. Letter-book, p. 464. State Library, Richmond, Va. 
 
 2 Calendar of State Papers of Virginia, Vol. IV, p. 49. 
 
2^2 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 assure you that my endeavors shall not be wanting to accomplish matters 
 agreeable to your wishes. M. Houdon, who embarked for America with 
 Dr. Franklin, made a considerable progress in executing the first bust 
 that was ordered, but the Marquis being at present in Prussia, the matter 
 must rest until he and M. Houdon return. I think it will be better that 
 the same person compleat both the Busts; the more so as he is at the top 
 of his profession. The cost of each will be 3000 Livres, and I have paid 
 50 Louis d’ors for the purchase of the marble for the first. 
 
 The day previous Jefferson had similarly advised the Governor: 1 
 
 I shall render cheerfully any services I can, in aid of Mr. Barclay, for 
 carrying this resolution into effect. The Marquis de la Fayette being to 
 pass into Germany and Prussia, it was thought proper to take the model 
 of his bust in plaister before his departure. Monsieur Houdon was en- 
 gaged to do it, and did it accordingly. So far Mr. Barclay had author- 
 ized himself to go in consequence of orders formerly received. . . . 
 There is due to M. Houdon for the model of the busts of the Marquis 
 de la Fayette, in plaister, I imagine about 750.0.0. 
 
 The bust of La Fayette, thus begun before Houdon left France 
 for America, was completed soon after his return, as on January 24, 
 1786, we find Jefferson telling the Governor of Virginia, in a letter 
 already cited, “The first of the Marquis’s busts will be finished next 
 month. I shall present that one to the city of Paris, because the 
 delay has been noticed by some. I hope to be able to send another 
 to Virginia in the course of the summer.” That Houdon came up 
 to time with the first of the busts seems assured from a letter that 
 Jefferson wrote to M. de Reyneval, May 17, 1786: 2 
 
 1 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., Series I, Vol. I, No. 168. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 233 
 
 Mr. Jefferson has the honor of presenting his compliments to Mons. 
 de Reyneval and of recalling to his attention the subject he had the honor 
 of mentioning yesterday relative to the bust of the Marquis de la Fay- 
 ette. The state of Virginia, sensible of the services rendered them in 
 particular by this worthy officer, directed his bust to be made in marble 
 and to be presented to the city of Paris, with a request that it might be 
 placed so as to do honour to the Marquis de la Fayette. Mr. Jefferson 
 has been told that he should address himself, for this purpose, to the 
 Prevot and Echevins of Paris. Before he takes this step, however, he 
 wishes to know whether the respect due to the King, and his Ministers, 
 would require from him a previous reference of the subject to them. 
 Monsieur de Reyneval’s information herein would be considered very 
 friendly. 
 
 The approval of the King, it seems, was necessary, and, obtained 
 after some delays, was communicated through the Baron de Bre- 
 teuil, Minister of State, whereupon, the preliminaries having been 
 arranged, Jefferson wrote to the Prevot des Marchands et Echevins 
 de Paris, September 27, 1786: 1 
 
 The Commonwealth of Virginia, in gratitude for the services of 
 Major General the Marquis de la Fayette, have determined to erect his 
 bust in their capital. Desirous to place a like monument of his worth 
 and of their sense of it in the country to which they are indebted for his 
 birth, they have hoped that the city of Paris will consent to become the 
 depository of this second testimony of their gratitude. Being charged 
 by them with the execution of their wishes, I have the honor to solicit of 
 Messieurs le Prevot des Marchands et Echevins, on behalf of the city, 
 their acceptance of a bust of this gallant officer, and that they will be 
 pleased to place it where, doing most honor to him, it will most gratify 
 1 Jefferson MSS., Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 
 
234 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 the feelings of an allied nation. It is with true pleasure that I obey the 
 call of that Commonwealth to render just homage to a character, so 
 great in its first developments, that they would honor the close of any 
 other. ... It would have been more pleasing to me to have executed 
 this office in person, . . . but I am withheld from these grateful duties 
 by the consequences of a fall which confines me to my room. Mr. Short, 
 therefore, a citizen of the state of Virginia, . . . will have the honor 
 of delivering you this letter, together with the resolution of the General 
 Assembly of Virginia. He will have that, also, of presenting the bust at 
 such time and place as you will be so good as to signify your pleasure to 
 receive it, through him. 
 
 This letter being merely the formal announcement, after all ar- 
 rangements had been made, the presentation took place the next 
 day, at the Hotel de Ville, by the Honorable William Short, Secre- 
 tary of the Legation of the United States, and was made quite a 
 matter of ceremony. M. le Pelletier de Mortfontaine, Councilor of 
 State and Mayor of the city of Paris, presided; the letter of Mr. 
 Jefferson and the resolutions of the State of Virginia were read by 
 M. Veytard, the Chief Recorder, which was followed by a discourse 
 pronounced by M. Ethis de Corny, the Attorney-General, who had 
 been with La Fayette in America and was a member of the Society 
 of the Cincinnati. After its conclusion, de Corny gave, in his offi- 
 cial capacity, the requisite instructions necessary for the reception 
 of the bust agreeably to the wishes of the King, and the bust was 
 placed, to the sound of military music, on the mantelpiece to the 
 right of the great hall of the Hotel de Ville. 
 
 This graceful action of Virginia was deeply appreciated by La 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 235 
 
 Fayette, as will be seen by his letter to Washington of October 26, 
 1786. 1 He writes: 
 
 A new instance of the goodness of the state of Virginia has been given 
 me, by the placing of my bust at the Hotel de Ville of this city. The situ- 
 ation of the other bust will be the more pleasing to me as, while it places 
 me within the capitol of the State, I shall be eternally by the side of, and 
 paying an everlasting homage to, the statue of my beloved general. 
 
 Bachaumont says: 2 “Every one is going to the Hotel de Ville to 
 see the bust of M. the Marquis de la Fayette, executed by the Sieur 
 Houdon and placed in one of the rooms of the building with much 
 ceremony and pomp.” Later in the month, Jefferson wrote to M. 
 de Corny, asking for a report of the proceedings attending the in- 
 auguration of the bust, that he might forward them to the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia. The conclusion of the letter shows that M. de 
 Corny was of no little aid in carrying out the project. 3 
 
 Your goodness, already so often manifested in this business, encour- 
 ages me to endeavor to obtain these through your intervention. I do it 
 the rather as it furnishes me an occasion, very grateful to my feelings, 
 of returning to you, at the same time, my sincere thanks for the zeal with 
 which you have seconded the views of the state, the readiness with which 
 you have condescended to give me information in the course of the pro- 
 ceedings and to secure by your influence the success of these proceedings. 
 
 There was considerable delay attending the securing of this re- 
 
 1 “Memoirs, Correspondence and Manuscripts of General La Fayette.” Published 
 by his family. London, 1837, Vol. II, p. 148. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets,” October 6, 1786, Vol. XXXIII, p. 90. 
 
 3 Washington’s Jefferson, Vol. II, p. 44. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 236 
 
 port, and Jefferson was unable to forward it until February of the 
 following year. With it he writes to Governor Randolph: 1 
 
 The principle that the King is the sole fountain of honour in this coun- 
 try opposed a barrier to our desires which threatened to be insurmount- 
 able. No instance of a similar proposition from a foreign power had 
 occurred in their history. The admitting it in this case is a singular proof 
 of the King’s friendly disposition towards the states of America, and of 
 his personal esteem for the Marquis de la Fayette. 
 
 The second bust of La Fayette, made for Virginia by Houdon, 
 was exhibited at the Salon of 1787, and catalogued, “256. M. le 
 Marquis de la Fayette. Buste marbre, pour les Etats de la Ver- 
 ginie.” The only contemporary remark upon the bust that I find, 
 while possibly true, is not complimentary to the subject, “Whose 
 face is rather simple than ingenuous,” 2 but adds that it does “honor 
 to the precision” of Houdon’s chisel. The bust was not forwarded 
 to Virginia until late in the year 1788, by Andre Limozin, who ad- 
 vised the Governor from Havre on November nth, 3 “I have con- 
 signed to your Excellency, on board the American ship Sally , 
 Kennedy Master, bound for Baltimore, a large box, containing 
 Marquis de la Fayette’s bust, for which I enclose the bill of lad- 
 ing.” This letter was laid before the Council by the Governor on 
 January 29, 1789, 4 when it was “ordered that the Governor take 
 
 1 Washington’s Jefferson, Vol. IV, p. 118. 
 
 2 “Memoires Secrets,” August 25, 1787, Vol. XXXVI, p. 396. 
 
 3 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, Vol. IV, p. 512. 
 
 4 MS. Council Journal, October, 1787, to April, 1789, p. 506. State Library at 
 Richmond. 
 
]L AIT AIT M T T M 
 

Jean Antoine Houdon 237 
 
 measures for bringing the said bust here”; and on June 30th, “an 
 account of John Groves amounting to 2 pounds, 17 shillings and 
 3 pence for freight and expenses of bringing the Marquis Fayette’s 
 bust from Maryland,” was ordered paid. 1 This is the last record 
 we have been able to find concerning this bust. We do not know 
 when it was put in the place it was destined to occupy for many 
 years— a niche in the wall of the rotunda of the State Capitol, 
 above the line of vision, opposite to Houdon’s statue of Washing- 
 ton ; but, as the building was not finished until 1796, it probably was 
 put in place at the same time that the statue of Washington was 
 erected. The reproduction shows that the nose has at some time 
 been broken off and restored, but when and how the injury oc- 
 curred, nothing but varied and uncertain traditions remains, the 
 most commonly accepted being that at the time of La Fayette’s visit 
 to Richmond, in October of 1824, the bust was taken down from its 
 niche, to be used in the decorations for his reception, when it fell 
 and received this fracture. This, not unlikely, is correct, as it would 
 account for the wording of a report in the Richmond newspapers 
 of La Fayette’s reception, which says: 
 
 At the north entrance gate of Capitol Square, there was an ornamental 
 quadrangular pedestal on which it was intended to place the marble bust 
 of La Fayette in the Capitol. 
 
 The use of the word “intended” shows clearly that the bust was 
 not placed on the pedestal, but no reason is given for its not being so 
 
 1 MS. Council Journal, April, 1789, to October, 1791, p. 78. State Library, Richmond. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 238 
 
 placed, which may very well have been the accidental fall that dis- 
 figured the face so that it could not be exhibited in the presence of 
 the original. However this may be, no record can be found of the 
 fracture and its restoration, and the bust continued to occupy the 
 niche where it was originally placed until July, 1904, when it was 
 removed to the State Library, where the writer saw it in the spring 
 of 1907. For sentimental reasons, if for none other, it should be 
 returned to its original abiding-place, where, as La Fayette wrote 
 to Washington, “I shall be eternally by the side of, and paying an 
 everlasting homage to, the statue of my beloved general.” 
 
 The conclusion of this chapter will show how very unfortunate 
 Houdon’s several busts of La Fayette have been in their unusually 
 checkered careers. Misfortune seems to have pursued them, and it 
 has been left for us, on this side of the water, to disentangle the 
 meshes of error concerning them, which have been so tightly 
 twisted in their native land, the home of both sculptor and subject. 
 
 The life of the bust presented to the city of Paris was short and its 
 fate tragic. The Revolution followed close upon the heels of its 
 dedication and the Hotel de Ville became the rendezvous, in turn, 
 for each party, and the scene of many of the Revolution’s most stir- 
 ring incidents. There the Notables assembled on the 22d of Feb- 
 ruary, 1787, and there the States General gathered together on the 
 5th of May, 1789. La Fayette was a member of both of these 
 bodies, and in July of 1789, almost in sight of his bust, was chosen 
 General-Commander of the Parisian troops and Commander-in- 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 239 
 
 Chief of the National Guard. His position was most difficult and 
 to both parties seemed anomalous. He defended the freedom of the 
 King as sincerely and as openly as he defended the freedom of the 
 people. His duty was to protect the King and Queen, who dis- 
 trusted him as they did almost every one who could serve and may- 
 hap save them; and his fidelity to his duty made him equally 
 distasteful to the Jacobins, and with their rise to power his popular- 
 ity and influence diminished. His bust by Houdon, who seems to 
 have sided in a moderate way with the popular party, was specially 
 guarded for a length of time by the Parisian soldiers, but “was at- 
 tacked by the Jacobins and destroyed at the period of their successes 
 on the 10th of August.” 1 This succinct statement, from the “Me- 
 moirs” of La Fayette, would be sufficient, were it not for the differ- 
 ent and conflicting stories that have been disseminated on the 
 subject, rendering a discussion of them necessary and important. 
 
 “August 10th” in French history always means of the year 1792. 
 It is the most important date in the annals of the French Revolu- 
 tion. On that day the Parisian mob took possession of the Hotel de 
 Ville, besieged the Tuileries, and forced the King to take refuge in 
 the National Assembly, where, in his presence, the monarchical 
 form of government was abolished in France. La Fayette’s grow- 
 ing unpopularity had reached a climax, on account of his supposed 
 sympathy with the King, and two days before a deputy had pro- 
 posed his arrest. Only three years after the occurrences of that 
 
 1 “Memoirs, Correspondence and Manuscripts of La Fayette,” Vol. II, p. 7. 
 
240 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 fatal day, one J. Talma published in London a “Chronological Ac- 
 count of the French Revolution,” in which, under this ominous 
 date, is recorded (p. 95) : “All the statues of Kings were demol- 
 ished, as well as those of La Fayette, Necker and Mirabeau.” Not- 
 withstanding this and other almost contemporaneous similar 
 statements, Montaiglon and Duplessis, in their “Catalogue de 
 TCEuvre de Houdon,” 1 say: 
 
 Lafayette (M. le Marquis de) Buste en Mar. pour les Etats des Vir- 
 ginie. Salon de 1787, n. 256. Un autre au Salon 1791, n. 484. Ce der- 
 nier, “vote en 1791 par la Commune de Paris,” est sans doute celui en 
 Mar. blanc, de la vente de 1828, n. 51, indique comme ayant “eprouve, 
 en 1793, une mutilation qui a ete reparee.” — Le Musee de Versailles en 
 a une autre en Mar. avec la meme date de 1791. 
 
 The quotations in the above extract are taken from the Houdon 
 Sale Catalogue of 1828, 2 where this important description of the 
 bust is also given : “en costume de commandant de la garde natio- 
 nal de Paris.” But it would seem as though Montaiglon and Du- 
 plessis did not understand their own language when they say, “This 
 last,” the bust exhibited in the Salon of 1791, “ Voted in 1791 by the 
 Commune of Paris,’ is without doubt the one in white marble of 
 the sale of 1828.” The sale catalogue of 1828 distinctly says that its 
 No. 51 is the one voted in 1791 by the Commune of Paris, and that 
 it was mutilated in 1793. On reading this we were at once im- 
 
 1 “Revue Universelle des Arts,” 1855, Vol. II, p. 448. 
 
 2 Vide Appendix “E.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 241 
 
 pressed with the idea that, if the Commune of Paris, in 1791, voted 
 a bust of La Fayette to be placed, as a matter of course, in the Hotel 
 de Ville, where it held its sessions, the bust presented by Virginia 
 in 1786 must have been destroyed prior to the vote, and conse- 
 quently earlier than August 10, 1792, as there would be no reason 
 for two busts of the same man in the same place only five years 
 apart in time. This view was negatived, however, by M. Pierre de 
 Nolhac, Keeper of Versailles, who wrote: 1 “Le buste de La Fay- 
 ette fait pour I’Hotel de Ville de Paris en 1786 a ete certainement 
 brise en IJQ 3 , en meme temps que celui de Necker.” The year 
 here given for the mutilation of the La Fayette bust of 1791 was 
 the same as that set forth in the catalogues of 1828 and 1855; and, 
 to make the confusion worse confounded, Marius Vachon, in his 
 elaborate volume on the Hotel de Ville, 2 gives, on page 143, an 
 account of the bust of 1786 and its inauguration, but not one word 
 as to its subsequent history or fate, leaving the inference that it was 
 in existence at the period of the burning, by the Commune, of the 
 Hotel de Ville, May 24, 1871; if not indeed at the time of his 
 writing, a decade later. 
 
 As confusing as these details and dates may seem, they are neces- 
 sary for a complete understanding of the situation, when we come 
 to establish, beyond peradventure, that the 10th of August, 1792, is 
 the true date of the destruction of the bust of 1786; that there was 
 
 1 Letter from Pierre de Nolhac to Mr. Hart, April 4, 1907. 
 
 2 “L’Ancien Hotel de Ville de Paris, 1533-1871.” Paris, 1882. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 242 
 
 no vote of the Commune of Paris in 1791 or at any other time for a 
 bust of La Fayette; that indeed no bust of him was made in that 
 year by Houdon, but our sculptor did make one of him in the pre- 
 vious year. 
 
 Fortunately for the elucidation of this subject, the acts of the 
 Commune of Paris during the Revolution are now in course of 
 publication in Paris, under the erudite editorship of M. Sigismond 
 Lacroix, 1 twelve volumes of which have appeared, bringing the 
 work down to the close of July, 1791. These volumes I searched 
 diligently for any reference to a bust of La Fayette “voted in 1791 
 by the Commune of Paris,” but there was nothing of the kind re- 
 corded in the first seven months of the year. I did, however, find 
 an interesting reference to the bust presented in 1786. It was under 
 date of April 8, 1790, 2 when the question arose as to the installation 
 of Houdon’s bust of Bailly, Mayor of Paris, in the Hotel de Ville. 
 The President of the Assembly, l’Abbe Bertolio, said: 
 
 “We have possessed for several years past the bust of Marquis de 
 la Fayette. It was presented to us by men who were in a position to 
 appreciate his merit; it seems to me that, when the free Americans 
 offered it to the nation by offering it to the Capitol, they were say- 
 ing to us, with that prescience inspired by a love of liberty, ‘He will 
 soon accomplish for you what he has done for us.’ . . . You offer 
 
 1 “Actes de la Commune de Paris pendant la Revolution. Publies et Annotes par 
 Sigismond Lacroix. Paris, 1894-1907.” 
 
 2 Ibid., First Series, Vol. IV, p. 640. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 243 
 
 us to-day the bust of M. Bailly. . . . It shall be placed beneath the 
 bust of the most cherished of Kings, facing the one of Marquis de 
 la Fayette.” 
 
 In a foot-note to page 454 of Vol. Ill, Second Series, under date 
 of April 10, 1791, I found another reference to the La Fayette bust 
 of 1786, and its location in the Hotel de Ville, but no mention 
 whatever of its subsequent history and fate. 
 
 Not satisfied with ending my research with the close of July, 
 1791, in the printed volumes, I addressed a letter of inquiry to M. 
 Lacroix, the editor, telling him how assiduously I had studied the 
 “Actes” of the Commune, as far as published, in my endeavor to 
 find the vote of the Commune of Paris, of 1791, for the bust of La 
 Fayette, as stated by Montaiglon and Duplessis, following the 
 Houdon sale catalogue of 1828, and asking him if he could give me 
 this vote of 1791 from the unpublished “Actes,” as well as the rea- 
 son given for ordering a second bust of La Fayette for the Hotel de 
 Ville, if the one presented by Virginia in 1786 was still there at the 
 time named. 
 
 In reply, I received from M. Lacroix not only a prompt and most 
 charmingly courteous answer, but the exact information to settle the 
 question for all time. He wrote: 
 
 I can assure you positively that the Commune of Paris never voted for 
 a bust of La Fayette, either in 1791 or before or after. What the Com- 
 mune did vote for, as you will see in the text accompanying this, was a 
 
244 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 medal and a statue of Washington. There is certainly error in what 
 concerns the bust of iJQi. It was not voted by the Commune of Paris . 
 
 The text to which he refers is composed of extracts from the 
 manuscript proces-verbal of the Commune, from which the follow- 
 ing gleanings are made. On October 13, 1791, the General Coun- 
 cil having considered the resignation handed in by La Fayette, of 
 his command, “suppressed by a late law,” and discussed the form in 
 which the Commune should show its recognition of his services, it 
 was resolved : 
 
 “First. There shall be struck a medal in memory of the services 
 rendered the Commune of Paris by M. La Fayette. 
 
 “Second. The Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres shall 
 be consulted as to the form and legend to be adopted for the said 
 medal ; the legend shall be in the French language. 
 
 “Third. The medal to be presented to M. La Fayette shall be of 
 gold; all the others shall be of bronze; and the members of the 
 General Council undertake individually to bear the expense of the 
 medal each shall receive. 
 
 “ Fourth . The statue of George Washington, executed by M. 
 Houdon, shall be given by the Commune to M. La Fayette. 
 
 “Fifth. The resolutions of the General Council, after having 
 been approved by the Mayor, the first Assistant of the Coun- 
 cil of the Commune and the first Assistant of the Secretary, 
 shall be engraved on the marble, underneath the bust of M. la 
 Fayette.” 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 245 
 
 The inscription was drawn up finally on the 15th of November, 
 1791, and concludes its extraordinary length and construction with: 
 “The Commune, in appreciation, has ordered that a medal be 
 struck in honor of M. La Fayette ; that the statue of General Wash- 
 ington, his pattern and his friend, shall be offered him as a gift and 
 conveyed to one of his residences, according to his choice; that the 
 present orders shall be engraved on the marble and placed under 
 his bust, given to the city of Paris by the United States of America, 
 and placed in the Communal House.” 
 
 As to the statue of Washington, intended to be presented to La 
 Fayette, the proces-verbal for November 17, 1791, contains this: 
 “The Administrators of the Department of Public Works are again 
 charged to present immediately a report on the statue of General 
 Washington, which the General Council ordered to be acquired 
 from M. Houdon.” The remainder of the minutes not having sur- 
 vived, it is not known what befell this proposition; but the fact is 
 made perfectly clear that there was no vote of the Commune of 
 Paris in 1791, or at any other time, ordering a bust of La Fayette 
 for the Hotel de Ville, as positively stated by Montaiglon and Du- 
 plessis. 
 
 We now come to the important question of when was the bust of 
 La Fayette destroyed, that had been presented to the city of Paris 
 by the State of Virginia and placed in the Hotel de Ville on the 
 28th of September, 1786. M. Lacroix writes: 
 
 “In the Troces-Verbaux de la Commune de Paris, du 10 aout 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 246 
 
 1792 au i er juin 1793,’ published by M. Tourneux, is to be found on 
 page 6 : 
 
 “ ‘Assembly of the Commissioners from the Forty-eight Sections, 
 10 August, 1792. 
 
 “ ‘A member makes a motion to pull down the busts of Bailly, La 
 Fayette, Necker, Louis XVI, all these Charlatans of Patriotism, 
 whose presence wounds the eyes of good citizens. 
 
 “ ‘Some one remarks that workmen are expected for this labor. 
 
 “ ‘But the impatience of the patriots will not suffer this delay. 
 Forty arms are raised at once to throw to the ground these false 
 idols; they fall and are reduced to powder, amid the thunderous 
 applause of the Tribunes.’ 
 
 Here is the official seal to the fate of four important works by 
 Houdon, for, strange to say, each one of the four busts thus ground 
 to powder on the 10th of August, 1792, was the work of his chisel, 
 as will be detailed in a subsequent chapter. 
 
 The error of Montaiglon and Duplessis in regard to Houdon’s 
 bust of La Fayette does not end with the statement we have been 
 discussing. The closing sentence of the extract we have given, 
 from their catalogue of 1855, is equally erroneous. They say, “The 
 Museum of Versailles has another [bust of La Fayette] in marble 
 with the same date of 17QI.” The marble bust of La Fayette in 
 the Museum of Versailles, with powdered hair and wearing the 
 
 1 “See also Barriere et Berville’s ‘Memoires sur les journees de Septembre 1792/ 
 1820-1826, and Buchez et Roux’s ‘Histoire parlementaire de la Revolution frangaise,’ 
 Tome XVI, 1835." S. L. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 247 
 
 uniform of the Commander of the National Guard, is signed by 
 Houdon and dated “1790.” It is the one that was exhibited in the 
 Salon of 1791, and whether or not it sustained a mutilation in 1793, 
 it has at some time suffered an injury precisely similar to that sus- 
 tained by the bust of 1786, belonging to the State of Virginia, and 
 has been restored in a precisely similar manner, which, to say the 
 least, is a curious coincidence. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 1789 
 
 BUSTS OF JEFFERSON— NECKER— LOUIS XVI-BAILLY 
 
 E have seen in the histories of the busts of La Fayette and 
 of the statue of Washington, the very close relations that 
 necessarily existed between the sculptor and Jefferson, 
 the American envoy in Paris, so that it would be most surprising if 
 Houdon had not left us a portrayal of the author of the Declaration 
 of Independence, especially as Jefferson took an intelligent interest 
 in art, was an accomplished connoisseur and an amateur of no mean 
 ability in the difficult field of architecture, as shown by the Uni- 
 versity of Virginia, which he designed and which would do no dis- 
 credit to a professional architect of recognized ability. As I said 
 on another occasion , 1 “J e ff erson showed himself to be a man of 
 excellent aesthetic taste and with an actual knowledge of art far 
 beyond the general cultivation of his time. His correspondence 
 teems with suggestions and reflections on design and decoration, 
 showing an understanding of the subject, and not merely idle 
 thoughts bestowed upon an ephemeral fad.” Therefore we can 
 understand that Houdon would not make any perfunctory bust of 
 
 1 “Life Portraits of Thomas Jefferson,” McClure’s Magazine for May, 1898. 
 
 248 
 
TMECO^HAS 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 249 
 
 such a man, and he did not. He took a mask of Jefferson’s face, 1 
 and to the Salon of 1789 sent his bust in plaster, where it masquer- 
 aded in the catalogue as “M. Sesseron, envoye des fitats de la Vir- 
 ginie.” Subsequently, Houdon chiseled it in marble, for which 
 Jefferson paid him, July 3, 1789, one thousand francs. Unfortu- 
 nately, this original marble was destroyed by the carelessness of 
 workmen at Monticello, during Jefferson’s lifetime, but there are 
 two signed plaster casts of it, one belonging to the New York His- 
 torical Society and the other in the hall of the American Philo- 
 sophical Society in Philadelphia. The former was given by 
 Jefferson to Dr. Hugh Williamson, and the latter by him to David 
 Rittenhouse. Its characterization is very fine, and although de- 
 cidedly French in its spirit, it gives an aspect of Jefferson that is 
 perfectly natural. 
 
 The marble bust of La Fayette by Houdon that Jefferson, acting 
 for his native State, had placed in the Hotel de Ville, was not alone 
 in its honor and its discomfiture. With it were erected and then 
 tumbled down, busts of the King and of his great Minister of 
 Finance, Necker, as well as of the past Mayor of Paris, Bailly. 
 The downfall of these works has been already mentioned, but their 
 genesis remains to be told. 
 
 Jacques Necker, the brother of Madame de Stael, and the great 
 Finance Minister of France, was not French but Swiss. Going to 
 
 1 “Browere’s Life-Masks of Great Americans,” by Charles Henry Hart, New York, 
 1899, p. 41. 
 
250 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Paris as a mere youth, he accumulated an immense fortune during 
 the Seven Years’ War, so that he retired from business at the early 
 age of thirty-two. In 1779 he was appointed Director-General of 
 Finances of France, with immediate and brilliant results, but 
 jealousy among the courtiers caused his dismissal after four years’ 
 service. The administrations of his successors, however, resulted 
 in a financial crisis for France, so that he was recalled in August, 
 
 1788, as Comptroller-General and Minister of State. His popu- 
 larity was immense, and when the King dismissed him on July 11, 
 
 1789, Paris arose in insurrection and he was recalled to his offices 
 in triumph, after an absence of eighteen days. On July 30, he ap- 
 peared at the National Assembly, and as he was about to leave, it 
 was proposed to raise a statue to him in the Hotel de Ville. This 
 he begged they would not do, assuring the members that the wish 
 they had thus expressed was more than sufficient to complete his 
 happiness ; but the Assembly, notwithstanding, ordered that his bust 
 should be placed there. 1 Before separating, they also voted to have 
 executed a bust of M. Bailly. 
 
 The subject seems to have rested until the following September, 
 when, on the 7th, 2 a deputation from the district of Philippe du 
 Roule recalled to the Assembly its vote of July 30 and submitted 
 that the district possessed a distinguished artist, M. Houdon, whose 
 hand already had preserved for posterity the features of General 
 Washington and M. le Marquis de la Fayette, and unanimously 
 
 1 “Actes,” etc., Vol. I, p. 52. 2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 497. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 251 
 
 requested that they should grant to M. Houdon, “the honor of 
 making also the bust of a minister so dear to France.” Whereupon 
 the Assembly, having considered the recommendation, as “also the 
 monuments which have already distinguished the chisel of M. 
 Houdon,” thought that it might with confidence charge him with a 
 work “which will procure for him a new and precious occasion of 
 developing his talents.” The following day there was presented to 
 the Assembly this letter from Houdon i 1 
 
 You have added to all that you have done for the happiness and glory 
 of the country in rewarding a Minister who has deserved most of 
 France; you have ordered that his bust shall be placed in the same 
 spot where, night and day, you ceaselessly occupy yourselves with the 
 happiness of your fellow-citizens. Permit an artist full of affection and 
 recognition of your patriotic virtues to reclaim from your goodness the 
 honor of making the bust of M. Necker. The Sieur Houdon has al- 
 ready made that of Washington and that of La Fayette, apostle and 
 defender of the liberty of two worlds. Gratify the ambition of the Sieur 
 Houdon. He only asks a block of marble; he will deem himself too 
 much honored if you order him to consecrate his feeble talent to the 
 honoring of a great man and to those who have discharged a public duty, 
 in decreeing to M. Necker a distinction that no other minister before 
 him had obtained from the city of Paris. 
 
 Houdon’s proposition to make the bust of Necker gratuitously, 
 only asking that he should be furnished with the block of marble 
 for the purpose, was unanimously accepted, and the next day he ap- 
 
 1 “Actes,” etc., Vol. I, p. 504. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 252 
 
 peared before the Assembly, in person, and presented his thanks 
 for the acceptance of his offer. Houdon lost no time in accomplish- 
 ing the work, emphasizing again his remarkable facility and quick- 
 ness of execution, for on December 30 he advises the Assembly that 
 the bust is ready for installation, he having hastened to finish it in 
 order that those representatives, who had ordered it, should see it 
 placed during their administration, as the elections were coming on 
 which might make changes in the body. The Assembly left it to 
 Houdon to name the day and hour when it would suit him “to 
 place the bust of M. Necker on the support intended for it in the 
 Hotel de ¥ 1116 .” 1 On January 21, 1790, the Assembly voted, 2 
 
 That, in acknowledgment of the zeal and disinterestedness of M. 
 Houdon, in relation to the bust in marble of M. Necker, of which he 
 was so good as to make a present to the Commune of Paris, a deputa- 
 tion should be appointed to transmit to him the exact sentiments of the 
 Assembly and to hand him a medal relative to his masterpiece which 
 shall preserve, to posterity, the proof of his civic virtue and patriotism. 
 
 This bust of Necker was immediately reproduced at the royal 
 factory at Sevres in small size, and in March, 1790, one was sent by 
 the Comte d’Estaing to General Washington and occupied a place 
 in the library at Mount Vernon. It is now in the cabinet of the 
 Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 
 
 No sooner was this incident closed than the King made his fa- 
 mous speech of February 4th, which so enthused the Assembly that 
 it ordered the speech to be engraved on a tablet of brass and placed 
 
 1 “Actes,” etc., Vol. Ill, p. 383. 2 Ibid., p. 501. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 253 
 
 in the Sessions Chamber, when Houdon again came to the fore with 
 an offer to make this monument, submitting at the same time a 
 sketch of a book of marble entitled “The Constitution,” upon the 
 open leaves of which should be cut the speech of the King to the 
 National Assembly. 1 Houdon was not alone in generosity. M. 
 Girardot de Marigny wished to pay the expense of the monument, 
 offering 10,000 francs for the purpose. But the Assembly would 
 none of it, feeling that accepting any offer would lessen the force 
 and dignity of their action, and determined that the brass tablet 
 “should be made at the cost alone of the representatives of the Com- 
 mune.” The King, to show his appreciation of the vote of the As- 
 sembly, advised that body on February 16, by the hand of his 
 minister, the Comte de Saint Priest, 2 that, agreeably to its expressed 
 wishes, he had ordered Houdon to make his bust for presentation 
 to the Commune, which was accepted and a deputation of twenty- 
 four of its members were selected to convey its thanks to the King. 
 This bust was a replica of that exhibited at the Salon of 1787, and 
 was installed in the Hotel de Ville on the 23d of March, 1790, 
 without any ceremony, as was the bust of Necker. Of the one at 
 Versailles, which is of the same year— 1790— as this one, Geffroy 3 
 says, “The King! Houdon transfigures him with a touch of his 
 chisel. He is a Roman in his toga mounting to the Capitol, and not 
 a great woolly sheep going to the slaughter-house.” 
 
 1 “Actes,” etc., Vol. IV, p. 44. 2 Ibid., p. 127. 
 
 3 “Les Chefs d’CEuvre de Versailles,” par Gustave Geffroy, p. 77. 
 
254 Jean Antoine Houdon 
 
 To Houdon also was confided the execution of the bust of Bailly, 
 that had been voted on the same day as was voted the bust of 
 Necker; and on April 8, 1790, a lively discussion arose, in the As- 
 sembly, as to the mode of the reception of this bust, some members 
 desiring a formal presentation, while others argued that, as there 
 had been no particular ceremony attending the reception of the bust 
 of Necker, or even the King’s bust, that of the Mayor should not be 
 attended with more pomp. 1 Finally, it was brought in and placed 
 on the table of the Secretaries, when, however, the President of the 
 Assembly, l’Abbe Bertolio, made the remarks already quoted in the 
 chapter on the bust of La Fayette. In the Municipal Journal of 
 the Department of Paris for April 10, 1791, one may read : “In the 
 large room of the Hotel de Ville, one sees alongside of the bust of 
 Louis XVI, regenerator of French liberty, those of the three men 
 who had the greatest influence on the French Revolution, MM. 
 Necker, de la Fayette and Bailly.” 
 
 As we have already seen, in little more than a year these four 
 busts were tumbled from their pedestals and ground to dust by 
 some of the same fanatics who had been instrumental in placing 
 them there, and thus four of Houdon’s important works were ruth- 
 lessly destroyed. 
 
 1 “Actes,” etc., Vol. IV, p. 636. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 1791-1814 
 
 ESCAPES THE GUILLOTINE-BUSTS OF ROBERT FULTON AND OF 
 JOEL BARLOW; OF NAPOLEON AND OF JOSEPHINE 
 
 HE Salon of 1791 differed essentially from former Sa- 
 lons. Up to this time the right of exhibition in the 
 palace of the Louvre had been entirely restricted to 
 members of the Academie des Beaux Arts, but, with the leveling 
 tendencies of the day, the National Assembly on the 21st of August, 
 1791, suppressed this last privilege and opened its doors to “ple- 
 beian art.” The Salons always opened on August 25th at this pe- 
 riod, and lasted one month, as at present, so the decree was passed 
 with an evident view of affecting the impending exhibition. 
 
 At this Salon, Houdon exhibited a repetition, in bronze, of his 
 “Frileuse,” literally the “Shivering Female,” but typifying “Win- 
 ter,” the original marble having been made as far back as 1783, and 
 then exhibited in his studio. In 1828 it was presented to the Mont- 
 pellier Museum, where it is to be found at the present day, with a 
 companion, “Summer,” executed in 1785. A composition of two 
 heads, “Love and Friendship,” also known under the name of “The 
 Kiss,” was exhibited, but its material is not indicated. From the 
 number of repetitions in varying materials made of this last-named 
 
 255 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 256 
 
 piece, it must possess some charming qualities. One of these repeti- 
 tions is in the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris. 
 
 In the way of portrait-busts, we have Bailly, President of Jeu de 
 Paume; Necker, the celebrated financier; and, finally, Mirabeau. 
 A bust of La Fayette and also repetitions of Voltaire and of Frank- 
 lin were in the collection, and mention is made of a female bust and 
 some heads of children. This seems to indicate considerable ac- 
 tivity for an artist now past his fiftieth year, and who had spent 
 thirty of them in the most tireless and incessant industry. And the 
 mention of “a female bust and some heads of children,” as well as 
 emphasizing his activity, means much more than the mere words 
 would indicate, for there is little doubt that the reference is to the 
 busts he modeled of his charming wife and at least two of his very 
 attractive children. As we shall see in the next chapter, Houdon 
 married in 1786 and had three daughters, named respectively Sa- 
 bine, Anne-Ange and Claudine. It was not publicly known, how- 
 ever, until half a dozen years ago, when they were acquired from 
 the family, for the Salle Houdon, in the Louvre, that Houdon had 
 made busts of his wife and of his two oldest daughters, and only in 
 May of 1 91 1, when the collection of art objects belonging to Pierre 
 Decourcelle was offered for sale, in Paris, did it come to light that 
 later he had added that of his youngest daughter, the infant Clau- 
 dine. Had Houdon not made his wonderful Voltaire and his 
 beautiful Diana, his realistic Gluck and his ideal Moliere, his posi- 
 tion in his art would have been assured by those four works of love 
 
IM AID) AML IE 3HI (CDHIID) (OI^T 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 257 
 
 of the members of his close family circle. Description is unneces- 
 sary, as we are fortunate enough to have reproductions of those 
 in the Louvre— of Mme. Houdon and of Sabine and of Anne- 
 Ange— but unfortunately the little Claudine became known too 
 late to be secured for our purpose. That she was artistically a 
 worthy companion of the others, if not their superior, is shown by 
 the appreciation shown her at the sale, where she brought 48,000 
 francs, while her older sisters brought respectively 20,200 and 
 20,000 francs each. 
 
 The period of the Revolution is now upon us. The Reign of 
 Terror came very near being fatal to Houdon, and considering the 
 bloodthirsty passions of the chief actors in it and how quickly pun- 
 ishment followed on the steps of accusation, we almost tremble for 
 our artist as we read the account of his escape. As an ancient acad- 
 emician and former member of a privileged body, and so connected 
 in that way with the old order of things, he was already under sus- 
 picion. A graphic contemporary account 1 is before us, reciting the 
 incident of his being accused and his escape, and we cannot do 
 better than transcribe from it: 
 
 “ . . . The nightly arrests, the menace of the guillotine, were 
 also the orders of the day against the artists of the Louvre by the 
 Terrorist government. Houdon was one of them, and the patriot- 
 ism of this quiet, blameless, and honest man was suspected. It was 
 
 1 “Fragments sur Paris, par Meyer,” Vol. II, pp. 223 and 227. Cited by Montaiglon 
 and Duplessis, p. 345. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 258 
 
 imputed to him as a crime that he had not offered any patriotic 
 work; this showed his anti-Revolutionary spirit. He was threat- 
 ened with incarceration, and the great number of busts and statues 
 coming from his hands, which, like Rousseau and Voltaire, repre- 
 sented the torches of philosophy, would not have saved him, for 
 those characters, too, had died in the bosom of aristocracy.” 
 
 He was saved by the presence of mind and resolution of his noble 
 wife. Houdon had finished the statue in marble of Saint Scholas- 
 tique, which had been ordered, some years previously, by a convent 
 in Paris. This saint was represented very simply, without mystical 
 attributes, with an open book in his hand, as might be a statue of 
 Philosophy. Mme. Houdon made use of this circumstance. She 
 knew that her husband had been threatened; so she presented her- 
 self before the Committee of Public Safety, under whose iron rule 
 the whole community bent. Barere, whom she found there, at once 
 charged her husband with being a poor republican, for not having 
 as yet executed any patriotic work. “Houdon,” she tranquilly re- 
 plied, “has made a statue of Philosophy. Come and see it in his 
 studio. Philosophy paved the way for the Revolution ; it claims its 
 place beside Liberty in the Temple of Justice.” Barere was favor- 
 ably impressed. “That is a fine idea,” he said; “I approve your 
 suggestion, and I will communicate it to the Committee.” He 
 warmly advocated the proposition, and as a result the statue of the 
 heretofore saint was carried off from Houdon’s studio and placed 
 in the outer hallway of the Convention, and Houdon was saved. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 259 
 
 There can be no doubt about the occurrence; for, like the dis- 
 ciples’ evidence in the Scriptures, we have the same account vari- 
 ously given. Barere himself afterward relates, in notes that were 
 published: “I knew that Houdon, a famous sculptor, had no work, 
 that his fortunes and his studio were languishing. I went to see his 
 works. I found among those that the Revolution did not allow of 
 his finishing a beautiful statue in Italian marble of Saint Eus- 
 tache . 1 It was intended for a lateral chapel of the Church of the 
 Invalides. ‘Finish that statue,’ I said to him, ‘attach to it some 
 attributes identifying it with Liberty; and the Committee will pay 
 you for it at once, in order to place it in the entrance chamber of 
 the Convention Hall.’ Houdon laughed at my project; neverthe- 
 less, he executed it, was paid, and had the statue placed in the cham- 
 ber indicated, which is called the Chamber of Liberty. Houdon is 
 living; he can certify to the fact .” 2 
 
 Barere is silent as to the danger Houdon ran and as to his aiding 
 him. This is no reason for doubting the fact. There were mem- 
 ories connected with the Committee of Public Safety that it might 
 be well not to revive, which sufficiently explains his silence. Hou- 
 don’s family always retained a lively sense of obligation to Barere. 
 “If M. Houdon did not become a victim, in those fatal days, it was 
 owing entirely to the Conventionnel Barere, who, always faithful 
 
 1 Elsewhere, in a short enumeration of Houdon’s works, these same “Memoires” of 
 Barere, Paris, 1842, Vol. IV, p. 247, call it by its true name, “Saint Scholastica, intended 
 for the Church of the Invalides, and which was transformed in 1793 into a statue of 
 Philosophy.” 2 “Memoires de Barere,” Vol. II, p. 143. 
 
26o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 to the cause of the Fine Arts, defended him with energy against 
 perfidious accusations.” So writes Raoul Rochette, Houdon’s son- 
 in-law, in his notice of the artist introductory to the catalogue of 
 Houdon’s sale. 
 
 It seems to be thought highly probable that David, the painter, 
 was the author and instigator of the accusations against Houdon. 
 If so, time brought its revenge, for when David was imprisoned 
 and pursued by the commissioners of the Section of the Museum, 
 Mme. Houdon submitted some damaging testimony against him 
 which he was at considerable pains to refute. Eventually, in 1815, 
 he was banished from France, and died in Belgium. 
 
 At the Salon of the year 1 (August, 1793), 1 Houdon exhibited a 
 reduction of his “Vestal Virgin,” the original in bronze having 
 been exhibited at the Salon of 1777, and a “Petite Frileuse” ; as also 
 a small model, a foot high, of an equestrian statue of Washington. 
 It seems really amazing that any Salon at all was held at this time. 
 
 To the next Salon, in 1795, he sent but one bust. This was the 
 portrait of the Abbe Barthelemy, author of the celebrated “Voyage 
 du jeune Anacharsis,” a book of immense learning which it took its 
 author thirty years to complete. His fame came late in life, for the 
 book did not appear until 1788, when the Abbe was in his seventy- 
 third year. He was the style of model Houdon particularly ex- 
 
 1 The calendar of the French Revolution began, by decree of the National Convention 
 of November 24, 1793, on the autumnal equinox, September 22, 1792, the midnight of 
 the date of its first meeting, and was composed of twelve months. It ceased by order 
 of Napoleon on September 9, 1805, so that its life was the unlucky thirteen years. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 261 
 
 celled in delineating, and he appears to have exhibited his talent 
 again at its best. Nivernois, the biographer of Barthelemy, speak- 
 ing of the Abbe and Houdon’s bust of him, writes: “His face had 
 an antique cast, and his bust may happily be placed only between 
 those of Plato and Aristotle. It is the work of a skilled hand (M. 
 Houdon), who has divined how to illustrate in his countenance that 
 mixture of gentleness, simplicity, amiability and dignity which 
 made transparent, so to speak, the soul of this unusual man.” 
 
 The year 1795 marks two events in Houdon’s life,— the loss of a 
 younger sister, Madeleine Pelagie Houdon, and his enforced re- 
 moval from the workshops he had occupied in a wing of the Mu- 
 nicipal Library. This necessitated a sale of some of his collected 
 works. The auction took place on the 8th of October, and a list of 
 the objects disposed of includes, besides a number of paintings, 
 some dozen works of his own. The busts are of Paul Jones, Buffon, 
 Franklin, Voltaire and Mirabeau. His vexation and preoccupa- 
 tion, owing to this last disturbance, doubtless account for his 
 meagre contribution to the Salon of 1796. We find but a terra- 
 cotta bust of M. Pastoret and a marble of his statue “La Frileuse.” 
 The agitations and uncertainties of the period had frozen the cur- 
 rent of his genius and limited the exercise of his talent, so that his 
 name does not appear at all as an exhibitor in the Salons of 1798 
 and 1799. We are not to see any revival in him until the Consular 
 period, when to the Salons of 1800 and 1801 he contributed several 
 busts, but unfortunately names are not given in the catalogue. In 
 
262 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 the latter year he made a heroic bust of Mirabeau for the Gallery 
 of the Consuls, and the next year a similar one of Washington for 
 the same place. These two busts are now in the Museum at Ver- 
 sailles. In 1802 he had five, including marbles of d’Alembert and 
 of Barthelemy, which were of course repetitions of earlier orig- 
 inals. Mme. Rode and the well-known Margravine of Anspach 
 were also among his contributions. In 1804 Houdon again exhib- 
 ited portraits, including busts of Marshal Ney, Joel Barlow, later 
 American Minister to France, and Robert Fulton, the perfecter of 
 the steamboat for practical navigation. The latter began life as a 
 miniature-painter, a fact as generally forgotten or unknown as that 
 Morse of electric telegraph fame began his career in the same way. 
 At the age of twenty-one he went abroad to study and pursue art, 
 but was soon diverted to mechanics, and in a few years engaged in 
 the improvement of the canal navigation of Great Britain, a treatise 
 upon which he subsequently published. In 1794 he went to Paris 
 and became a member of the family of Joel Barlow, where he 
 painted a panorama, the first ever shown in the French capital. In 
 Paris, under the auspices of the French government, he also made 
 experiments on the Seine with submarine navigation to be used in 
 torpedo warfare, but, owing to some differences, left France and 
 went back to England, in 1804. It must therefore have been toward 
 the close of his sojourn in France, that Houdon modeled his bust of 
 Fulton, as it is inscribed “houdon An xii R. Fulton 38 ans,” which 
 shows it to have been done before September 22, 1803, and it was in 
 
M(D)BEMT IFTUlLTdW 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 263 
 
 the Salon of August, 1804, m marble. A plaster cast belonging to 
 the French government, originally in the Versailles Museum, has 
 been transferred recently to the Musee de Marine, and the cast 
 from which our reproduction is made belongs to the National 
 Academy of Design, New York. The marble is unknown. 
 
 Doubtless it was about the same time that Houdon modeled the 
 Fulton bust he modeled his bust of Joel Barlow, a marble of which 
 was also in the Salon of 1804, probably the one now owned by a 
 great-grandnephew of Barlow, Mr. H. P. Chambers of Washing- 
 ton, Pa. One in plaster belongs to the Pennsylvania Academy of the 
 Fine Arts, and another to the National Academy of Design, New 
 York. President Madison had one in marble, but its present where- 
 abouts cannot be traced. As may be seen, Barlow is transformed by 
 Houdon from an American citizen into a French citoyen, which does 
 not accord at all with Fulton’s portrait of Barlow, which is the only 
 familiar likeness of him that we have. Yet we feel like saying, 
 “Amen,” to Houdon rather than to Fulton, where a matter of por- 
 traiture is in question. The author of the “Columbiad” went to 
 France in 1788 as the agent for an American land scheme which 
 failed, and he became a Girondist, being nominated for deputy to 
 the National Convention, but failed of election. He gave up poli- 
 tics and amassed a fortune in speculations, and wrote in Paris the 
 poem by which he is known. He returned to America, in 1805, and 
 six years later was sent as Minister to France, and died in Poland, 
 whither he had gone to meet Napoleon at the latter’s request. 
 
264 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 Houdon also exhibited a colossal statue of Cicero, ordered by the 
 Emperor for the Senate Chamber. This statue has been variously 
 criticized, and on the whole does not seem to have added to Hou- 
 don’s reputation, but it is easy to imagine that, with the standard 
 set by himself in those earlier works, like his Diana and his Vol- 
 taire, public expectation would be disappointed in anything falling 
 below them, while a statue possessing half their merit, by any other 
 chisel, might have been considered highly meritorious. 
 
 On December 17th of 1804, Houdon was decorated by the Em- 
 peror with the Cross of the Legion of Honor, and a little later, by 
 decree of January 24, 1805, “M. Houdon, sculptor and member of 
 the National Institute, is named professor of the special schools for 
 painting, sculpture and architecture, taking the place of M. Julien, 
 deceased.” He had been appointed an adjunct professor of the old 
 Academy of Painting and Sculpture on July 7, 1792, which of 
 course ceased with its disestablishment after nearly one hundred and 
 fifty years of life. 1 This new honor and appointment doubtless 
 stimulated and encouraged Houdon very sensibly, judging from 
 the superlative quality of his work exhibited in 1806. That his 
 hand had not lost its cunning was plainly shown in the noble por- 
 trait of Napoleon, when Emperor, made from life sittings given 
 
 1 The Academy of Painting and Sculpture was founded by Louis XIV, February i, 
 1648, and ceased to exist August 8, 1793. In 1795 the National Convention established 
 the Institute of France to replace the old academies, which were revived as sections of 
 the Institute, and under the Restoration their traditional names were restored to them 
 as we now have them. Houdon’s membership in the Academy dated from July 26, 1777, 
 and he was one of the original members of the new Institute. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 265 
 
 at St. Cloud, and shown at the Salon in 1806. The Empress 
 Josephine gave sittings also for the bust of her which he modeled 
 and which was exhibited at the same time. In the next Salon, of 
 1808, he also exhibited busts in marble of the Emperor and of the 
 Empress, but from the difference between the bust of Napoleon at 
 Dijon and that in Versailles they were probably from distinct sit- 
 tings. These busts, but little known to-day, had the merit of 
 being most striking likenesses, and brought Houdon the recogni- 
 tion of being superior to all his rivals in the portrayal of the 
 imperial pair; the opinion upon the bust of Napoleon being unani- 
 mous that it was the best of all the portraits that had been made 
 of him. Delerot and Legrelle say, “The critics of the day who only 
 had enthusiasm for David and his school were forced to accord to 
 Houdon the praise that real merit wrung from their slight sym- 
 pathy, perhaps their ignorance, perhaps even disdain for a distin- 
 guished past.” Of the splendid bust at Dijon, Armand Dayot, who 
 commends it most highly, particularly for its fine showing of the 
 imperialism in the man, says: 1 “Bonaparte by Gros is not merely 
 an out and out masterpiece in drawing, in its expression of action 
 and in its coloring, but also a unique document. . . . And to con- 
 vince oneself of the sincerity of the likeness, its exact features and 
 its truth of expression, it suffices to compare it for a moment with 
 the admirable bust of the Emperor, by Houdon, now to be found in 
 the Museum at Dijon, and for which Napoleon sat as well, al- 
 
 1 “Napoleon raconte par l’lmage, par Armand Dayot,” Paris, 1902, p. 24. 
 
266 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 though less frequently. Lose sight for a moment of the long, flow- 
 ing hair, round out the outlines, extinguish the fiery glance in which 
 the glare of battle lurks, bare the torso and you will discover the 
 face eternized in marble by the great sculptor and upon which the 
 artist has impressed with so much genius the scornful majesty of 
 the Caesar. The portrait of the hero of Arcole, by Gros ! The bust 
 of the Emperor, by Houdon! Behold the two portraits typical of 
 Bonaparte and of Napoleon! The two immortal likenesses in 
 which one may read the magnetic heroism of the soldier and the 
 gigantic dream of the Caesar. Beyond a doubt the painter and the 
 statuary have instinctively invested their subject with a species of 
 divine grandeur. But what matters it if the quasi-Olympian ex- 
 pression, well justified by the epic grandeur of the model, does not 
 in any way detract from the truthfulness of the face and features?” 
 And Claude Phillips has written: “Houdon, . . . after having 
 portrayed, with unapproachable mastery and insight, the most in- 
 teresting personalities of the eighteenth century, ... so altered his 
 style with his subject as to produce a sublime bust of Napoleon I— 
 the only portrait in which, without theatrical pose, his constructive 
 ideality is convincingly shown— and to occupy himself with the 
 bronze adornments, in the imperial style, which were destined for 
 the great column of Boulogne.” 
 
 Houdon had earlier made a bust of Bonaparte as First Consul, 
 which is rated as one of the best likenesses of Napoleon at that 
 period. Unfortunately, the original has been lost, but it is well 
 
M&JPCBTLM (OI^T 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 267 
 
 known by having been often reproduced at Sevres, in small sizes, 
 and in our frontispiece the sculptor is represented modeling this 
 bust on his block. It is one of the few portraits of Napoleon where 
 he is represented wearing short, close side-whiskers. Of this bust 
 Michelet, in his “History of the Nineteenth Century,” says: “I 
 know of but two faithful portraits of Napoleon. One is the small 
 bust by Houdon (1800), wild, dark and threatening, suggesting a 
 sinister enigma. The other is a painting, and represents him at full 
 length in his cabinet (1810). It is a work by David.” Here we 
 have two acute criticisms upon Houdon’s two busts of Napoleon, 
 as First Consul and as Emperor, by two different minds, by Mi- 
 chelet and by Dayot, at two different epochs, and but one conclu- 
 sion can be deduced from them, which is the very palpable one, that 
 our sculptor’s delineations of the same man at two different periods 
 of his career are the best renditions of Bonaparte and of Napoleon 
 that have come down to us. Michelet selects the earlier bust as the 
 best Bonaparte, and Dayot selects the later bust as the best Napo- 
 leon. Surely this is a crowning of a career not vouchsafed to many, 
 and shows anew, if it were necessary, how consummate an artist 
 Jean Antoine Houdon was. 
 
 Napoleon gave Houdon frequent sittings, and a note in Delerot 
 and Legrelle states: “We have before us a letter of Denon’s (with- 
 out date) , in which he begs Houdon to present himself at St. Cloud 
 at precisely nine o’clock in the morning, when ‘the Emperor will 
 give him a sitting.’ ” The bust at Dijon is inscribed, “Sa Majeste 
 
268 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 l’Empereur, Roy, fait d’apres Nature, Saint-Cloud (Aout 1806), 
 houdon f.” It is undraped and in plaster, and was sold at Houdon’s 
 sale in 1828 ( vide Appendix “E,” No. 43), and bequeathed by M. 
 Foisset of Dijon to the Museum of that town. Those in marble of 
 the Emperor and the Empress are in the Museum at Versailles. 
 
 A good anecdote connected with these sittings has also been pre- 
 served. The story goes that the Emperor liked Houdon’s candor, 
 vivacity and simple manners, and said to him, “I hold you in great 
 esteem, M. Houdon. I want to do something that will be as agree- 
 able to yourself as that which you are doing for me. Ask of me, 
 therefore, for yourself and family what you would like best.” 
 “Well, Sire, the sword in my statue of Tourville is broken; give 
 orders that it shall be repaired.” “Ah, there speaks the true artist,” 
 Napoleon is said to have replied, shaking him warmly by the hand. 
 
 About this time, a colossal statue of Napoleon to surmount a col- 
 umn, voted by the Expeditionary Army in 1804, an d t0 be erected 
 at Boulogne, was under way. Houdon executed the model ( 1805) , 
 which was eighteen feet in height. The Emperor was satisfied with 
 it, and Houdon then cast it in bronze. “The Emperor was repre- 
 sented standing on a shield, upheld by three eagles with extended 
 wings, and the figure was not inferior to the artist’s best works, al- 
 though he was then sixty-five years of age.” 
 
 When the statue was about being sent to its destination, the events 
 of 1812 supervened. The idea of planting it by the seaside, as a 
 spectre intended to frighten England, was abandoned. 1814 and 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 269 
 
 1815 made Houdon’s statue useless. Not only was no site deemed 
 appropriate for it, but the statue was not even preserved; that and 
 the bas-relief for the pedestal made for it suffered the fate of perish- 
 ing completely. 
 
 Houdon little thought, when he aided the now little-known ar- 
 tist, Roguier, by his advice and counsel in an effort to plan a com- 
 pleted equestrian statue of Henry IV on the Pont-Neuf, that, in 
 something over a month’s time, 1 the provisional work to which he 
 lent his aid would lead to a completed statue of which his own Na- 
 poleon would form a part. But that is what happened ; for, when 
 the necessary metal was got together to cast Lemot’s equestrian sta- 
 tue of Henry IV which was erected on the Pont-Neuf in 1817, the 
 bronze of several monuments lying in the government workshops 
 was put at the disposition of the artist by the Minister of the In- 
 terior, and among them was this colossal statue of Napoleon by 
 Houdon. 
 
 Connected with this melting and casting of Napoleon’s effigy into 
 the statue of Henry IV, a witticism of Houdon’s is preserved. The 
 aged sculptor was found one day standing on the Pont des Arts, 
 looking over at the equestrian figure on the Pont-Neuf. Upon 
 being asked at what he was gazing, he quietly answered, “I had not 
 made it like that.” 2 
 
 1 March 20 to May 3. Cf. Lafolie, pp. 91-94. 
 
 2 It seems appropriate to state here that the well-known bust of Mme. Recamier, 
 attributed to Houdon, and examples of which bear his name but not his signature , is 
 not by him, according to a note in “Mme. Recamier,” from the French of fidouard 
 
270 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 The Salon of 1812 also counted Houdon among its exhibitors; 
 and his works were of a character to attract attention: a bust of 
 Boissy d’Anglas, the senator, and two large marble statues— one of 
 General Joubert and the other a new Voltaire for the library of the 
 Institute, but which was installed in the Pantheon. We speak of it 
 as a new Voltaire, for it was not a repetition of the chef-d’oeuvre at 
 the Comedie, but a new figure in which the great man is represented 
 standing, enveloped in heavy drapery so disposed as to allow for 
 the accommodation of the figure in a certain niche intended for its 
 reception. Buried in the dark recesses of the Pantheon, this statue 
 is little known, but a modern French writer, having seen it on some 
 recent funeral occasion, dwells at considerable length on its artistic 
 merit. Earlier criticism speaks in praise of the modeling of the 
 head, while the thinness of the figure, which our artist deemed it 
 obligatory to portray, is spoken of as making the body appear some- 
 what too long. This criticism appeared in the “Moniteur,” in 1813, 
 according to Montaiglon and Duplessis. 
 
 These statues of Joubert and of Voltaire were the last to go to the 
 exhibitions from Houdon’s hand, and they are, no doubt, the last 
 statues that he made. He exhibited his last bust at the Salon of 
 1814; but the destinies of France had changed in the interval, the 
 
 Herriot by Alys Hallard, 1906, Vol. II, p. 380, where it is attributed to Chinard, quot- 
 ing from Frederic Masson, in the “Figaro Illustre,” for March, 1893. In the catalogue 
 of Houdon’s works accompanying the brochure of Dr. Hermann Dierks is the following 
 entry: “Recamier, Madame. Gypsum (painted). Attributed to Houdon. In the 
 possession of Mr. Louis Cahen of Antwerp.” Casts of it in plaster and in bronze 
 are quite familiar in the shops. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 271 
 
 Allies had entered Paris, and this bust is of Alexander, Emperor of 
 all the Russias. “If Houdon had been younger, his reputation 
 would have insured him as many works as were accorded the brush 
 of Isabey, and he would have modeled all the kings and ministers 
 and foreign generals entering Paris. But Houdon was too far on 
 in years to be considered in such a connection, and this occasion, 
 which otherwise would have been productive of orders, limited it- 
 self to regal visits.” 
 
 The final sentence in the above quotation alludes to the visit of 
 the King of Prussia to Houdon’s studio, in company with Hum- 
 boldt, recorded in the “Moniteur” of September 18, 1815, p. 1032, 
 as follows: “His Majesty the King of Prussia, accompanied by the 
 celebrated traveler M. de Humboldt, visited day before yesterday 
 the studio of M. Houdon. His Majesty appeared particularly 
 pleased with a bust of Moliere in which the artist had so happily 
 expressed the quality of his talent, as well as faithfully rendering 
 the features of the creator of our comic stage.” 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 1814-1828 
 
 LAST DAYS AND DEATH -PORTRAITS OF HOUDON-HIS HONORS 
 
 AND HIS GENIUS 
 
 E have been dealing with Houdon almost entirely from 
 the standpoint of his art, saying but little of his person- 
 ality beyond an occasional reference to his simplicity 
 and industry. As we approach the end of his career, we shall en- 
 deavor to throw more light upon the character of the man who, for 
 so long a period, has riveted the attention of all Europe by his won- 
 derful artistic genius. 
 
 Devotion to his art was the key-note of his existence. We see it 
 in his first beginnings, later in his assiduity at Rome and resplend- 
 ently on his return to Paris. With that eagerness which distin- 
 guished him in his art, he turned to advantage every opportunity 
 for modeling the likenesses of the celebrities of his day. Houdon 
 rarely failed to make the busts of people attracting, even though 
 fleetingly, public attention. In pursuing this course, he was sure of 
 drawing the attention of a great number of people to his work, and 
 his popularity gained thereby. Many people whom his best works 
 would not have attracted had noticed the bust of Mile. Lise. Thus, 
 also, he made the bust of Cagliostro, which Louis Gonze terms “an 
 
 272 
 
IHKDUIDO-W A^ICD IMAIDA^MIE 3HE CD HJ1B <D> 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 273 
 
 excellent work, full of life and of picturesqueness, the most delicate 
 execution, simple yet robust,” a marble of which, signed, “houdon 
 f. 1786,” may be found in the Musee d’Aix. He made those of all 
 the aeronauts of the day— Montgolfier, Pilastre des Rosiers, 
 Charles, d’Arlandes and Robert. 1 When a subscription was opened 
 for striking a gold medal in honor of Montgolfier, it was Houdon 
 who made the drawing for it. A reflection found among his papers 
 throws light on this marked trait. He writes: “One of the finest 
 attributes of the difficult art of the sculptor is to preserve the truth- 
 fulness of form and to render almost imperishable the image of 
 those who have contributed either to the glory or the happiness of 
 their country. This idea has followed me constantly, and encour- 
 aged me during long hours of labor.” 
 
 He seems to have been entirely free from the besetting sins of 
 jealousy, self-seeking and vanity common to so many men of genius. 
 Jefferson, writing to Washington, commends him in the highest 
 terms, and Franklin, who passed forty-eight days with him at sea 
 on their passage to this country, writes of him in the most flattering 
 manner. Testimony of this character is of the most convincing 
 kind, for these were men not easily deceived, who would have at 
 once detected any weakness or sordidness in our artist’s motives, had 
 any lurked there. On the contrary, they are ever ready to bear wit- 
 ness to his high integrity of purpose. 
 
 Jefferson, writing from Paris to William Temple Franklin, un- 
 
 1 “Journal de Paris,” December 3, 1783. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 274 
 
 der date of May 7, 1786, states: “Houdon is about taking a wife.” 
 Houdon was then in his forty- fifth year. On July 1, 1786, he mar- 
 ried Marie-Ange-Cecile Langlois, a native of Amiens, whose fa- 
 ther was in the service of the King. Had Houdon been married to 
 her when he visited America, and had she chosen to accompany 
 him, he would not have needed the services of an interpreter, for 
 her knowledge of English is shown through a French translation of 
 an English novel, “Dalmour,” which she published in 1804. 1 As 
 we have seen, three daughters were the issue of this marriage. 
 These in turn contracted marriages, the husband of Anne-Ange, 
 the second daughter, being Desire-Raoul Rochette, a man of con- 
 siderable artistic and scientific attainments. 2 It seems to have been 
 the latter’s intention to have written a biography of Houdon, and 
 much regret has been expressed by French writers that he failed to 
 carry out this intention. He did write a biographical introduction 
 to the Catalogue of 1828, which is frequently referred to. 
 
 As we have already stated, after 1814, Houdon, being seventy- 
 three years of age, gradually withdrew more and more from active 
 life. He continued to teach, however, probably until about his 
 eightieth year. As has been epigrammatically put, “Toward the 
 
 1 Marie-Ange-Cecile Langlois Houdon was as much distinguished for her wit as for 
 her beauty. This lady made an elegant and faithful translation of an English novel, 
 “Dalmour,” by Miss Darner. She died in Paris in 1823, aged 75 years. “Biographie 
 Universelle,” Paris, 1858 (Michaud), Vol. XX, p. 49. 
 
 2 The eldest daughter married M. Henri- Jean Pineau Duval, while the youngest 
 became the wife of Dr. Louyer-Villerme, and a daughter of Mme. Rochette married 
 the distinguished Italian engraver Luigi Calamatta. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 275 
 
 end, he consoled himself for not producing busts by turning out 
 artists.” 
 
 He began now also nightly to frequent the performances at the 
 Theatre-Frangais as a means of agreeable relaxation, and among 
 the anecdotes preserved of him at this late period is one connected 
 with the Theatre. It so happened that the building was closed for 
 a considerable period of time during certain alterations. On the 
 day of its reopening Houdon came as usual, but a new ticket-taker 
 had been engaged since his last visit. 
 
 “Sir, sir, your ticket!” 
 
 “I don’t need any,” and the venerable figure continued to ad- 
 vance. 
 
 “But, sir, no one enters without a ticket.” 
 
 “I have my entrance, sir.” (Growing warm.) 
 
 “But how do you call yourself?” 
 
 “How I call myself!” (Voice growing louder.) “How I call 
 myself!” Then, pointing to the statue in the peristyle, “I ’m the 
 father of Voltaire!” And he passed in triumphantly without fur- 
 ther reply. The amusing part is that the next evening, as Houdon 
 passed in, the ticket-taker turned to his assistant and instructed him 
 to inscribe on the register of entries for the evening, “M. Voltaire, 
 le pere.” It is easy to imagine the hilarious reception of this at the 
 Theatre, and for some time after our old habitue passed under this 
 cognomen entirely. 
 
 But the time came when he was no longer able to venture abroad 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 276 
 
 after nightfall, and if contemporary opinion had been consulted at 
 the Frangais it would doubtless have placed his death at 1824 or 
 1825, f° r a f ter Aat he was little there. It was at eighty-two years 
 of age, after having enjoyed unchanging health with the one ex- 
 ception of an attack shortly before embarking for America, that 
 serious illness overtook him. His iron constitution triumphed, 
 however, but from this time on he grew weaker. Finally, in his 
 eighty-seventh year, on the 1 5th of July, 1828, 1 his light was extin- 
 guished. 
 
 Houdon’s fame has not merely been maintained, but, judging 
 from articles that have appeared in the magazines and art reviews 
 of England, France and Germany during the past score of years, is 
 steadily on the increase. Every critic undeviatingly bends the knee 
 to him, and each and all hail him as one of the truly great artists of 
 France. 
 
 Through the instrumentality of the Society of Arts and Letters 
 at Versailles, his native town, a statue has been erected there to his 
 memory. Among the subscribers to the fund, and following a sub- 
 scription of 10,000 francs by the municipality, we find the Emperor 
 of Russia contributing 1000 francs, with a note from the Russian 
 Ambassador expressing the high appreciation entertained by his 
 countrymen for Houdon’s talent. What was of especial interest as 
 showing the nation’s homage to the memory of its greatest sculptor, 
 was the permit issued by the state to open, for a benefit perform- 
 
 1 Jal, “Dictionnaire Critique de Biographie et d’Histoire,” Paris, 1872, p. 689. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 277 
 
 ance in aid of the statue, the Trianon Theatre, which had been 
 closed since Marie Antoinette last appeared there on the stage, 
 August 19, 1785, when she acted Rosina , in Beaumarchais’s “Bar- 
 bier de Seville.” The receipts from the two performances that were 
 given amounted to the handsome sum of 10,880 francs, a generous 
 tribute from the people to art and the artist. The monument was 
 inaugurated with much ceremony on the 28th of June, 1891. 1 The 
 statue itself we have not seen; a sketch, however, by F. Prud- 
 homme, is before us. The attitude of the figure is rather theatrical 
 — the artist, whether intentionally or not, seeking to idealize the art 
 of sculpture rather than to present a truthful likeness of the subject. 
 The latter stands as if making an address from the tribune, the left 
 arm extended, the hand holding a chisel, while the right, in which 
 a mallet is grasped, rests upon a partly finished and roughly hewn 
 bust, evidently of Voltaire. To connect him with this event of his 
 career a more mature figure is demanded, for Houdon was ap- 
 proaching forty at that time. A specimen of his work during his 
 apprenticeship at Rome would have been more in harmony with 
 the youthful stripling evoked by M. Tony Noel, the sculptor of the 
 figure. 
 
 Paris has her “Salle Houdon” in the Louvre, in which are gath- 
 ered twenty-two of Houdon’s works, including a Diana in bronze, 
 the marble Morphee, his wife and two of his daughters, and busts 
 of some half dozen of his most renowned subjects. But, as our 
 
 1 “Autour de la Statue de Jean Houdon, par Albert Terrade,” Versailles, 1892. 
 
Life and Works of 
 
 278 
 
 catalogue will show, France treasures our artist’s work in other mu- 
 seums within her borders: the Museum at Montpellier prob- 
 ably contains one of the most representative collections, although 
 Dijon and Tours especially possess choice examples of Houdon’s 
 genius. At Versailles, also, some of his most important busts will 
 be found. Paris has further commemorated his memory in a “Rue 
 Houdon.” But these are posthumous honors, for which he did not 
 have to wait to receive evidences of general appreciation. He was 
 so well known that when a writer of fiction of his day had need for 
 a great sculptor’s name, that of Houdon fell naturally from his pen. 
 Thus de Tressan, in his pretty story, “Petit Jehan de Saintre,” 
 writes this passage. He is describing a monk brought up in an 
 abbey. “His talents, his charming countenance, his strength, his 
 measure of height, perfected themselves from day to day, and the 
 celebrated Houdon would have chosen him as a model had he 
 wished to chisel a Hercules.” 
 
 In addition to being made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor 
 by Napoleon, as we have seen, he was made a Chevalier of the Em- 
 pire by letters patent of January 28, 1809, which eight years later 
 was confirmed by Louis XVIII. 
 
 As some persons can better measure the appreciation of an artist 
 by the commercial value of his works, Houdon will not fall below 
 their estimate when tested by this commercialism. Almost three 
 decades ago, in 1883, at the Baroness de Courvalle’s sale, Houdon’s 
 marble bust of Mme. Servat sold for 44,000 francs, while at the 
 
]HE(D)TCJ3D)(Q)^ 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 279 
 
 famous Talleyrand-Sagan sale in Paris, May, 1899, Houdon’s Mo- 
 liere, in white marble, signed and dated 1782, brought 50,000 
 francs, and his bust of La Fontaine, in the same material, 30,000 
 francs. In 1908, a well-known London dealer had plaster busts of 
 Voltaire and of Rousseau, which had been presented to the Societe 
 des Amis de l’lnstruction, at Geneva, in the eighteenth century, 
 and bearing a seal inscribed, “Acade. Royale de Peinture et Sculp. 
 Houdon sc.,” for which he asked two thousand pounds. They were 
 acquired by Mr. J. P. Morgan, and are now in the Metropolitan 
 Museum of Art, New York. The sale of the Diana in New York, 
 in 1910, for $51,000, and of the Claudine in Paris, this year, for 
 48,000 francs, are further proof. 
 
 Now that we have seen Houdon in his life and in his works, we 
 naturally turn to consider what manner of man he was; how he 
 appeared to his contemporaries and to his friends and to the legion 
 of distinguished personages whose individual personalities have 
 been preserved for us by his magical genius. 
 
 Some writer, carried away by epigrammatism, has derisively 
 written, “Portraiture is nothing more than art placed at the service 
 of vanity,” and then seeks, irrationally, to controvert Lessing’s argu- 
 ment that, in the portrait, it is sought to represent the ideal of a 
 determinate person and not that of men in general, and to place 
 portraiture below works of the imagination as being a mere copying 
 of the subject or model. While vanity may be the mainspring in- 
 stigating many persons to have their portraits preserved, it is not 
 
28 o 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 only a pardonable vanity but it is a laudable one, and, far from 
 degrading art and the artist to the plane of a mere copying, ele- 
 vates both ; portraiture being in art what biography is in letters — 
 its highest department. “How dead the past would be but for the 
 ‘counterfeit presentments’ that we have of the men and women who 
 lived in the days that have gone before ! ‘We see the faithful effigies 
 of those who have played extraordinary parts and proved them- 
 selves select men among men. We read their countenances, we 
 trace their characters and conduct in the unreal images, and then, 
 as if made free of their company, follow on with redoubled anima- 
 tion the events in which they lived and moved and had their 
 being.’ ”* As Carlyle once wrote, “In all my poor historical in- 
 vestigation it has been, and always is, one of the most primary wants 
 to procure a bodily likeness of the person inquired after.” We want 
 to see the features, the physical individuality, of the personages 
 about whom we read. Without such a visible record, without the 
 power of picturing to our mind the individual as he was, his name 
 and fame are mere abstractions to us, and we lose half the force of 
 his personality. In the expression of a man’s countenance, we can 
 always trace his character, and we retain a more correct recollection 
 of his actions by keeping in our minds a lively impression of his 
 appearance. That it is not true portraiture is a mere copying, it is 
 only necessary to have recourse to the lifelike character busts that 
 
 1 “Hints on Portraits and How to Catalogue Them,” by Charles Henry Hart, Phila- 
 delphia, 1898, p. 9. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 281 
 
 Houdon modeled, and compare them with the perfunctory por- 
 traits that we know of the same subjects by other hands. Without 
 ever having seen the originals, we will see the difference in the por- 
 trait by the true artist, who depicts not only the features of the sub- 
 ject, but also the spirit and the character, making the portrait 
 vibrant with life, and the portrait by the mere copyist, whose every 
 line is true and exact, but dead. As Claude Phillips has said , 1 
 “Houdon joins a masterly skill in the presentation of the osseous 
 and muscular structure of the human head and a magic power of 
 vivifying with the Promethean spark of life the faithful reproduc- 
 tion thus obtained. To this power Houdon adds a rarer skill, for 
 his portraits not only represent the living, breathing man, but they 
 suggest, with a subtle truth, free from a touch of exaggeration, the 
 human individual.” If the position asserted by the epigrammatist 
 were tenable, nothing could be more satisfactory in portraiture than 
 the pictures produced by the camera. Yet every one knows that, 
 while they are doubtless almost mathematically exact, they are 
 wholly unsatisfactory. A portrait is not a copy— a mathematically 
 exact reproduction of the features and form. It is the expression of 
 the character that dominates the portrait. As Sir Joshua Reynolds 
 has said in one of his discourses, “In portraits the grace, and we 
 may add the likeness, consists more in taking the general air than in 
 observing the exact similitude of every feature.” Therefore it is 
 supremely true that in portraiture both artist and public find the 
 
 1 “London Art Journal,” 1893, P- 80. 
 
282 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 keenest satisfaction, and that the greatest works of art, of the past 
 and of the present, are portraits. Such being the case, we are in- 
 deed grateful to Houdon that he was not unmindful to leave his 
 own portrait behind him for us to see what manner of man he was, 
 although not by his own hand. 1 
 
 Augustin Jal, in his erudite and recondite critical dictionary of 
 history and biography, gives this slight pen portrait of Houdon: “I 
 knew him at an advanced age. He was a lively little man, striking 
 in appearance and manner, who, when I met him, was approaching 
 second childhood. He was not completely oblivious of the past, 
 and still conversed well about sculpture, of those works of his own 
 which he specially prized, of the period of his fame, of Voltaire 
 and of Franklin, and of the other illustrious men, his contem- 
 poraries, who had sat to his chisel.” His venerable appearance and 
 the expression of his face inspired the respect that it commanded, 
 and gave Gerard the desire to have him as a model for one of the 
 old men in his well-known painting of the “Entry of Henry IV 
 into Paris.” which was exhibited in the Salon of 1817. Houdon, 
 with his usual kindliness, consented, and he is one of the three mag- 
 istrates who offer the keys of the city to the King. Gerard was so 
 impressed by Houdon’s physiognomy that he has repeated his face 
 in several other heads in the picture, with changes insufficient to 
 disguise the original. We are also fortunate in having several di- 
 
 1 While it is quite common for painters to paint their own portraits, we recall no 
 instance of a sculptor modeling his own bust. 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 283 
 
 rect portraits of Houdon, although they all show him in advanced 
 years. 
 
 Mile. Capet, the clever pupil of Mme. Guiard, who became the 
 second wife of Vincent, the painter, exhibited in the Salon of 1800 a 
 large miniature of Houdon, one-quarter life size, in which he was 
 represented working on a bronze of Voltaire. Jacques Fremy 
 painted and etched a sketch in profile, wearing the decoration of 
 the Legion of Honor, which, although slight, being not much more 
 than an outline, is said to have been a striking likeness. In 1808, 
 when Rembrandt Peale was painting in Paris, he knew Houdon 
 well and painted a fine portrait of him, as also one of David and 
 one of Denon, all three of which are in the Pennsylvania Academy 
 of the Fine Arts at Philadelphia. But the portrait of Houdon by 
 which he will go down to posterity is the work of Louis Boilly. 
 Boilly painted him at least three times, but the most interesting is 
 the one we use as our frontispiece, where the sculptor, in a suit of 
 white, is standing before his block, modeling the bust of Bonaparte 
 as First Consul. It is one of those characteristic portraits that 
 speaks for its own truthfulness to every one, and belonged a few 
 years since to M. Soret, of Versailles, from which our illustration 
 is reproduced. Boilly made a lithograph of a full-face portrait of 
 Houdon, in his series of members of the Institute of France, pub- 
 lished in 1822. He also painted large canvases of “Houdon in his 
 Atelier among his Students,” and of “Houdon at Work in the 
 Presence of his Three Daughters,” the subject sitting being, as is 
 
284 
 
 Life and Works of 
 
 thought, Laplace the astronomer, although his bust is not among 
 Houdon’s known works. 1 The first of these paintings is in the Mu- 
 seum at Cherbourg, and the last in the Museum at Lille. From 
 these several life portraits M. Elias Roberts made, in 1853, a mar " 
 ble bust for the Gallery of Artists in the Louvre, but it, of course, 
 has merely commemorative value and not the authority of a life 
 portrait. Of similar character is the most recent bust of Houdon, 
 which surmounts a monument executed by P. Gasq, of Paris, form- 
 ing one of a group, in the Cour du Carrousel, commemorating sev- 
 eral celebrated artists of France. The model was exhibited in the 
 Salon of 1909, and consists of a column, supporting the bust, with a 
 figure of Diana, at the foot, gazing up at the master. The artist has 
 striven to portray Houdon at the moment of the conception or in- 
 spiration of his Diana, and the expression is finely produced, while 
 the female figure is extremely graceful and well modeled. 
 
 In bringing to a conclusion this volume, which has been a work 
 of unfailing pleasure to the writers, it seems pertinent to inquire 
 if any influence controlled Houdon, in the development of his 
 art, beyond his own transcendent genius. At the period of 
 Houdon’s return to Paris, Diderot was the ruling king in the realm 
 of artistic criticism, and it is manifest that the sculptor early made 
 the acquaintance of the critic, as the latter’s bust, by the former, was 
 exhibited in 1771. It was against the faults of mannerism that 
 
 1 At a loan exhibition of decorative art in Paris in April, 1906, there was exhibited 
 a bronze bust of Joseph Vernet, the painter, attributed to Houdon, but this is its only 
 record. 
 
A£f(Gr]E M'CCDTUUKD)^ 
 
Jean Antoine Houdon 285 
 
 Diderot especially inveighed, and he sought to convert artists to the 
 simple and unaffected style ; and owing to the striking similarity in 
 the ideas shared by the critic and the sculptor, as to the underlying 
 principles of art, and the possession, by Houdon, of all the qualities 
 exactingly required by Diderot in an artist, Delerot and Legrelle 
 consider Diderot “the adviser if not the director of Houdon’s 
 talent.” But to arrive at this conclusion it is necessary to expunge 
 from the list of Houdon’s works the great Saint Bruno, his first 
 work, which was wrought in Rome before, we might almost say, 
 Houdon had ever heard of Diderot, certainly before he could pos- 
 sibly have come under his influence, and which possesses all the 
 distinguishing traits of Houdon’s latest work, being marked above 
 all other qualities by its severe simplicity. If there were any con- 
 trolling influence exerted by one upon the other, it would rather be 
 of the practical artist upon the theoretical critic, but in fact it is 
 only what is so often found between two minds working in the same 
 direction— an intellectual affinity; and when they met they found 
 that congeniality of taste and thought that doubtless helped each 
 onward in his respective work. 
 
APPENDICES 
 
Appendix A 
 
 Houdon* s Account of Expenses of his Voyage to and from 
 America , If 88, October 20th. 1 
 
 Acheve des Memoires, Quittances et Bordereaux que M. houdon a 
 conserves relativement a ses depenses pour son voyages de Paris en Ame- 
 rique et son retour en cette ville luy et 3 eleves pour le servir et l’aider 
 dans son travail, depuis le mois de juillet 1785 jusqu’au trente un De- 
 
 cembre meme annee. 
 
 Frais de Poste pour luy et un de ses eleves de Paris au Havre 151.8 
 Frais de Poste pour les Deux autres eleves et d’auberge 
 
 pour les trois pendant leur sejour 101. 
 
 Pour des Bottes 54.6 
 
 Achat de diverses choses necessaires pendant la traversee 
 
 fait a Southampton 81. 
 
 Achat d’outils de terre d’utenciles necessaires pour faire le 
 Buste du General Washington, attendu que les caisses qui 
 renfermoient les effets de M. Houdon ne sont arrivees 
 peu pres de six mois apres son depart pour la france fait 
 
 a Philadelphie 113. 
 
 Paye au tailleur pour l’habillement complet des quatre per- 
 
 sonnes par la raison cy dessus 552. 
 
 Au chapelier id one 60. 
 
 Au cordonier id 90. 
 
 Bas linge Le id 112. 
 
 La Blanchissage des quatre personnes pendant la totalite du 
 
 voyage 75. 
 
 1,389.14 
 
 1 This account, in Houdon’s own hand, bearing above endorsement, was sent by 
 Jefferson to the Governor of Virginia, with the following memorandum: “M. Houdon 
 having accompanied Dr. Franklin to America, who was equally employed with myself 
 by the State of Virginia, the expenses herein charged were under his eyes and authority 
 till Houdon’s departure from America. The subsequent articles were examined and 
 approved by me. Thos. Jefferson.” 
 
 288 
 
Appendix A 
 
 289 
 
 [translation] 
 
 Totality of Memoranda containing Receipts and Accounts kept by M. 
 Houdon relating to his expenditures for his voyages from Paris to Amer- 
 ica, and his return to that city, for himself and three pupils to serve and 
 assist him in his work, from the month of July, 1785, until 31st Decem- 
 ber of the same year. 
 
 Charges for post-stage for himself and one of his Pupils, 
 
 Paris to Havre 151.8 
 
 Charges for post-stage for the two other pupils and Inn 
 
 charges for the three during their stay 101. 
 
 For Boots 54.6 
 
 Purchase of various necessary articles for the crossing 
 
 (made at Southampton) 81. 
 
 Purchase of clay tools and utensils needed in making the 
 bust of Gen’l Washington, owing to these having been in- 
 
 closed with the effects of Mr. Houdon not arriving until 
 nearly six months after the latter’s departure for France 
 — made in Philadelphia 113. 
 
 Paid to the tailor for complete outfit of four persons re- 
 ferred to above 552. 
 
 To Hatter, id one 60. 
 
 To Shoemaker, id 90. 
 
 To Stockings and Linen, id 112. 
 
 Washing for the four persons during the entire voyage . . 75. 
 
 1,389.14 
 
290 
 
 Appendix A 
 
 de l’autre part .... 1,389.14 
 
 Depense a Fauberge de Philadelphie pendant 18 jours pour 
 
 de l’autre part les 4 personnes 399. 
 
 Frais de la Route de Philadelphie a Alexandrie pour les 
 
 memes compris les frais d’auberge et de retour . . . 970. 
 
 Depense a Fauberge de Philadelphie apres le retour d’ Alex- 
 andrie pour les memes jusqu’au depart de M. Houdon 
 et d’un eleve de cette ville, environ un sejour de 18 jours 400. 
 
 Paye a Fauberge pendant 5 semaines apres son depart pour 
 
 les deux autres eleves 264. 
 
 Leur route de Philadelphie a New York leur frais d’auberge 
 
 pendant la route et le sejour en attendant le vaisseau . . 185. 
 
 Celle de M. Houdon et de son eleve au meme a meme endroit 328.10 
 
 Plus solde avec MM. Franklin Pere et fils Heyder Veydt et 
 Cie pour frais paye par eux pendant le sejour de M. 
 
 Houdon tant en Angleterre qu’en Amerique et diverses 
 
 Achats 4,315.12 
 
 Passage des deux Eleves en f ranee 1,000. 
 
 Leur sejour a FOrient et leur retour a Paris 309. 
 
 Plus memes a memes frais, et frais d’auberge de . 403.18 
 
 Passage de M. Houdon et de son Eleve d’Amerique en 
 
 angleterre 15314- 
 
 Route de falmouth a Londres, idem 312. 
 
 Frais d’auberge pendant la route et a Londre et achat de 
 
 diverses choses necessaires 450. 
 
 12,040.14 
 
Appendix A 291 
 
 [translation] 
 
 Brought forward . . 1,389.14 
 
 Expenses at the Inn in Philadelphia during eighteen days 
 
 for four (4) persons 399. 
 
 Expenses for Journey from Philadelphia to Alexandria for 
 the same, including expenses at public house and return 
 
 journey 970. 
 
 Expenditure at Inn in Philadelphia after return from Alex- 
 andria for the same until departure of Mr. Houdon and 
 one pupil from this town, equaling a stay of about eigh- 
 teen days 400. 
 
 Paid at the Inn during five weeks, after his departure, for 
 
 the two other pupils 264. 
 
 Their journey from Philadelphia to New York, their 
 charges at the Inn during the journey and for their stay 
 
 while awaiting the vessel 185. 
 
 That of M. Houdon and his pupil for the same, the same 
 
 passage 328.10 
 
 Add liquidated through Messrs Franklin, Father and Son, 
 
 Heyder Veydt & Co. for charges paid by them during 
 the stay of M. Houdon in England as well as in America 
 
 and various purchases 4,315.12 
 
 Passage money of two (2) pupils to France 1,000. 
 
 Their stay at l’Orient and their return to Paris .... 309. 
 
 Add for same and same expenses, and charges at Inn . . 403.18 
 
 Passage money of Mr. Houdon and his pupil from America 
 
 to England 1,3 14. 
 
 Journey Falmouth to London for same 312. 
 
 Charges at Inn during journey to London and purchase of 
 
 various necessary articles 450. 
 
 12,040.14 
 
292 
 
 Appendix A 
 
 de l’autre part .... 12,040.14 
 
 Frais de retour de Londre a Paris pour les memes . . . 400. 
 
 Paye a l’emballeur pour les caisses 73. 18 
 
 Frais de caisse venu de Londre a Paris par Dunkerque . . 54.6 
 
 12,568.18 
 
 Regu en Nov. 28, 1785 2,724.66 
 
 Fevrier 20, 1786, d’une lettre de change . . . 2,400. 
 
 Mars 4, idem 3,600. 
 
 1787 105.02 
 
 1788, Oct. 20 2,721.93 
 
 11,550.17.9 
 
 Reste du a M. Houdon 1,018.3 
 
Appendix A 
 
 2 93 
 
 [translation] 
 
 Brought forward . . 
 
 Charges for return from London to Paris for the same . 
 
 Paid packer for packing effects 
 
 Charges for effects brought from London to Paris via 
 Dunkirk .... * 
 
 Received Nov. 28, 1785 2,724.66 
 
 Feb. 20, 1786, from letter of credit .... 2,400. 
 
 Mar. 4 3,600. 
 
 1787 “ “ “ “ .... 105.02 
 
 1788 Oct. 20 2,721.93 
 
 Remaining due Mr. Houdon 
 
 12,040.14 
 
 400. 
 
 73-i8 
 
 54-6 
 
 12,568.18 
 
 11,550.17.9 
 
 1,018.3 
 
Appendix B 
 
 Explanation of the Model for the Statue of the King, which the 
 Sieur Houdon has the honor to submit to the States of Brittany , 
 and that he has executed at the request of Messieurs the Deputies. 
 
 The Sieur Houdon has conceived that this monument should express 
 the feeling that has prompted the States of the Province of Brittany in 
 having it erected; he conceives that he should follow the rule of unity or 
 principle adopted in sculpture as in all the other arts. 
 
 He has desired that this monument should be such as a native-born 
 artist of Brittany would have conceived, who, being present at the 
 Session when the State voted the statue, would have shared, as a native- 
 born subject, the sentiments pervading that august assembly, the wish to 
 raise to the King a lasting monument of their affection and gratitude. 
 
 Explanation of the Subject. The King seated on the throne, showing 
 to Brittany at his right hand the emblematical figure on his left, and 
 telling him to take from its hands the patent assuring him of the free- 
 dom of his Deputies. Brittany, prostrate with gratitude and respect, 
 looks at the King, and takes the patent offered him by the emblematic 
 figure; the arms of the King behind the throne, the coat of arms of 
 Brittany at his feet. There is no other pedestal but the steps to the 
 throne. 
 
 The bas-reliefs will represent, if deemed appropriate : 
 
 The first— The union of Brittany and France; 
 
 The second— The son of Francis I, created Duke of Brittany, 1532; 
 The third— Henry IV, present at the meeting of the States of Brit- 
 tany, 1590; 
 
 294 
 
Appendix B 295 
 
 The fourth— Louis XIV, present at the meeting of the States of Brit- 
 tany, 1661. 
 
 Eight inscriptions, relative to the monument, on two sides of each 
 bas-relief; above each, the attributes of the three orders and the at- 
 tributes of the nobility will indicate those of the army and navy. 
 
 The site at Brest destined for the monument, being sufficiently lofty to 
 be seen from the port, requires that the elevation of the monument 
 above the ground level should not exceed thirty-six feet, the little figure 
 at the base serving, so to speak, as a scale of proportion. The person 
 charged with exhibiting the model will please place it at such height as 
 to bring the head of the little figure on a level with the eye of the spec- 
 tator. 
 
 The artist has profited by the subject and the site to avoid, what is 
 commonly called, a pedestal. The monument has no other base but that 
 of the throne. It is to be observed that pedestals have been at times 
 criticized. 
 
 The Sieur Houdon has imagined that, from his position, he might 
 aspire as much as any other artist to the honor of executing this monu- 
 ment. For sixteen years he has benefited by the use of the workshops 
 and furnaces of the municipality of Paris; he has used this advantage 
 and his time in making himself, as well as all his workmen, capable of 
 the execution of large works in bronze. He has already made several 
 statues of this material, and his workmen are the only ones now remain- 
 ing in Paris, those employed by Messrs. Bouchardon and Le Moyne 
 having deceased. 
 
 The Sieur Houdon would esteem himself happy if his project coin- 
 cides with the ideas of Nos Seigneurs of the States of Brittany. He will 
 receive with submission the suggestions that N. S. [Nos Seigneurs] may 
 be pleased to give him. 
 
 (From the printed copy in the National Library at Paris.) 
 
Appendix C 
 
 Views on Competition in general , and especially as to the one for a 
 Statue to J . J . Rousseau . By Houdon, Sculptor to the King and 
 of the Academy of Painting and Engraving . 
 
 Competitions are useful, even absolutely essential for young people; 
 they excite emulation in them and bestow a certain energy and courage 
 leading to success: but for artists already formed, the effect is entirely 
 contrary. Fearing all the time to compromise themselves, they end by 
 really doing so. On the other hand, the young man who competes and 
 fails to win the prize, is consoled by the hope of doing better and win- 
 ning next time; he is sustained by that hope. Not being known, and 
 still possessing youth, his failure can hardly do him the same harm as it 
 does to the artist already formed, who no longer has the same resources. 
 A failure to him is compromising to his reputation, without a hope of 
 regaining it; for will he ever find a second opportunity? Will not public 
 disfavor follow him? His fortune will diminish, for private orders will 
 overlook him and find their way to the successful artist; for one must 
 look at the thing reasonably (from the standpoint of common sense). 
 Who will wish the services of an established artist who has been rejected? 
 
 Then, too, in competitive trials you will have a great many young 
 people who, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, are only too 
 happy to enter the lists, while their teachers will withdraw for exactly 
 opposite reasons. It will be answered, what difference in a public mat- 
 ter? Genius is the appanage of youth; by this means we will open ways 
 to it, and as a result we shall have a better work, I am in accord with 
 the first idea, but not with the second. The first is true and entirely in 
 
 296 
 
Appendix C 297 
 
 favor of the young people. The second is open to discussion and might 
 prove of disadvantage to the public business. 
 
 When you desire to erect a public monument, two things are needful : 
 noble conception— that is the part of genius; a perfect execution— that 
 belongs to practice. Genius conceives, but it can execute only after prac- 
 tice. I shall not enlarge on this idea. It suffices, I think, to point it out. 
 I shall therefore pass to an examination of the methods of competition, 
 and I shall commence by the one most in use— I allude to small models. 
 The most skilful artist will be the one to make the poorest. Accus- 
 tomed to conceive and execute largely, his sketch will be conceived on 
 those lines, and to the eyes even perhaps of connoisseurs the sketch of a 
 mediocre artist, possessing less merit in itself but more worked up and 
 finished because of his aptitude in it, will appear superior. Thus, to 
 bring about competition that will result satisfactorily, which is really to 
 get the best work, there remains another method to look into. This 
 would be to choose six or eight of the cleverest sculptors of the Capital, 
 and to have them compete with full-sized models ; one could feel certain 
 then of choosing with greater reason. But objections might be raised to 
 this plan. Would artists compete? It is at least more than doubtful. 
 If they did enter, however, how would the unsuccessful ones fare? Their 
 lost time must be paid for, their outside expenses and, more than this, 
 their models, for it would not be desirable to buy an excluded work; but 
 even if all that were to be paid, the National Assembly could not restore 
 the artist his lost prestige, and nothing could console him for being in 
 the rejected class. Here are the drawbacks sufficiently developed, and I 
 will sum up; but in doing so I shall suggest one more method of com- 
 petition which, it seems to me, would be most worthy of the Nation and 
 the artists, and which might give birth to the sort of emulation which 
 leads to the best results and without the various drawbacks I have 
 pointed out in the other methods; and that is, to take the whole career. 
 I explain my meaning: The artist who shall labor from childhood, who 
 shall have produced the most works, whose productions are most noted, 
 
298 
 
 Appendix C 
 
 that one should be chosen; for to gain a certain degree of reputation, 
 talent is necessary, genius, and much devotion. Thus, when the Nation 
 seeks for a great work, let those charged with the business visit the va- 
 rious studios, and let the style of the works and the talent discovered put 
 them in the way of deciding with clear apprehension; a poor choice will 
 be rarer and more difficult to make. 
 
 As to the competition for a statue of J. J. Rousseau decreed by the 
 National Assembly, which prompts me to put my views in writing, I can 
 only plead one thing in my favor; that is, that the likeness of this great 
 man is in some respects my property, as I am the only one, according to 
 general opinion, who has succeeded in making a perfect likeness of him; 
 that Rousseau is dead; that there is only his bust to go by; that it will be 
 made use of, and that I shall have furnished weapons against myself. 
 Perhaps I might add that one who, without planning or solicitation, has 
 been selected by a free people to trace for them the images of two heroes, 
 La Fayette and Washington— who is executing for America the statue 
 of the last-named— might hope the same consideration from his native 
 land, which became free also through the labors of its illustrious repre- 
 sentatives. Nothing would be wanting then for his happiness, and he 
 would feel assured that in inscribing his name on the statue of Jean- 
 Jacques, voted by free Frenchmen, he would be obtaining immortality. 
 
Appendix D 
 
 Copy of a Letter from M. Houdon, Sculptor , to the President of 
 the Society “Friends of the Constitution.” 
 
 Mr. President: 
 
 The motives for my conduct, relative to the competition decided upon 
 by the Society “Friends of the Constitution,” for the bust of Mirabeau, 
 being susceptible of a misconstruction, I thought it owing to the public, 
 and above all to the Society over which you preside and who had hon- 
 ored me by its first choice, to state precisely my exact sentiments. This 
 is what I have tried to do in a small pamphlet which I beg to present. 
 Not being willing, however, to renounce the honor of placing my work 
 within the sacred precincts of the Society, I venture to hope that it will 
 allow me to ask its acceptance of a plaster cast of the bust of Mirabeau; 
 if it bears resemblance, and if any merit is discerned in it, it is because 
 at the time the artist executed it he was animated by a desire to respond 
 to the confidence the Society had honored him with. In addressing my- 
 self to you, Mr. President, I could not choose better for sympathizing 
 with my point of view and a line of action consistent with my character. 
 
 I have the honor to be 
 
 Houdon. 
 
 Paris, 5 June, 1791. 
 
 (From the printed copy in the National Library, Paris.) 
 
 299 
 
Appendix E 
 
 NOTICE DES OB JETS D’ART 1 2 
 
 qui seront vendus apres le deces de M. J. A. Houdon statuaire, chevalier 
 de la Legion d’honneur, membre de FAcademie des Beaux Arts de Fln- 
 stitut de France, professeur emerite de Fficole royale des Beaux Arts, 
 etc., etc. Cette vente se fera le lundi 15 decembre 1828 et jours suivants, 
 dans Fatelier de feu M. Houdon, cour de la Bibliotheque du Roi, rue de 
 Richelieu, de midi a 4 heures de relevee. 
 
 L’ exposition aura lieu le dimanche 14 du meme mois. 
 
 La notice se distribue : 
 
 Chez $ F° urne l> commissaire priseur, quai des orfevres, No. 6 
 ( M. Henri, expert-appreciateur, rue de Bondy, No. 23. 
 
 1828 
 
 Imprimerie d’Hippolyte Tilliard, rue de La Harpe, No 78. 
 
 1. Marbre blanc. Tete de Minerve vue de profil; ouvrage en bas- 
 relief et destine a etre applique sur un fond. 
 
 2. Bronze. Diane nue, et la tete un peu detournee, se livrant a une 
 course legere; la deesse tient une fleche de la main droite, et sa main 
 gauche soutient un arc de petite proportion. 
 
 Cette statue, dont la ponderation est parfaite et qui, par sa nudite et 
 le caractere gracieux de ses formes, representerait peut-etre mieux une 
 Venus chasseresse, offre certainement Fune des productions les plus 
 
 1 Printed from the only known copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, Departement 
 des Imprimes, V. 36, n. 8°. No. 2724, 20 pages. The introduction is omitted. 
 
 3 °° 
 
301 
 
 Appendix E 
 
 remarquables de la statuaire moderne et merite encore plus d’estime, si 
 l’on considere qu’elle est Tun des ouvrages qui ont le mieux concouru a 
 rappeler a 1’imitation de la nature et de F antique a l’epoque ou il fut 
 execute. 
 
 Cette statue de grandeur naturelle et d’une belle fonte est parfaite- 
 ment ciselee et reparee. 
 
 3. Platre peint. Empreinte prise sur la figure precedente. 
 
 4. Bronze. Jolie copie reduite de la statue precedente. 
 
 5. Platre peint. Empreinte prise sur la reduction, qui vient d’etre 
 decrite. 
 
 6. Cire. Venus et Mars, groupe d’une petitesse extreme, supporte 
 par une console formee par un masque humain. 
 
 7. Terre-cuite. Une esquisse representant Milon de Crotone devore 
 par un lion, ouvrage du celebre Falconet. 
 
 8. Terre-cuite. Un bas-relief representant la reine de Saba appor- 
 tant des presents a Salomon. Cette composition est celle du grand prix 
 de sculpture remporte par M. Houdon vers 1760. 
 
 9. Platre peint. Petit modele de la belle statue de saint Bruno, exe- 
 cutee en marbre par M. Houdon et placee a Rome dans l’eglise des 
 Chartreux. 
 
 10. Marbre blanc. Portrait de Louis XIV, vu de profil : bas relief de 
 forme ovale. 
 
 11. Marbre blanc. Buste habille de Voltaire, par M. Houdon. 
 
 12. Marbre blanc. Buste de Voltaire, sur socle en marbre veine, par 
 M. Houdon. 
 
 13. Carton bronze. Statue assise de Voltaire, maquette qui a servi 
 dans la ceremonie de la translation des cendres de ce grand homme au 
 Pantheon frangais. 
 
 14. Platre. Modele reduit de la statue de Voltaire par M. Houdon, 
 qui etait placee au Pantheon frangais. 
 
3 02 
 
 Appendix E 
 
 15. Platre. Masque moule sur la visage de J. J. Rousseau peu 
 d’heures apres sa mort; cette precieuse empreinte qui est unique a ete 
 fait par M. Houdon, sur l’invitation de feu M. le Comte de Girardin 
 chez lequel ce philosophe mourut le 3 juillet 1778. (Sur ce platre, voyez 
 la Biographic universelle, article Rousseau.) 
 
 1 6. Platre peint. Buste de J. J. d’Alembert, mort le 29 octobre 1783. 
 
 17. Terre-cuite. Buste de Diderot, mort le 30 juillet 1784. 
 
 18. Buste du prince Henri de Prusse. 
 
 19. Platre. Buste de Bailly, president de l’Assemblee Constituante. 
 
 20. Platre. Buste de Paul John, general americain. 
 
 21. Platre colore. Buste de J. F. Pilatre de Rosier, physicien, tue 
 pres de Boulogne, le 15 juin 1785. 
 
 22. Platre. Buste de C. Gluck, mort le 15 novembre 1787. 
 
 23. Platre colore. Buste de P. J. B. Gerbier, avocat-general, mort le 
 26 mars 1788. 
 
 24. Platre. Buste de G. L. L., comte de Bulfon, mort le 16 avril 
 1788. 
 
 25. Platre colore. Buste du president Dupaty, mort le 17 septembre 
 1788. 
 
 26. Platre bronze. Buste du docteur Tronchin. 
 
 27. Terre-cuite. Buste de B. Francklin, mort le 17 avril, 1790. 
 
 28. Platre. Buste de G.-A.-H., comte de Guibert, membre de l’Aca- 
 demie des Sciences, mort vers 1790. 
 
 29. Terre-cuite. Buste de Riquetti (H.-G.), comte de Mirabeau, 
 mort le 2 avril 1791. 
 
 30. Platre. Buste de 1 ’abbe Barthelemy, mort le 30 avril 1795. 
 
 31. Platre peint. Buste de Joseph Balsamo, dit Cagliostro, mort au 
 chateau de Saint-Leon en 1795. 
 
 32. Marbre blanc. Buste de Hue de Miromenil, garde des Sceaux, 
 mort le 6 juillet 1796. 
 
 33. Platre. Buste de M. de Nicolai, premier president de la cour des 
 Aides. 
 
Appendix E 303 
 
 34. Platre. Masque de la statue de Joubert, general en chef de Tar- 
 mee frangaise en Italie, tue a la bataille de Novi en 1799. 
 
 35. Platre. Buste de Washington, general en chef des armees ameri- 
 caines pendant la guerre de l’independance. 
 
 36. Platre. Buste de J. Lalande, astronome, mort le 4 avril 1807. 
 
 37. Marbre blanc. Buste de M. Lenoir, ancien lieutenant de police, 
 mort en 1807. 
 
 38. Platre peint. Portrait en bas-relief de J. M. Montgolfier, meca- 
 nicien, l’un des inventeurs des aerostats, mort le 26 juin 1810. 
 
 39. Terre-cuite. Buste de M. J. de Chenier, membre de l’lnstitut, 
 mort le 10 janvier 18 1 1. 
 
 40. Terre-cuite. Buste de l’imperatrice Josephine, sur piedouche en 
 marbre veine. 
 
 41. Platre. Buste de M. Barlow, ministre des Etats-Unis, pres la 
 cour de France; auteur du poeme de “La Colombiade,” etc. 
 
 42. Platre. Buste de feu M. le marechal Ney, prince de la Moskowa. 
 
 43. Terre-cuite. Buste en hermes a diademe de Napoleon Bona- 
 parte, modele a S. Cloud en 1806. Ce buste, pour lequel l’artiste recut 
 beaucoup de seances, passe avec raison pour celui de tous les portraits de 
 Napoleon ou sa physionomie est rendue avec le plus de verite. 
 
 44. Terre-cuite. Buste de Napoleon en costume militaire. 
 
 45. Platre. Buste de M me - la comtesse Regnauld de S. Jean d’An- 
 gely. 
 
 46. Platre. Masque de feu M. le comte Boissy d’Anglas, pair de 
 France et membre de l’lnstitut. Ce masque a ete moule pendant la vie 
 de ce personnage. 
 
 47. Platre. Buste de Jefferson, ancien president de la republique des 
 Etats-Unis. 
 
 48. Platre. Buste de feu Larive, tragedien celebre. 
 
 49. Marbre blanc. Buste de M. Camus-Greneville, ancien magistrat. 
 
 50. Platre. Buste de R. Fulton, inventeur des bateaux a vapeur. 
 
 51. Marbre blanc. Buste de M. le general Lafayette, en costume de 
 
3 ° 4 
 
 Appendix E 
 
 commandant de la garde nationale de Paris: ce buste, vote en 1791 par 
 la commune de Paris, a eprouve en 1793, une mutilation qui a ete re- 
 paree. 
 
 52. Terre-cuite. Buste de M rae - , les cheveux releves derriere la 
 
 tete, et le sein et les epaules enveloppes d’une draperie. 
 
 53. Platre. Buste de M. le marechal Soult, due de Dalmatie. 
 
 Platre. Buste de feu M. Moitte, statuaire. 
 
 Platre. Buste de M me - la princesse de Salm. 
 
 Platre. Portrait a mi-corps de M me - de Serilly. 
 
 Terre-cuite. Buste de M me - de Vermenon. 
 
 Platre. Buste de M mc - de Berwick. 
 
 Marbre blanc. Buste de jeune homme couronne de myrte. 
 
 Platre colore. Buste de feu M 1Ie - de Tarente, execute apres sa 
 
 54 - 
 
 55 - 
 56. 
 
 57 - 
 
 58. 
 
 59 - 
 
 bo. 
 
 mort. 
 
 61. Terre-cuite. Buste d’une jeune femme les cheveux nones derriere 
 la tete. 
 
 62. Marbre blanc. Copie reduite de “la Frileuse” par M. Houdon. 
 
 63. Marbre blanc. Buste de jeune femme, les cheveux attaches der- 
 riere la tete : cette jolie tete d’etude presente le caractere de la douceur. 
 
 64. Platre. Le grand ficorche, epreuve peinte a 1 ’huile et offrant les 
 couleurs des muscles, vines et tendons. 
 
 65. Platre. Le moule de la figure precedente. L’acquisition de ce 
 moule conferera la propriete de la figure, 1’une des plus estimees de notre 
 ecole. 
 
 66. Platre. Tete de l’ficorche peinte a l’huile. 
 
 67. Marbre blanc. Deux petits tetes d’enfants, dont Tune pleure et 
 l’autre rit. 
 
 68. Marbre blanc. Un oiseau mort et les pattes attachees a un clou. 
 
 69. Un grand nombre de bustes, figurines et esquisses, en terre-cuite et 
 en platre, qui seront divises par lots. 
 
 70. Pastel. Portrait du marechal de Saxe, attribue a Latour. 
 
 71. Un petit nombre de tableaux et de gravures. 
 
Appendix E 305 
 
 72. Cliche du prix de vertu. Idem, “le naissance du Dauphin,” par 
 Duvivier. Idem, “aux braves armees,” etc., d’apres Droz. 
 
 73. Un grand nombre de masque de personnages celebres le plupart 
 moules de leur vivant, tels que ceux de M. Moitte, statuaire ; M. Arnaud, 
 de l’Academie Frangaise, etc. 
 
 74. Des objets ornis seront appeles et vendus sous ce numero. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 CATALOGUE OF HOUDON’S WORKS 
 
 Statues and Monuments 
 
 Apollo. 
 
 Bronze. “For Girardot de Marigny.” Collection of Leopold 
 Goldschmidt, Paris. 
 
 Baigneuse (A Bather). 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1775. “To be executed in marble.” 
 
 Marble. In possession of Benjamin Altman, New York. 
 Bartholomews (Saint Bartholomew). 
 
 Stone, 18 feet high. For the Church of the Holy Cross in Orleans. 
 Bruno (Saint). 
 
 Statue, marble. Height, 9^2 feet. In the Church of St. Mary of 
 the Angels, Rome. 
 
 Catharine (Saint). 
 
 Stone. For Church of the Holy Cross in Orleans. 
 
 Ceres. 
 
 Stone. Height, 6 feet. For the Comte d’Artois. 
 
 Charles the Great (Charlemagne). 
 
 Gilded cardboard, life size, for the “Fete-Dieu” at Versailles. 
 Cicero. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1808. 
 
 Colossal marble. Ordered by Napoleon for the Senate Chamber. 
 Diana. 
 
 1. Marble. For the Empress of Russia. In the Hermitage, St. 
 Petersburg. 
 
 306 
 
3°7 
 
 Appendix F 
 
 2. Bronze. Purchased by the French government, at the sale of 
 Houdon’s collection in 1828, for 4000 francs. In the Louvre. 
 
 3. Bronze. Salon, 1783. Made for Girardot de Marigny; after- 
 ward owned by Lord Hertford, and subsequently by Charles T. 
 Yerkes, New York. 
 
 4. Bronze. In Museum at Tours. 
 
 L’Ecorche. 
 
 1. Plaster. At ficole des Beaux Arts, Paris. 
 
 2. Plaster. At Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris. 
 
 3. Bronze. At Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris. 
 
 Ennery. 
 
 Mortuary monument to the Comte d’Ennery. Height, 6 feet; 
 width, 7 feet. Group of three figures and a bust, marble. For- 
 merly at Pontoise. 
 
 Fountain. 
 
 Group of two figures, life size, one of marble, the other in lead 
 painted black, representing a negress. Salon, 1783. Destroyed 
 in French Revolution. 
 
 La Frileuse, “Shivering One,” or “Winter.” 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. In the Museum at Montpellier. 
 
 Bronze. Salon, 1791. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1796. 
 
 Galitzin. 
 
 Mortuary monuments to the two Princes Galitzin. Salon, 1773. 
 In the Church of Notre Dame de Kazan at Moscow. 
 
 Model. Salon, 1777. In the Louvre. 
 
 John the Baptist. 
 
 Gypsum. In the Church of St. Mary of the Angels, Rome. 
 
 Head in plaster. Museum of Gotha. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3°S 
 
 Joubert, General. 
 
 Statue, marble. Salon, 1812. 
 
 Statuette. Reduction for china factory at Sevres. 
 
 Minerva. 
 
 Gilded cardboard. For Versailles Theatre. 
 
 Morpheus. 
 
 Statue, gypsum. Life size. Salon, 1771. In Museum at Gotha. 
 Statuette. Reduction of the former. Marble. Height, 60 inches; 
 length, 66 inches. Exhibited in 1777. In the Louvre. 
 
 A Naiad. 
 
 Model for a fountain in a garden. 
 
 Napoleon. 
 
 Bronze. Height, 18 feet; or, according to others, 15 feet. Or- 
 dered for the Column of Boulogne. In 1817 melted down and 
 used in casting statue of Henry IV by Lemot. 
 
 Peter (Saint). 
 
 Stone. Height, 18 feet. For Church of the Holy Cross in Orleans. 
 
 Philosophy (Saint Scholastique) . 
 
 Marble, 7 J 4 feet high. Intended for the Church of the Invalides. 
 In 1793 changed to a statue of Philosophy and placed in the Hall 
 of the Convention. 
 
 Saxe-Gotha, Ducal Family of. 
 
 Mortuary monument (model) to the Duchess Louise Dorothea. 
 Salon, 1775. 
 
 Stephen (Saint). 
 
 Stone, 18 feet high. For a church in Orleans. 
 
 Summer (in the likeness of a young maid). 
 
 Marble. In the Museum at Montpellier. 
 
 Tourville, Marshal. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1781. At Versailles. 
 
Appendix F 309 
 
 A Vestal. 
 
 Statue, marble, 6 feet in height. 1787. 
 
 Voltaire. 
 
 Marble, life size. Seated. Salon, 1781. In foyer of Theatre- 
 Frangais. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Smaller than life. Museum at Montpellier. 
 
 Marble, life size. Standing. Salon, 1812. By Voltaire’s tomb in 
 the Pantheon. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Marble, life size. 1788. In the Capitol at Richmond. 
 
 Statuettes 
 
 La Petite Frileuse. 
 
 Bronze, cast from original sketch: Salon, 1793. In the Louvre. 
 Moliere. 
 
 Seated figure. “In Museum at Orleans” (Montaiglon) . 
 
 Priest of the Lupercal Feast. 
 
 Bronze; height, 31 inches. 
 
 Sibylle. 
 
 Vestal. 
 
 Bronze. To serve as night lamp. 1777. 
 
 Voltaire. 
 
 From statue at Theatre-Frangais, bearing Houdon’s seal. In the 
 Louvre. 
 
 Busts of Men 
 
 Alembert, d’. 
 
 Marble. 1782. In Hermitage at St. Petersburg. 
 Alexander the Great. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. “For the King of Poland.” 
 Arlandes, d’. 
 
3io 
 
 Appendix F 
 
 Aubert, Abbe. 
 
 Marble. In the Louvre. 
 
 Auvergne, d’ (Director of the Opera). 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Bailly (de Sylvain), Mayor of Paris. 
 
 Salon, 1791. Destroyed August 10, 1792. 
 
 Barlow, Joel, United States Minister to France. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1804. Owned by H. P. Chambers, Washington, Pa. 
 Plaster. In Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia. 
 Plaster. In National Academy of Design, New York. 
 
 Barnave. 
 
 Bronzed terra-cotta. 
 
 Barthelemy, J. J., author of “Anacharsis.” 
 
 Salon, 1795. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1802. 
 
 Bignon, Mayor of Paris. 
 
 Salon, 1771. In Museum of Montpellier. 
 
 Bire, de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1785. 
 
 Boissy d’Anglas, Comte. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1812. 
 
 Boucquier. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Boufflers, de. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1789. 
 
 Bouille, Marquis de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1787. 
 
 Buffon, de. 
 
 Marble. Ordered by the Empress of Russia. Salon, 1783. 
 Marble. Salon, 1789. In the Louvre. 
 
 Plaster. In the Museum at Dijon. 
 
Appendix F 31 1 
 
 Cagliostro (named Joseph Balsamo). 
 
 Marble. Musee at Aix. 
 
 Gypsum. Owned by M. Storreli, who married the granddaughter 
 of Maitre Thelonier, advocate of Cagliostro, to whom Cagliostro 
 gave the bust. 
 
 Camus-Greneville, Magistrate. 
 
 Marble. Houdon sale, 1828 ; No. 49. 
 
 Capperonnier. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Caumartin, de, Mayor. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1779. 
 
 Charles IX. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Charles (Aeronaut). 
 
 Charriere. 
 
 Terra-cotta, on marble pedestal. Musee de Neufchatel. 
 
 Chenier, Marie-Joseph, poet and member of the Institute. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Purchased at Walferdin sale by P. Lacroix for 
 9000 francs. 
 
 Colbert. 
 
 Gypsum. 1787. 
 
 Colin d’Harleville. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1806. 
 
 CONDORCET. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1785. In American Philosophical Society, Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 Conty, Prince of. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 CoURLEVAN, DE. 
 
 Diderot. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1771. 
 
 Terra-cotta. In the Louvre. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 12 
 
 Duclos. 
 
 Dumouriez, General. 
 
 Marble. Formerly in Palais Royal and thought to have been de- 
 stroyed in 1848, but recently unearthed and now at Versailles. 
 Plaster. In Museum at Angers. 
 
 Duquesnoy. 
 
 Marble. Signed, “Houdon.” In the Louvre. 
 
 Du Paty. 
 
 Salon, 1779. 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1779. Houdon’s sale, 1828; No. 27. In the 
 Louvre. 
 
 Marble. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 
 
 Franquieres, de. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Fulton, Robert. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1804. 
 
 Plaster. Museum of Marine, Paris. 
 
 Terra-cotta. In the National Academy of Design, New York City. 
 
 Gerbier (Advocate). 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Gluck. 
 
 1. Marble. Salon, 1777. Formerly in Opera House, Paris; de- 
 stroyed by fire in 1873. 
 
 2. Gypsum. Berlin Museum. 
 
 3. Terra-cotta. Saxe-Gotha. 
 
 Guibert. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Harleville, Colin d\ 
 
 Plaster. In Museum at Chartres. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 T 3 
 
 Haudry. 
 
 Gypsum. In Museum at Orleans. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1789. In New York Historical Society. 
 
 Plaster. In American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. 
 
 Jones, John Paul. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1781. In Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine 
 
 Arts, Philadelphia. 
 Irvine. 
 
 Presented by Jones to General William 
 
 JOUBERT. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1812. 
 Laborde, de. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 In Versailles Museum. 
 
 La Fayette, Marquis de. 
 Marble. Salon, 1787. 
 Marble. Salon, 1791. 
 La Fontaine. 
 
 In the Capitol at Richmond, Va. 
 At Versailles. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 Lalande, de. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Model made in 1781. 
 
 La Rive, de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 In Theatre-Frangais. 
 
 Lavoisier. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Bearing the seal of Houdon. In the Louvre. 
 Le Noir. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1785. 
 
 Le Pelletier de Mortfontaine. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1785. 
 
 Le Pelletier de Saint-Fargeau. 
 
 Signed by Houdon. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 1 4 
 
 Louis XVI. 
 
 Marble. In Museum at Versailles. 
 
 Louis (Surgeon). 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Malterres. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Prince of. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Meianes, Marquis of. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Mellon. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Mentelle. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Mirabeau. 
 
 Marble. Exhibited by Houdon, Year IX. In the Louvre. 
 
 A bust, without indication as to material, in Salon of 1791. 
 
 A terra-cotta bust at Houdon’s sale, 1795, No. 100. Costumed as 
 Deputy. In Museum at Angers. 
 
 Ditto, at Houdon’s sale of 1828, No. 29; purchased by Walferdin. 
 Transferred to the Louvre in 1880. 
 
 Miromenil, Marquis de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1775. Houdon sale, 1828; No. 32. 
 
 Plaster bronzed. In Museum at Orleans. 
 
 Moitte. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Moliere. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1779. 
 
 Marble. In the foyer of the Theatre-Francais. 
 
 Plaster. Ducal Museum at Gotha. 
 
Appendix F 315 
 
 Montelle, Member of the Institute. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1802. 
 
 Napoleon. 
 
 Marble. As First Consul. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1806. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1808. First at Tuileries; now in Museum at Ver- 
 sailles. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Houdon sale, 1828; No. 43. In the Museum at 
 Dijon. 
 
 Necker. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1791. Placed in Hotel de Ville. Destroyed 
 August 10, 1792. 
 
 Negerin. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Ney, Marshal. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1804. Formerly at Tuileries; destroyed in 1870. 
 Gypsum. In Versailles Museum. 
 
 Nicolai, de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1779. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Nivernais, Due DE. 
 
 Plaster bronzed. In Museum at Besancon. 
 
 Pajou. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Signed by Houdon. 
 
 Palissot. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Terra-cotta. In reading-room, Mazarin Library. 
 
 Pastoret. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1796. 
 
 Praslin, Due DE. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Preville (Actor). 
 
 Bronze. In foyer of Theatre-Frangais. 
 
316 Appendix F 
 
 Provence, Comte de, afterward Louis XVIII. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Prussia, Prince Henry of. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1785. 
 
 Marble. “For the King.” Salon, 1787. 
 
 Bronze. Salon, 1789. At Palace in Berlin. 
 
 Quesnay, Physician. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Rosier, Pilatre de. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1789. Houdon’s sale, 1828; No. 21. 
 
 Rousseau, J.-J. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1779. “Appartient a M. le Marquis de Ge- 
 rardin.” 
 
 Bronze. In the Louvre. Acquired in 1838. 
 
 Gypsum (bronzed). In the Museum of Gotha. 
 
 Marble. In Girard College, Philadelphia. 
 
 Terra-cotta. In Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 
 
 Russia, Emperor of (Alexander). 
 
 Salon, 1814. 
 
 Sacchini. 
 
 Soltikoff, General. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Soltikoff, Count, son of the General. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Soult, Marshal. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 SUFFREN, BaILLY DE. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1787. For the Dutch East India Company, De- 
 partment of Zealand. In the Mauritshuis Museum at The 
 Hague. 
 
 Plaster. Museum at Aix. 
 
 Sweden, King of (Gustave III). 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1785. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 1 7 
 
 Tronchin (Physician). 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Turgot. 
 
 1. Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 2. Plaster. In the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. 
 Valbelle, de. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 VlCTINGHOFF, BARON LE. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Voltaire. 
 
 Plaster. With wig and drapery. 1778. In foyer of Theatre- 
 Frangais. 
 
 Marble. Without wig, in antique style. Salon, 1779. In Hermi- 
 tage at St. Petersburg. 
 
 Bronze. Without wig, in antique style. In the Louvre. 
 Terra-cotta. With wig and coat and vest. In Metropolitan Mu- 
 seum of Art, New York. 
 
 Wailly, de. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 1785. Houdon’s sale, 1828 ; No. 35. In the Louvre. 
 Marble. Salon, 1787. 
 
 WlETINGHOFF. 
 
 Gypsum. 1777. 
 
 Busts of Women 
 
 Adelaide, Mme., daughter of Louis XV. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Anspach, Countess of. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1802. 
 
 Arnould, Sophie. 
 
 Marble. In the role of “Iphigenia.” Salon, 1775. Formerly in 
 collection of Sir Richard Wallace. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 318 
 
 Berwick, Mme. de. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Bignon, Mme. 
 
 Salon, 1771. 
 
 Bocquet, Mlle. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Cayla, Mme. la Comtesse de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1775. 
 
 Charlier, Mme. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Cotheron, Mlle. de. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Daschkau, Princess, Directress of the Academy of Sciences of St. 
 Petersburg. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Bronze. Salon, 1783. 
 
 “Houdon, the statuary, occupied a good deal of my time, to 
 whom, at my daughter’s desire, I sat for my bust in bronze as large 
 as life.” “Memoirs of the Princess Daschkau,” Vol. I, p. 225. 
 His, Mme. de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1775. 
 
 Houdon, Mme., wife of the sculptor. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1787. In the Louvre. 
 
 Houze, Baronne de la. 
 
 Salon, 1775. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Jaucourt, Mme. la Comtesse de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Josephine. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1806. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1808. Formerly in the Tuileries, now in the Mu- 
 seum at Versailles. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Houdon sale, 1828; No. 40. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 T 9 
 
 Lise, The Little. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Mailly, Mme. de. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Salon, 1771. 
 
 Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Princess of. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Odeoud, Mlle. 
 
 Marble. “For the Marquis de Marigny.” Salon, 1781. 
 
 Olivier, Mlle. 
 
 Gypsum. Salon, 1789. 
 
 Petit, Mme. 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
 Provence, Wife of the Comte de. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Raucourt, Mlle., celebrated opera-singer. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Regnauld, Comtesse. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Robert, Mlle., daughter of the painter. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1783. 
 
 Rode, Mme. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1802. 
 
 Russia, Empress of (Catharine II). 
 
 Marble. Larger than life size. Salon, 1773. 
 
 Salm, Princess. 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Serilly, Mme. de. 
 
 Plaster. Salon, 1781. 
 
 Marble. Signed, “Houdon F 1782.” In collection of Sir Richard 
 Wallace, Hertford House, London. 
 
 Servat, Mlle. 
 
 Marble. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 Servat, Mme. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Tarente, Mlle. “Executed after death.” 
 
 Gypsum. 
 
 Thenard, Marie Madeline Perrin, called. 
 
 Extract from “Ma Vie au Theatre,” by Jenny Thenard, of the Co- 
 medie-Frangaise (p. 13) : “She, my great-grandmother, desired to 
 be interred with the head of a sketch of a statuette, by Houdon, 
 representing her in the character of Merope. When she was dis- 
 interred, in 1877, at the death of my grandmother, the little head 
 by Houdon was found in her coffin. I gave this statuette to the 
 Carnavalet Museum.” 
 
 Vermenon, Mme. de. 
 
 Marble. 
 
 Vestal. 
 
 Marble. Signed, “Houdon F 1788.” In the Louvre. 
 
 Victoire, Mme., daughter of Louis XV. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. Signed, “A. Houdon Fecit 1777.” In 
 Wallace collection, Hertford House, London. 
 
 Busts of Children 
 
 Brongniart, Alexandre. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Terra-cotta. In the Louvre. 
 
 Brongniart, Louise. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1777. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Signed, “Houdon 1777.” In the Louvre. 
 
 Marble. Owned by B. Altman, New York. 
 
 Espagne, d\ 
 
 Terra-cotta. 
 
321 
 
 Appendix F 
 
 Houdon, Anne-Ange, second daughter of the sculptor. 
 
 Terra-cotta. With the seal of Houdon’s studio. In the Louvre. 
 Houdon, Claudine, third and youngest daughter of the sculptor. 
 
 Plaster. With the seal of Houdon’s studio. Sold at Decourcelle 
 sale, Paris, to M. Robert Linzeler. 
 
 Houdon, Sabine, eldest daughter of the sculptor. 
 
 Original plaster. In the Louvre. 
 
 Infant’s Head. Aged ten months. 
 
 Marble. Salon, 1789. 
 
 Noailles, de. 
 
 Ideal Heads 
 
 Two Angels, supporting the French Coat of Arms. Formerly in the 
 Theatre at Versailles. 
 
 Saint Bartholomew. 
 
 Bust. Marble. For Salon, Year X. 
 
 Belisarius. 
 
 Bust. Salon, 1773. 
 
 Mars and Venus. 
 
 Small group. Wax. Houdon sale, 1828; No. 6. 
 
 Medusa. Head after the antique. 
 
 Salon, 1775. 
 
 Minerva. 
 
 Bust. Stone. In the courtyard of the Palace of the Institute. 
 
 The Nest-robbers. 
 
 Signed, “Houdon.” Sale held December 23, 1845 ; No. 98. 
 
 Medallions 
 
 Alexander. 
 
 Salon, 1771. 
 
 Minerva. 
 
 Marble bas-relief. Head in profile. Salon, 1777. 
 
322 Appendix F 
 
 Miromenil, Mme. de. 
 
 Montgolfier (Balloonists). 
 
 Portraits of Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier in profile, accolated. 
 Plaster. In the Trocadero Museum in Paris. 
 
 Saxe-Gotha, Ducal Family of. 
 
 Gypsum, bronzed. Salon, 1773. 
 
 Frederick III. 
 
 Ernest Louis. 
 
 Marie Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen, consort of the former. 
 Frederike Luise, sister of Duke Ernest Louis. 
 
 Bas-reliefs 
 
 Christ Giving Keys to Saint Peter. 
 
 For Church of St. Genevieve, afterward the Pantheon. Statue de- 
 stroyed or taken away in 1792. 
 
 Dead Thrush. 
 
 Marble. In Houdon’ s sale of 1828, No. 68. Owned by M. le 
 Comte Gabriel de Castries, Paris. 
 
 “Hope and Religion.” 
 
 Stone. Ordered for St. Cloud. 
 
 Louis XIV. 
 
 Marble bas-relief of oval form. Head in profile. Houdon sale, 
 1828 ; No. 10. 
 
 Sheba and Solomon. 
 
 Terra-cotta. Houdon won the “Prix de Rome” with this in 1761. 
 
 Masks 
 
 Arnauld, Member of the French Academy. 
 
 Made from life. 
 
 Boissy d’Anglas, Comte. 
 
 Life-mask. Houdon sale, 1828; No. 46. 
 
Appendix F 
 
 3 2 3 
 
 Crequy, Marquise de. 
 
 Mask after death. 
 
 Jefferson. 
 
 Life-mask. 
 
 Joubert, General. 
 
 Houdon sale, 1828 ; No. 34. 
 
 Mirabeau. 
 
 Moulded after death. 
 
 Moitte. 
 
 Moulded from life. 
 
 Rousseau. 
 
 Moulded after death. Houdon sale, 1828 ; No. 15. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Moulded from life. Houdon sale, 1828; doubtless under No. 73. 
 Owned by J. Pierpont Morgan. 
 
Appendix G 
 
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES USED IN THE 
 PREPARATION OF THIS WORK 
 
 Quatremere de Quincy’s Notice Historique sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de 
 M. Houdon. 1829. 
 
 Montaiglon et Duplessis’s Houdon, sa Vie et ses Ouvrages. 1855. 
 Delerot et Legrelle, Memoire sur la Vie et l’CEuvre de J. A. Houdon. 
 1857. 
 
 Dierks’s Houdon’s Leben und Werke. 1887. 
 
 Terrade’s Autour de la Statue de Jean Houdon. 1892. 
 
 Biographie Universelle. 1858. 
 
 New Biographie Generate. 1861. 
 
 Jal’s Dictionnaire Critique de Biographie et d’Histoire. 1872. 
 
 Lami’s Dictionnaire des Sculpteurs de l’Ecole Frangaise. 1910. 
 
 Gazette des Beaux Arts. 
 
 Paul Vitry in Les Arts and in La Revue de l’Art. 
 
 Nouvelles Archives de l’Art Frangais. 
 
 Claude de Phillips in London Art Journal. 
 
 Bachaumont’s Memoires Secrets pour servir a l’Histoire de la Republique 
 des Lettres en France. 1762-1787. 36 volumes. 
 
 Correspondance Secrete Politique et Litteraire. 18 volumes. 
 Desnoiresterres’s Voltaire et la Societe au XVIII Siecle. Part 8. 1876. 
 Desnoiresterres’s Iconographie Voltairienne. 1879. 
 
 Martin-Choisi’s Account of the Inauguration of a Statue of Voltaire at 
 Montpellier, Year IX. 
 
 Beuchot’s Life of Voltaire. 
 
 324 
 
Appendix G 325 
 
 Mangeant’s Sur une Statuette de Voltaire. 1896. 
 
 Guiffrey’s Les Caffieris. 1877. 
 
 Monval’s Les Collections de la Comedie-Frangaise. 1897. 
 
 Dacier’s Les Musees de la Comedie-Frangaise. 1905. 
 
 Thierry’s La Comedie-Frangaise pendant les Deux Sieges, 1870-71. 
 1887. 
 
 Lacroix’s Iconographie Molieresque. 1876. 
 
 Taschereau’s Vie de Moliere. 
 
 Petitain’s Works of Rousseau. 1819. (Appendix to the Confessions.) 
 Tourneux’s Grimm-Diderot Correspondance. 1880. 
 
 Gonze’s La Sculpture et la Gravure au XIX Siecle. 1892. 
 
 Gonze’s Les Chefs d’CEuvre des Musees de France. 1904. 
 
 Dilke’s French Architects and Sculptors of the XVIII Century. 1900. 
 Brownell’s French Art. 1900. 
 
 Taft’s History of American Sculpture. 1903. 
 
 Lawton’s Life of Auguste Rodin. 1907. 
 
 Memoires of Mme. de Genlis. 
 
 Memoires of Barere. 1842. 
 
 Soulavie’s Memoires Historiques et Politiques du Regne de Louis XVI. 
 1802. 
 
 Taylor’s Memoires of the House of Orleans. 1852. 
 
 Talma’s Chronological Account of the French Revolution. 1795. 
 Peltier’s Revolution of the Tenth of August. 1793. 
 
 Laurie’s History of Freemasonry. 1859. 
 
 Gould’s History of Freemasonry. 1866. 
 
 Besuchet’s Precis Historique de l’Ordre de la Franc-magonnerie. 1829. 
 Pike’s Material for History of Freemasonry in France. 
 
 Sachse’s Masonic Chronology of Benjamin Franklin. 
 
 Sachse’s Benjamin Franklin as a Freemason. 
 
 Marvin’s Medals of the Masonic Fraternity. 1880. 
 
 Loubat’s Medallic History of the United States. 
 
 Saunier’s Augustin Dupre. 1894. 
 
326 Appendix G 
 
 Buell’s John Paul Jones. 1900. 
 
 Brady’s John Paul Jones. 1900. 
 
 Hamilton’s John Paul Jones. 1845. 
 
 Sherburne’s John Paul Jones. 1825. 
 
 Sands’s John Paul Jones. 1830. 
 
 Alger’s The Naval Academy’s Miniature of John Paul Jones. 1906. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s History of the Sword presented by Louis XVI to John 
 Paul Jones. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s Franklin in Allegory. 1890. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s Browere’s Life-Masks of Great Americans. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s Last of the Silhouettists. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s Life Portraits of Jefferson. 
 
 C. H. Hart’s Hints on Portraits. 
 
 La Fayette’s Memoirs, Correspondence and Manuscripts. 1837. 
 Levasseur’s Lafayette in America. 1829. 
 
 Henry’s Life of Patrick Henry. 1891. 
 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 
 
 American Historical Review. Volume I. 
 
 Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1744-1858. 
 Michelet’s History of the Nineteenth Century. 
 
 Dayot’s Napoleon raconte par l’lmage. 1902. 
 
 Century Magazine. October, 1905. 
 
 Appleton’s Magazine. June, 1906. 
 
 The Independent. July 13, 1905. 
 
 Papers relative to Foreign Relations of the United States. 1906. 
 
 John Paul Jones Commemoration at Annapolis. 1907. 
 
 Journals of Congress. 
 
 Hickey’s Constitution of the United States. 1847. 
 
 Calendar of State Papers of Virginia. 
 
 Sparks’s Correspondence of the American Revolution. 
 
 Sparks’s Writings of Washington. 
 
 Ford’s Writings of Washington. 
 
 Sparks’s Writings of Franklin. 
 
32 7 
 
 Appendix G 
 
 Bigelow’s Writings of Franklin. 
 
 Smyth’s Writings of Franklin. 
 
 Randolph’s Writings of Jefferson. 
 
 Washington’s Writings of Jefferson. 
 
 Ford’s Writings of Jefferson. 
 
 Hamilton’s Writings of Monroe. 
 
 Johnston’s Writings of Jay. 
 
 Correspondence of Charles Thomson. 
 
 Catalogues of the Paris Salon. 1771 to 1814. 
 
 Story’s Mask of Washington. 
 
 Hale’s Franklin in France. 
 
 State Records of North Carolina. 
 
 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia. 
 
 Vachon’s L’Ancien Hotel de Ville. 
 
 Lacroix’s Actes de la Commune de Paris pendant la Revolution. 1894- 
 1908. 
 
 Geffroy’s Chefs d’CEuvre de Versailles. 
 
 Lettres de la Marquise du Deffand a Horace Walpole. 
 
 Westcott’s History of Philadelphia. 
 
 List of Franklin Papers in Library of Congress. 
 
 List of John Paul Jones Papers in Library of Congress. 
 
 Calendar of Jefferson Papers in State Department. 
 
 Franklin Manuscripts in American Philosophical Society. 
 
 Franklin Manuscripts in Library of Congress. 
 
 Washington Manuscripts in Library of Congress. 
 
 John Paul Jones Manuscripts in Library of Congress. 
 
 Jefferson Manuscripts in Library of Congress. 
 
 Manuscript Archives of the State of Virginia, in Richmond. 
 
 Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Esq., Philadelphia. 
 
 Autograph Collection of Oliver K. Brooks, Esq., Cleveland, O. 
 Autograph Collection of Charles Henry Hart, Philadelphia. 
 
 Autograph Collection of F. J. Dreer, in Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 
 Autograph Collection of Charles Roberts, in Haverford College Library. 
 

 INDEX 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
Index 
 
 Academie de Peinture et de Sculpture, 5 ; 
 history of, 264, n. 
 
 Adelaide of France, Houdon’s bust of, 20; 
 not paid for, 21, 22 
 
 Alexander of Russia, Houdon’s bust of, 
 271 
 
 Alexander the Great, by Houdon, 15 
 Allegrain’s Diana, 28 
 
 American Philosophical Society, Franklin 
 MSS. in, 65, 79; has bust of Condor- 
 cet and of Turgot, 180; has bust of 
 Jefferson, 249 
 
 Angouleme, Duchesse d’, born, 161 
 Anspach, Margravine of, Houdon’s bust 
 of, 262 
 
 Antoinette, Marie, first accouchement, 161 ; 
 celebrated by Lodge of Nine Sisters, 
 161; son born to, 169; celebration of, 
 169; announced to Congress, 169 
 Apollo, by Houdon, 179 
 Arnould, Sophie, Houdon’s bust of, 18 
 Ashkoff, d’, Princesse, Houdon’s bust of, 
 173 
 
 Bachaumont, 19; history of Memoires Se- 
 crets, 155 
 
 “Baigneuse,” model of, 175; marble in 
 New York, 175 
 
 Bailly, bust by Houdon, 254; destroyed, 
 254 
 
 Barclay, Thomas, commercial agent at 
 Nantes, 228; selects Houdon to make 
 bust of La Fayette, 231; letter to 
 Patrick Henry, 231 
 Bard, Dr., owns bust of Franklin, 106 
 Barere, on Houdon’s bust of La Rive, 
 
 177; saves Houdon from guillotine, 
 
 259 
 
 Barlow, Joel, Houdon’s bust of, 262; mar- 
 ble owned by great-grandnephew, 263 ; 
 plaster busts in Pennsylvania Academy 
 of Fine Arts and in National Acad- 
 emy of Design, 263 
 
 Barnes, James, on Houdon’s bust of John 
 Paul Jones, 128 
 
 Barthelemy, Abbe, Houdon’s bust of, 260 
 Biddle, Edward, letter to Jules Claretie, 
 
 41 
 
 Bignon, M., Houdon’s bust of, 15; mayor 
 of Paris, 15 ; 
 
 Mme., Houdon’s bust of, 16 
 Bire, de, Houdon’s bust of, 180 
 Biron, Marquis of, bust of Jones, 135; 
 attributed to Houdon, 135 ; apocry- 
 phal, 136; not Jones, 136; not an heir- 
 loom, 136; purchased as “unknown,” 
 136; letters from, 137, n. 
 
 Boilly, Louis, portraits of Houdon, 283 
 Boissy d’Anglas, Houdon’s bust of, 270 
 Boissy, Louis de, on Diana, 29, 30 
 Boston Athenaeum, had Houdon’s busts of 
 Washington, Franklin, La Fayette 
 and Paul Jones, 223; presented by 
 Houdon to Jefferson, 223, n. 
 
 Brizard, the actor, 34 
 Brongniart, Alexandre, Houdon’s bust of, 
 19 
 
 Louise, Houdon’s bust of, 19; in New 
 York, 19, n. 
 
 Brownell, W. C., on Houdon’s Diana, 27 
 Buell, Augustus C., life of Jones fictitious, 
 129, n . ; invents titles of books he 
 
 33 
 
33 ^ 
 
 Index 
 
 quotes, 129, n. f 147; forgery of Jones’s 
 height, 146; ranks with Chatterton 
 and Ireland as a forger, 147; forges 
 Jones’s bequest of sword to Dale, 148 
 
 Buffon, bust of, 177 
 
 Burton, Robert, offers bust of J. P. Jones 
 to North Carolina, 133; not in the 
 State, 134 
 
 Cadaver, worthless for identifying body of 
 Jones, 148 
 
 Caffieri, Jean-Jacques, bust of Voltaire, 
 38; did not make one, 40; presents 
 bust of Voltaire by Le Moyne to 
 Comedie-Frangaise, 39, 46; attributed 
 to, 41; supplanted by Houdon, 48; 
 makes monument to Montgomery, 64, 
 79; exhibits design in Salon, 65; let- 
 ters from, 65, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 
 92, 93, 94; bust of Franklin, 65; jeal- 
 ous of Houdon, 86; letter of Wil- 
 liam Temple Franklin, 88; presents 
 “burst” to W. T. Franklin, 95; bust 
 for Sarah Bache, 95; bust of Franklin 
 in the Institute of France, 96; type 
 of Franklin bust, 97; comment upon, 
 100, 101 ; finer than Houdon’s, 104 
 
 Cagliostro, Houdon’s bust of, 272 
 
 Calendar of the French Revolution, 
 
 260, w. 
 
 Carmichael [William], bust of Franklin 
 for, 77 
 
 Carrousel, Place du, 4, 284 
 
 Catharine of Russia, bust of, 17; Diana 
 for, 24; acquires bust of Voltaire, 36; 
 obstacle to Houdon visiting United 
 States, 36; has statuette of Voltaire, 
 36; orders bust of Buffon, 177 
 
 Ceracchi, Giuseppe, bust of Franklin, 73, 
 76, 79, 94, 96; of Washington, 94; of 
 Hamilton, 94, 99 
 
 Church of the Chartreuse, Houdon’s St. 
 Bruno for, 9; or St. Mary of the 
 Angels, 9, 10 
 
 Cicero, Houdon’s colossal statue of, 264 
 Claretie, Jules, letter to, 41, 47 
 Clement XIV, Pope, on St. Bruno, 9 
 Cochin [Charles Nicholas], fur-cap por- 
 trait of Franklin, 76 
 
 Comedie-Frangaise, Houdon’s bust of 
 Voltaire at, 35; catalogue of works 
 of art, 41 ; letter to, 41 ; reply, 42 ; 
 Houdon’s statue of Voltaire at, 54 
 Commercial value of Houdon’s works, 
 
 26, 278, 279 
 Competitions, 120 
 
 Condorcet, bust of, 180; given to William 
 Short, 180; in American Philosophi- 
 cal Society, 180 
 
 Congress, monument to Louis XVI, 84; 
 to Yorktown, 84 
 
 Cordier, Abbe, burning with zeal, 161, 163 
 Corneille, 40; Caffieri’s statue of, 80 
 Corny de Ethis, delivers oration on recep- 
 tion of bust of La Fayette, 234; aids 
 Jefferson, 235 
 
 Costume for statue of Washington, 208, 
 209, 210 
 
 Coypel [Charles-Antoine], 4 
 
 D’Angevilliers, wants statue to Voltaire, 
 
 53 
 
 David, Louis, enemy of Houdon, 260; his 
 Napoleon, 267 
 
 Dayot, Armand, on Houdon’s Napoleon, 
 265 
 
 Delamotte, M., 3, 4 
 
 Denis, Mme., niece of Voltaire, 54; com- 
 missions Houdon for statue, 54; pre- 
 sents statue to Comedie-Frangaise, 
 54, 55 
 
 Desnoiresterres, Gustave, on bust of Vol- 
 taire, 44; anachronism by, 156 
 Diana, bust of, 24; statue of, 25; forbid- 
 den the Salon, 24; too realistic, 25; in 
 the Louvre, 25 ; at St. Petersburg, 25 ; 
 in Museum at Tours, 25; for Girar- 
 dot de Marigny, 25, 176; owned by 
 
Index 
 
 333 
 
 Lord Hertford at “Bagatelle,” 25; 
 by C. T. Yerkes, 26; by Duveen, 26; 
 variations of detail, 26; W. C. Brown- 
 ell on, 27; Vitry on, 28; Rulhiere’s 
 poem on, 29; Boissy on, 29; compared 
 with Apollo of the Vatican, 30 
 
 Diderot [Denis], Houdon’s bust of, 16; 
 and Houdon, 285 
 
 Dijon, Napoleon by Houdon at, 267; in- 
 scription, 268; Houdon’s works in, 
 278 
 
 Dix, Morgan, error as to Montgomery’s 
 monument, 71 
 
 Dixey, John, copied busts, 98 
 
 Dixmerie, Nicholas Bricaire de la, orator 
 of Lodge of Nine Sisters, 165; ad- 
 dress to Paul Jones, 168 
 
 Dupont de Nemours, letter to Jefferson, 
 106; Jefferson to, 107 
 
 Duvivier [Pierre-Simon-Benj amin] , 
 medallist, 6 
 
 Mme., niece of Voltaire, 54 
 
 “ficorche,” by Houdon, 10, 13; in bronze, 
 179 
 
 “£leves” of Houdon accompany him to 
 America, 191 
 
 Equestrian statue to Washington, 183; 
 Houdon wants to make, 191, 194, 
 196; model of, 195; Clark Mills 
 makes, 196 
 
 £rard, Sebastian, piano by, 28 
 
 “Female bathing with Black Slave,” 
 destroyed, 176 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin, empowered to pro- 
 cure monument to Montgomery, 64; 
 engages Caffieri to make it, 64; letter 
 to Hutton, 66; letters to Jay, 67, 69; 
 letter to Livingston, 67; “Father of all 
 the Yankees,” 73; bust by Houdon, 
 73 ; Ceracchi’s bust, 73 ; arrival in 
 France, 73; the Frenchman’s Ameri- 
 can, 74; description by police, 75; de- 
 
 scription by himself, 75; portraits of, 
 76; by Cochin, 76; by Greuze, 76; by 
 Nini, 76; by Caffieri, 76; two busts, 
 76; letter to discontented artist, 77; 
 Caffieri presents statue of Corneille, 
 80; letters from Caffieri, 65, 79, 80, 
 81, 85, 93, 94; bust by Caffieri in In- 
 stitute of France, 96; bust in Penn- 
 sylvania Academy of Fine Arts, 97; 
 busts by Caffieri and Houdon dis- 
 tinguished, 97 ; busts made gratui- 
 tously, 102; favors Caffieri’s bust, 
 103; orders five, 104; Turgot’s in- 
 scription for bust of, 108; Rodin on 
 bust by Houdon, 108; initiated into 
 Lodge of Nine Sisters, 159; at Lodge 
 of Sorrow for Voltaire, 160; elected 
 Venerable of the Lodge of Nine Sis- 
 ters, 165; farewell to France, 170; 
 prizes commemorative of, 171; Hou- 
 don accompanies to America, 198; 
 letter to Washington, 199; letter 
 from Houdon, 203 
 
 William Temple, grandson of Benjamin, 
 65; letters from Caffieri, 86, 87, 91; 
 letter to Caffieri, 88; letter to John 
 Jay, 204; on Houdon’s bust of Wash- 
 ington, 205 
 
 Freemasonry in France, 156, 171 
 
 French Revolution, calendar of, 260, n. 
 
 “Frileuse, La,” 176; in bronze, 255; 
 statuette of, 260 
 
 Fulton, Robert, Houdon’s bust of, 262; in 
 Musee de Marine and National Acad- 
 emy of Design, 263 
 
 Galitzin family, 17 
 
 Gasq, P., statue to Houdon, 284 
 
 Gaucher, Charles £tienne, engraves 
 “Crowning of Bust of Voltaire,” 47; 
 secretary of Lodge of Nine Sisters, 
 169 
 
 Genlis, Mme. de, description of Rousseau, 
 117 
 
Index 
 
 334 
 
 Gerbier, Counsellor Theatre-Frangais, 54; 
 
 Houdon’s bust of, 54, 173 
 Girard, Stephen, owns busts of Rousseau 
 and of Voltaire, 118, 119 
 Gliick, Houdon’s bust of, 18; marked with 
 pits of small-pox, 141 
 Gonze, Louis, 16; on Diana, 24; on bust 
 of Voltaire, 36; on bust of Mirabeau, 
 124; on bust of Cagliostro, 273 
 Gotha, Museum at, 11, 12 
 Greuze, Jean Baptiste, on eyes by Hou- 
 don, 35; pastel portrait of Franklin, 
 76 
 
 Grimm, Baron [Friedrich Melchior], 19; 
 on bust of Voltaire, 35; on bust of 
 Franklin, 101 ; on bust of Moliere, 
 hi; Jones presents his bust to, 134 
 Gros, Baron, Bonaparte, 265 
 Guiffrey’s, J. J., Les Caffieris, 38; errors 
 in regard to bust of Voltaire, 38, 39, 
 40, 41, 44; quoted with approval, 46 
 Gustavus, King of Sweden, bust of, 180 
 
 Harrison, Benjamin, letter to C. W. 
 Peale, 184; letter to Jefferson, 184; 
 letter to Franklin, 185; letters from 
 C. W. Peale, 185; letter from Jeffer- 
 son, 187; letter to Thomas Barclay, 
 228 
 
 Hart, Charles Henry, Life Portraits of 
 Franklin, 77; letter of Houdon on 
 statue of Rousseau, 121; letters from 
 Marquis de Biron to, 137, n . ; letter 
 to Horace Porter, 153 
 Haverford College, letter of Houdon, 22 
 Henry IV, statue of, on Pont-Neuf, 269; 
 made of Houdon’s colossal Napoleon, 
 269 
 
 Henry, Patrick, letter from Jefferson, 
 196; letter to La Fayette, 231 
 Hewes, Joseph, Montgomery’s monument 
 shipped to, 67, 68 
 
 Hopkinson, Francis, letter to Jefferson, 
 
 204; on Houdon’s bust of Washing- 
 ton, 204 
 
 Houdon, Anne-Ange, bust of, 256; mar- 
 riage, 274 
 
 Claudine, bust of, 256; marriage, 274 
 
 Jacques, 3, 17; 
 
 Jean Antoine, birth, 3; removes to 
 Paris, 3; takes a prize, 5, 6; wins 
 “Prix de Rome,” 6; bas-relief, “The 
 Queen of Sheba offers Presents to 
 King Solomon,” 6; enters lTcole des 
 Sieves Proteges, 7 ; studies under 
 Slodtz and Vanloo, 7; goes to Rome, 
 8; return to France, 8, 12; statue of 
 St. Bruno, 8; “Scorche,” 10; statue of 
 St. John the Baptist, 10; copy of a 
 Centaur, 1 1 ; Morpheus, 12, 13; first 
 exhibits at Salon, 13; Alexander the 
 Great, 15; bust of Bignon, 15; of 
 Mme. Bignon, 16; of Diderot, 16; 
 visits Gotha, 17; bust of Mme. 
 de Mailly, 17; refused to model 
 Washington except from life, 18; 
 busts of Miromesnil, Turgot, Sophie 
 Arnould, and Gliick, 18; model of 
 “Female leaving the Bath,” 18; Me- 
 dusa, 18; busts of children of Alex- 
 andre Brongniart, 19; busts of sculp- 
 tor’s children, 19; bust of Mile. Lise, 
 19; “Dead Thrush,” 19; busts of 
 Louis XVIII, of his wife, and of his 
 aunts Adelaide and Victoire, 20; let- 
 ter to Abbe Ruallemy, 21; letter in 
 Roberts collection, 22; Diana, 24; 
 forbidden the Salon, 24; too realistic, 
 25; mythological group on piano, 29; 
 head not turned by success, 30; the 
 greatest French sculptor, 31; Vol- 
 taire, 32; sits to, 34; bust of Vol- 
 taire at Comedie-Frangaise, 35; 
 crowned, 35, 38; Voltaire a V antique, 
 35 ; makes six marble busts of Vol- 
 taire, 36; casts hands of Voltaire, 36; 
 untiring industry, 43 ; rapidity of exe- 
 
Index 
 
 335 
 
 cution, 43; modeled bust of Wash- 
 ington and cast it in two weeks, 43 ; 
 bust of Moliere, 44; drawing by 
 Moreau shows bust, 47; supplants 
 Caffieri, 48; statue of Voltaire, 48; 
 presented to Comedie-Frangaise, 54; 
 impression made on beholders, 55 ; 
 Claude Phillips on, 55; Caffieri jeal- 
 ous of, 86; type of bust of Franklin, 
 97; comment upon, 101 ; Guiffrey 
 upon, 101 ; introduction to Franklin, 
 103; rendering of eyes, 104, hi; 
 busts of Franklin in this country, 105, 
 106; Rodin on, 108; bust of Moliere, 
 no; mask of Rousseau, 114; makes 
 three busts of Rousseau, 116-118; 
 pirated, 117; bust of Mirabeau, 122; 
 monument to de Tourville, 125; bust 
 of John Paul Jones, 125; universally 
 approved, 132; Biron bust of Jones 
 attributed to, 135; not Jones and not 
 by, 142; “the first sculptor of his cen- 
 tury,” 140; “the true master of his 
 epoch,” 140; “the great evocator of 
 physiognomies,” 141 ; “the magician 
 interpreter of the human face,” 150; 
 busts of Voltaire at Lodge of Nine 
 Sisters, 160; Lodge engages to make 
 bust of Jones, 167; “Female bathing 
 with Black Slave,” 176; “La Fri- 
 leuse,” 176; “Summer,” 177; bust of 
 La Fontaine, 177; bust of Mile. Rob- 
 ert, 177; busts of Louis and of Buf- 
 fon, 177; bust of La Rive, 177; cast- 
 ing in bronze, 178; Apollo, 179; casts 
 of Moliere, Buffon, Voltaire, Rous- 
 seau, and “ficorche,” 179; bust of 
 King of Sweden, 180; bust of Prince 
 Henry of Prussia, 180; bust of M. le 
 Pelletier de Mortfontaine, 180; bust 
 of de Bire, 180; bust of Le Noir, 180; 
 bust of Condo rcet, 180; engaged to 
 make statue of Washington, 183; “the 
 first statuary in the world,” 186; re- 
 
 fuses to make statue from picture, 
 187; offers to go to America, 188; 
 taken ill, 190; required life to be in- 
 sured, 190; wants to make busts of 
 Greene and Gates, 191; wants to 
 make equestrian statue to Washing- 
 ton, 191; meets Franklin, 194; makes 
 model of equestrian statue of Wash- 
 ington, 195; letter to Livingston, 196; 
 agreement for statue of Washington, 
 197; Houdon accompanies Franklin 
 to America, 198; trials of the voyage, 
 199; arrival, 199; Washington writes 
 to, 199; in Philadelphia, 200; arrives 
 at Mount Vernon, 200; remains two 
 weeks, 201 ; makes bust and mask of 
 Washington, 201; shows mask to 
 Rembrandt Peale, 201 ; sold at sale 
 of 1828, 201; letter to Franklin, 203; 
 Hopkinson on bust of Washington, 
 204; Thomson on bust of Washing- 
 ton, 205 ; shown to Congress, 205 ; 
 gives one to Franklin, 205; takes life- 
 mask with him to France, 206; work- 
 men take bust, 206; original in 
 Louvre, 206; original works in Amer- 
 ica, 207; bust of Washington exhib- 
 ited, 21 1 ; statue of Washington com- 
 pleted, 212; erected in Richmond, 
 213; payment for, 214; letter from, 
 in English, 214; claim for deprecia- 
 tion of assignats, 215; adjusted, 216; 
 receipt, 217; Gilbert Stuart on, 219, 
 n.; Lorado Taft on, 220; cast of, by 
 Hubard, 221; bust of Washington at 
 Mt. Vernon, 224; carried off by Clark 
 Mills, 224; copy of statue presented 
 to France, 225; selected to make bust 
 of La Fayette, 231; furnishes bust of 
 La Fayette, 232; presented to France, 
 233; placed in Hotel de Ville, 234; 
 makes second bust of La Fayette, 
 236; in Capitol at Richmond, 237; 
 busts of La Fayette unfortunate, 239; 
 
336 
 
 Index 
 
 close relations with Jefferson, 248; 
 takes mask of, 249; makes bust of, 
 249; busts of La Fayette, Necker, 
 Louis XVI, and Bailly destroyed, 249, 
 254; “La Frileuse,” 255 ; busts of wife 
 and children, 256; escapes the guillo- 
 tine, 257; saved by wife, 258; statue 
 of Saint Scholastique, 258; “Vestal 
 Virgin,” 260; Sale of 1795, 261; deco- 
 rated with Legion of Honor, 264; 
 models bust of Napoleon, 265; and 
 of Josephine, 265; models Bonaparte, 
 266; his Bonaparte and his Napoleon 
 the two best portraits of the man, 
 267; witticism of, 269; Voltaire for 
 the Pantheon, 270; last exhibit at Sa- 
 lon, 270; bust of Alexander of Russia, 
 271; King of Prussia and Humboldt 
 visit studio, 271; as a man, 272; his 
 character, 273; his marriage, 274; 
 visits the Theatre-Frangais, 275; Vol- 
 taire’s father, 275; death of, 276; his 
 fame, 276; statues to, 276, 284; “Salle 
 Houdon” in the Louvre, 277; rue 
 Houdon, 278; Chevalier of the Em- 
 pire, 278; commercial value of works, 
 278; his appearance, 282; model for 
 Gerard, 282 ; portraits of, 283 ; busts 
 of, 284; influence upon and by, 284; 
 Diderot and, 285. 
 
 Mme., Houdon’s bust of, 257; saves 
 Houdon from guillotine, 258; mar- 
 riage of, 273; children of, 273 
 Madeleine Pelagie, Houdon’s sister, 
 death of, 261 
 
 Sabine, 17; bust of, 256; marriage, 274 
 Hubard, W. J., makes cast of Houdon’s 
 Washington, 221; completed six in 
 bronze and one in plaster, 222 
 Hutton, James, letter from Franklin, 66 
 Laurence, wild statements by, 109 
 
 Inscription on statue of Washington, 182, 
 210 
 
 Ireland, birthplace of American patriots, 
 62 
 
 “Irene,” sixth representation of, 35 ; Vol- 
 taire present, 35; Houdon’s bust of 
 Voltaire crowned, 35 
 
 Irvine, William, Jones gives his bust to, 
 13 1 ; in existence, 132; in Pennsyl- 
 vania Academy of Fine Arts, 132 
 
 Jal, Augustin, description of Houdon, 282 
 
 Jardella, Giuseppe, copied busts, 98 
 
 Jeanes, Joseph Y., owns bust of Franklin, 
 106 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, letter from Dupont de 
 Nemours, 106; letter to Dupont de 
 Nemours, 107; selects Houdon to 
 make statue of Washington, 183, 193; 
 letters to Washington, 186, 190; let- 
 ter to Harrison, 186; letter to Rich- 
 ard Henry Lee, 191; letter to James 
 Monroe, 191 ; had laboring oar, 193; 
 letter to John Jay, 194; letter to Pat- 
 rick Henry, 196; Francis Hopkinson 
 to, 204; Charles Thomson to, 205; 
 relations with Houdon, 248; inter- 
 ested in art, 248; mask of, 249; bust 
 of, 249 
 
 Jones, John Paul, bust of, 125; used for 
 identifying remains, 125 ; inquiry into, 
 125; hats a la , 126; Grimm on, 126; 
 letter to Comtesse de la Vendahl, 126; 
 lock of his hair, 126; presented to the 
 King, 127; decorated, 127; given 
 sword, 127; in Paris, 126; return to 
 America, 127; invested with order, 
 127; order on Houdon’s bust, 128; 
 portraits of, 128; by Vendahl, Renaud, 
 Notte, Moreau, 128; James Barnes 
 on Houdon’s bust of, 128; gives busts 
 to Jefferson, Washington, and Robert 
 Morris, 129; duties demanded upon, 
 130; honored by Washington’s accep- 
 tance, 130; letter to William Short 
 
Index 
 
 337 
 
 about busts, 13 1; busts not received, 
 1 3 1 ; only one identified, 132; Peale’s 
 portrait not like, 132; gives away six- 
 teen busts, 134; two at National 
 Academy of Design, 135; C. H. Tay- 
 lor owns one, 135; Biron bust of, 135; 
 owned by J. P. Morgan, 135; bought 
 as unknown, 136; Dupre medal of, 
 137; F. D. Millet and Charles Grafly 
 think Biron bust not Jones, 137; 
 Dilke’s error concerning, 137, n . ; 
 identification of body, 138; Porter’s 
 report on, 138; in Paris, 142; Pa- 
 pillault on age of, 146; on height of, 
 146; on color of hair, 148; dimen- 
 sions of face, 149; stature, 148; lock 
 of hair, 149; nose of, 151; nose of ca- 
 daver, 1 5 1 ; concave vs. convex, 151; 
 Houdon’s bust an artistic creation, 
 154; initiated into Lodge of Nine Sis- 
 ters, 167; engages Houdon to make 
 bust, 167 
 
 Joubert, General, Houdon’s statue of, 270 
 
 Lacroix, Sigismond, edits Acts of the 
 Commune of Paris, 242; letter to, 
 243 ; letters from, 244, 245 
 
 La Fayette, letter to Washington, 189, 
 227, 235; appointed Major-General 
 before twenty, 226; Virginia votes 
 bust of, 227; Houdon selected to make 
 bust of, 231 ; placed in Hotel de Ville, 
 Paris, 234; appreciates gift of Vir- 
 ginia, 235 ; a second bust for Virginia, 
 236; in Capitol, 237; nose broken, 
 237; in State Library, 238; busts un- 
 fortunate, 238; that given to France 
 destroyed, 239, 246; history of, 243; 
 statue of Washington for, 245; bust 
 at Versailles, 246 
 
 La Fontaine, Houdon’s bust of, 177 
 
 La Rive, Houdon’s bust of, 177 
 
 L’Lcole des Eleves Proteges, 3, 4, 7 
 
 Le Moyne [Jean Baptiste], 5 ; bust of Vol- 
 taire, 39, 42; engraved by St. Aubin, 
 44 
 
 Le Noir, Houdon’s bust of, 180 
 Le Roy, M., bust of Franklin for, 77, 96 
 Lodge of the Nine Sisters, 155; Houdon 
 makes bust of J. P. Jones for, 155; 
 histories of, 155; founders of, 156; 
 Voltaire visits, 158; Franklin initiated 
 into, 159; has two busts of Voltaire 
 by Houdon, 160; celebrates birth of 
 Marie Antoinette’s first child, 161 ; 
 ladies admitted, 161 ; Mile. Roily ini- 
 tiated into, 162; charges against, 163; 
 action of the Grand Orient, 164; 
 Franklin elected Venerable, 165; Paul 
 Jones initiated into, 167; engages 
 Houdon to make Jones bust, 167; 
 Franklin takes farewell, 170; medals 
 issued by, 171; ceased to exist, 171; 
 revived, 171; coup de grace , 172 
 Louis, Dr., Houdon’s bust of, 177 
 Louis XV, 4 
 
 Louis XVI, statue to, by Congress, 81; 
 inscription for, 82 ; never was one, 84 ; 
 speech commemorated by tablet, 252; 
 bust by Houdon, 253 ; destroyed, 254 
 Louis XVIII, Houdon’s bust of, 20; bust 
 of Queen of, 20 
 
 Louvre Museum, 4, 5, 109, 206, 224, 256 
 Luzerne, Chevalier de la, gives fete, 127; 
 invests Paul Jones, 127; cross sent to, 
 128; celebrates birth of dauphin, 170 
 
 Mailly, J. C. de, 17 
 Mme., Houdon’s bust of, 17 
 Marigny, Marquis de, 7; Diana for, 
 
 25, 176 
 
 Mask of Washington by Houdon, 201; 
 Houdon shows it to Rembrandt Peale, 
 201 ; sold at sale of 1828, 201 ; bought 
 by Robert Walsh, 201 ; taken to 
 America, 201; given to John Struth- 
 
338 
 
 Index 
 
 ers, 201 ; given to Ferdinand Pettrick, 
 202; sold to W. W. Story, 202; sold 
 to J. P. Morgan, 202; history of, 
 201-202 
 
 Memoires Secrets, 100, 155; history of, 
 155 , n. 
 
 Metropolitan Museum of Art, owns Hou- 
 don’s bust of Franklin, 106; of Vol- 
 taire and of Rousseau, 279 
 
 Michelet on Houdon’s Bonaparte, 267 
 
 Milly, de, Comte, warden of Lodge of 
 Nine Sisters, 167 
 
 Mirabeau, death of, 123; mask of, 123; 
 Houdon’s bust of, 123; Louis Gonze 
 on, 124; heroic bust of, 262 
 
 Miromesnil, Houdon’s bust of, 18 
 
 Moliere, 40; Houdon’s bust of, no; in 
 Comedie-Frangaise, 112 
 
 Monroe, James, not authorized to buy 
 bust of Franklin, 106 
 
 Montgolfier, Houdon makes bust and 
 medal, 273 
 
 Montgomery, Alexander, member of Irish 
 parliament, 89 
 
 Richard, birth of, 62; commissioned en- 
 sign, 62; married Janet Livingston, 
 62; member of Congress, 62; Major- 
 General, 63; death of, 63; Congress 
 orders monument to, 64; Smith’s 
 oration on, 64; Franklin engages 
 Caffieri to make monument, 64; de- 
 sign exhibited, 65 ; monument shipped, 
 66; erected at St. Paul’s Church, New 
 York 69, 70; inscription on, 70; re- 
 mains interred beneath monument, 71 ; 
 monument dilapidated, 71 
 [Thomas], member of Irish parliament, 
 62 
 
 Montpellier, Museum at, Houdon’s works 
 in, 16, 177, 255, 278 
 
 Moreau, jeune , J. M., makes drawing of 
 “Crowning Bust of Voltaire,” 47; por- 
 trait of Jones, 128 
 
 Morgan, J. P., owns “the Biron bust of 
 
 J. P. Jones,” 135; owns Houdon’s 
 life-mask of Washington, 201 
 Morny, Due de, wants to buy statuette of 
 Voltaire, 38 
 
 Morpheus, at Gotha, 12, 14; at Louvre, 
 13, 14; Secret Memoirs on, 14 
 Morris, Robert, his “Folly,” 98; has bust 
 of Jones, 129; list of furniture, 130, n. 
 
 Napoleon, Houdon models bust of, 264; 
 at Versailles and at Dijon, 265; best 
 of all portraits of, 265 ; Armand 
 Dayot on, 265; Michelet on, 267 ; 
 anecdote of Houdon and, 268; colos- 
 sal statue of, 268; destroyed, 269 
 National Academy of Design, owns two 
 busts of J. P. Jones by Houdon, 135; 
 has reproductions made, 135; has 
 busts of Barlow and of Fulton, 263 
 Necker, Jacques, 249; Houdon’s bust of, 
 251; reproduced at Sevres, 252; in 
 Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 
 252; destroyed, 254 
 
 Mme., subscription for statue of Vol- 
 taire, 49; protest against Pigalle, 52 
 Newenham, Sir Edward, bust of Franklin, 
 89, 90 
 
 Ney, Marshal, Houdon’s bust of, 262 
 Nicholas I, not in sympathy with Vol- 
 taire, 37; sells statuette, 37 
 Nini, Jean Baptiste, five medallions of 
 Franklin, 76, 108 
 
 Noel, Tony, statue to Houdon, 277 
 Odeon Theatre, 57 
 
 Odeoud, Mile., Houdon’s bust of, 173 
 Ouis, C., letter from, 42 
 
 Palissot, Houdon’s bust of, 173 
 Papillault, Georges, on busts of J. P. 
 Jones, 139; analyzes them, 140; com- 
 pares bust and dead face, 142; takes 
 
Index 
 
 measurements, 143; age cannot be 
 fixed by corpse, 146; height of Jones 
 furnished, a forgery by Buell, 146; 
 views on discord between historical 
 documents and body, 150; any discord 
 puts an end to the demonstration, 15 1 
 Peale, Charles Willson, his portrait of 
 J. P. Jones not like, 132; ordered to 
 make portrait of Washington, 184; 
 furnishes portrait of Washington, 
 185 ; whereabouts unknown, 186 
 Rembrandt, sees Houdon’s life-mask of 
 Washington, 201; paints portrait of 
 Houdon, 283 
 
 Pelletier de Mortfontaine, Houdon’s bust 
 of, 180; mayor of Paris, 234 
 Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, has 
 bust of Franklin, 97; has Houdon’s 
 bust of Jones, 132; has bronze made, 
 132; has bust of Barlow, 263; has 
 portrait of Houdon, 283 
 Phillips, Claude, on Houdon’s St. Bruno, 
 9; on Houdon’s statue of Voltaire, 
 55; on Houdon’s Napoleon, 266; on 
 Houdon’s skill, 281 
 
 Pierre [Jean-Baptiste-Marie], 22, 23, 100 
 Pigalle, Jean-Baptiste, 4, 5 ; chosen to make 
 statue of Voltaire, 50; represents 
 Voltaire nude, 51; Voltaire’s verses 
 to, 52; statue of Voltaire in the Insti- 
 tute, 53; de Quincy on, 53 
 Pine, Robert Edge, 207, 208, n. 
 
 Porter, Horace, report on body of J. P. 
 Jones, 138; his “principle of elimina- 
 tion,” 145; adopts Buell’s forgeries 
 without investigation, 147, 148; letter 
 from, 152; letter to, from Mr. Hart, 
 153; answer from, 154 
 Portraiture, dissertation on, 279-282 
 Praslin, Due de, bust of, 173 
 Prussia, Prince Henry of, bust of, 180 
 
 Quesnay, Houdon’s bust of, 173 
 
 339 
 
 Quincy, Quatremere de, 13; on Pigalle’s 
 statue of Voltaire, 53 
 Rabache, Anne, mother of Houdon, 3 
 Racine, 40 
 
 Recamier, Mme., bust not by Houdon, 
 269, n.; by Chinard, 270, n. 
 
 Regamey, Felix, on Houdon’s Washing- 
 ton, 221, 224 
 
 Robert, Mile., Houdon’s bust of, 177 
 Rochette, Raoul, Houdon’s son-in-law, 
 
 4> 274 
 
 Rode, Mme., Houdon’s bust of, 262 
 Rodin, Auguste, on Houdon’s bust of 
 Franklin, 108 
 
 Roily, Mile., initiated into Lodge of Nine 
 Sisters, 162 
 
 Rome, Houdon wins Prix de, 6; goes to, 
 8; returns from, 11 
 Rosset-Dupont, bust of Voltaire, 49 
 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, bust of, by Le 
 Moyne, 41, 43; death of, 114; mask 
 of, 1 14, 1 16; in the Pantheon, 115; 
 by Houdon, pirated, 1 1 7 ; three dif- 
 ferent busts of, 1 1 7, 1 1 8; description 
 of, 1 1 7, 1 18; in Stephen Girard col- 
 lection, 1 1 8; statue to, 119 
 Ruallemy, Abbe, letter to, 21 
 Rulhiere, M. de, poem on Diana, 29 
 Russia, Catharine, Empress of, Houdon’s 
 bust of, 17, 24 
 
 Sachse, Julius F., errors by, 158 
 Saint Bruno, statue of, 8; compared with 
 Voltaire, 9; cast in Trocadero, 9 
 Saint John the Baptist, statue of, 10, 11 
 St. Aubin, Augustin de, engraved Le 
 Moyne’s bust of Voltaire, 44; Caffi- 
 eri’s tomb of Montgomery, 71; Co- 
 chin’s portrait of Franklin, 76 
 Salon, history of, 2, 11, n. 
 
 Saxe-Gotha, Duke of, 16, 24 
 Sculpture, original, 105 ; compared with 
 painting, 105 ; method of work, 105 
 
34 ° 
 
 Index 
 
 Serilly, Mme. de, Houdon’s bust of, 173 
 Short, William, Paul Jones writes to, 131; 
 sends lists of persons to have his bust, 
 13 1 ; secretary of Legation and charge 
 d’affaires, 180; sends bust of Condor- 
 cet to American Philosophical Society, 
 180; presents bust of La Fayette to 
 France for Virginia, 234 
 Shouwalow, Andre Paolovitch, buys statu- 
 ette of Voltaire, 37; refuses to sell it, 
 38 
 
 Jean, furnishes Voltaire data, 38 
 Slodtz [Rene-Michel], 5, 7 
 Smith, William, oration on Richard Mont- 
 gomery, 64 
 
 Soulavie, Abbe, memoirs, 83; friend of 
 Franklin, 84 
 
 Story, W. W., owns Houdon’s life-mask of 
 Washington, 202; error in regard to 
 bust by Houdon not being from life, 
 202 ; did not know bust in Louvre, 207 
 Stuart, Gilbert, placed Houdon’s Wash- 
 ington first, 219, n. 
 
 Taft, Lorado, on busts by Ceracchi, 99; 
 
 on Houdon’s Washington, 220 
 Taylor, C. H., has a bust of J. P. Jones 
 by Houdon, 135 
 
 Theatre-Frangais during siege of Paris, 
 
 58, 60^ 
 
 Thierry, fidouard, Director of Theatre- 
 Frangais, 58; letter from, 59 
 Thomson, Charles, letter to Jefferson, 
 205; on Houdon’s bust of Washing- 
 ton, 205 
 
 “Thrush, Dead,” 19, 20 
 Tournehem, Director-General of Royal 
 Buildings, 4 
 
 Tours, Museum at, Diana in, 25, 278 
 Tourville, Houdon’s statue of, 174; over- 
 crowded with symbols, 174 
 Traquair, James, offers busts for sale, 98 
 Tronchin, Houdon’s bust of, 173 
 
 Turgot, Houdon’s bust of, 18; in Ameri- 
 can Philosophical Society, 181 
 
 Vanloo [Louis-Michel], 7 
 Vendahl, Comtesse de la, letter to, from 
 John Paul Jones, 126; sends her lock 
 of hair, 126; portrait of Jones by, 
 128, 149; lock of Jones’s hair in her 
 miniature of him, 149; Jones sends 
 address of Lodge of Nine Sisters, 168 
 Versailles, Houdon born at, 3; Houdon’s 
 Napoleon and Josephine at, 268 
 Victoire of France, Houdon’s bust of, 20 
 Villette, M. de, Voltaire at house of, 33 
 Mme. de, 35 
 
 Villevieille, Marquis de, gets Voltaire to 
 sit to Houdon, 33, 34 
 
 Virginia, votes statue to Washington, 182; 
 votes bust to La Fayette, 227; changes 
 destination, 229, 231; votes bust to 
 France and to State, 230 
 Vitry, Paul, on Houdon’s Morpheus, 12, 
 13, 14; on Diana, 28 
 
 Voltaire, Houdon’s, 32; return of, to Paris, 
 33> 157; at house of M. de Villette, 
 33 ; sat to Houdon, 33 ; bust at Come- 
 die-Frangaise, 35 ; present at sixth rep- 
 resentation of “Irene,” 35 ; bust a V an- 
 tique, 35; cast of hands, 36; statuette 
 in St. Petersburg, 37; sold by Nicho- 
 las I, 37; bought by Shouwalow, 37; 
 bust by Houdon crowned, 38; bust by 
 Le Moyne, 39, 42, 46; drawing of 
 “Crowning of Bust,” 47; statue by 
 Houdon, 48; bust by Rosset-Dupont, 
 49; opinion of own appearance, 49; 
 Pigalle chosen to make statue, 50; 
 represents him nude, 51; verses to 
 Pigalle, 52 ; statue in the Institute, 53 ; 
 Houdon’s statue presented to Come- 
 die-Frangaise, 54; Claude Phillips on 
 Houdon’s statue, 55 ; Houdon’s statue 
 during siege of Paris, 58-61; a Free- 
 
Index 
 
 341 
 
 mason, 157; visits Lodge of Nine Sis- 
 ters, 158; death of, 159; statue for 
 the Pantheon, 270 
 
 Walferdin, M., bequeaths bust of Frank- 
 lin and of Washington to the Louvre, 
 109, 206 
 
 Washington, statue of, 182; inscription, 
 182; equestrian statue, 183; Peale 
 paints portrait of, 185; description of, 
 185; whereabouts unknown, 186; cost 
 of, 186; letters from Jefferson to, 186; 
 190, 208; Houdon refuses to make 
 statue from painting, 187; offers to go 
 to America, 188; letter from La Fay- 
 ette, 189; advised of Houdon’s ar- 
 rival, 199; writes to Houdon, 199; en- 
 ters in diary Houdon’s arrival, 200; 
 Houdon makes bust and mask of, 201 ; 
 
 mask owned by J. P. Morgan, 201 ; 
 shows mask of, to Rembrandt Peale, 
 201; bust modeled from life, 203; ex- 
 hibited to Congress, 203; Francis 
 Hopkinson upon, 204; W. T. Frank- 
 lin upon, 204; Charles Thomson upon, 
 205 ; exhibited to Congress, 205 ; orig- 
 inal in Louvre, 205 ; costume for 
 statue, 208; bust by Houdon exhib- 
 ited, 21 1 ; statue completed, 212; 
 erected in Richmond, 213; Houdon’s 
 likeness of, 218; exact size of life, 
 219; the canon of comparison for all 
 other portraits, 219; Lorado Taft on, 
 220; Hubard’s cast of, 221; Houdon’s 
 bust at Mt. Vernon, 224; carried off 
 by Clark Mills, 224; copy presented 
 by Virgina to France, 225; fitienne 
 Charles upon, 225; by Houdon, for 
 La Fayette, 244; heroic bust of, 262 
 

 
 
' 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 GETTY CENTER LIBRARY