Jean-Baptiste Colbert and the Invention of the Modern

Jean-Baptiste Colbert and the Invention of the Modern Architect

Ron JelacoMcGill University

Whenever I run into a problem that I can't solve, I make it bigger.Dwight Eisenhower

Introduction: Colbert and the deeper structure

It was said that when the wind blew in Paris, Jean-Baptiste Colbert sought word of the safety of

his ships in the Mediterranean Sea.1 Colbert was a very cautious, calculative man. His biographers

describe him as somber, harsh, obstinate, sarcastic, and having,"the

persistence of a leech."2 He held private beliefs that he made public.

He structured his various goals in life with discipline and guiding

principles, but those principles could also be unceremoniously aban-

doned if they happened to interfere with more immediate victories.

Colbert was intensely self-disciplined and "a demon for work." He

held the laziness of beggars, the unproductiveness of the clergy, and

the exemptions granted to the rich in equal disdain. As the finance

minister for Louis XIV, he was prudent to the point of parsimonious.

His devotion to Louis was unconditional, and he expected equal loyalty from his own creatures. Dur-

ing his tenure, except in the departments of war and foreign affairs there were no significant govern-

mental undertakings where Colbert was not the dominant figure. He involved himself in every level of

For I am building in the human understanding a true model of the world,such as it is in fact, not such as man's own reason would have it be.

Francis Bacon

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts:but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.

Francis Bacon

1 A variation of this essay was presented to the Society of Architectural Historians at their 2013 annual conference in Buffalo, New York, on April 11th.

2 When considering whether to rise early and work, or work late into the night, it is said that Colbert decided that rising early and retiring late would suit him best. See Trout, p. 116. See also Cole, p. 281 where the following letter to Mazarin is published: "But you can assure him, [Your Eminence] that this time has been employed usefully for his business, to which, I can say truthfully, I give all my time, having no pleasure, diversion, or any other business, and loving work as if by nature."

state affairs: in a single memorandum to Louis he reported the status of the Dutch war, as well as the

news that a particular calf at Versailles was ready to butcher.

Colbert's merchant education would have included no classical studies, yet somewhere he acquired

a high regard for Roman antiquity. He loved Paris and openly aspired to turn it into a “new Rome.”

He was outspoken and sincere about his admiration for architecture, especially in how it has symbol-

ized power and prosperity through history. It is not insignificant that the first position he sought was

the superintendency of the royal buildings, nor that he later personally founded France’s Academy of

Architecture. Colbert conceived many ambitious architecture projects for Paris, and never stopped

trying to convince Louis that all great empires had great capital cities, and that was with great archi-

tecture and not wars that emperors achieve their glory.

We are therefore made to wonder. Considering the enormous importance of the Louvre Palace de-

sign, what could have possibly persuaded the definitively cautious Colbert to award that architectural

commission to the medical doctor, Claude Perrault? The Louvre was arguably the most important pro-

ject in Europe in a century. Likewise, Colbert may have been the most deliberate minister. Yet Per-

rault had absolutely no previous experience as an architect. Why take this risk? Colbert strikes us nei-

ther as a careless risk-taker, nor a man prone to impulsive decisions. Can we be alerted that his Lou-

vre actions are pointing to something deeper? Exploring this question becomes the starting point of

this essay.

But before we go further, it needs to be said that calling Perrault the architect of the Louvre has

never been done without controversy. Perrault never publicly claimed authorship, and is recorded as

mentioning it only once in a private conversation with his friend Leibniz.3 And we now know that se-

rious scholarship shows conclusively that Claude Perrault was not the author of the Louvre east fa-

Jelaco /March rewrite v.2.pages/7 March, 2013

-- 2 --

3 See Leibniz, “Mons. Perrault, le medecin de l'Academie royale des sciences, auteur du Vitruve françois, m'a conté aujourd'hui (22 Janvier) quantité de choses remarquables touchant le bâtiment du Louvre. Mons. Colbert, ayant pris la surintendance des bâtiments pour achever le Louvre, fit faire des desseins par les habiles architectes de France. Mons. de Veau, premier architecte du roy, en donna un comme pour servir de base; les autres le contrôlèrent, firent des remarques là dessus et donnèrent leur dessein. Mons. Colbert en tira de lui même l'essence, ayant écrit 4 feuilles d'écriture menue de sa main pour en faire rapport au roy. Mons. Perrault, frère du médecin, qui est a présent le con-trôleur général des bâtiments et jardins de France (il y en a 4 qui servent par quartier), et qui exerce sous Mons. Colbert l'intendance des bâtiments était en ce temps connu de Mons. Colbert, et prestait la plume a une Académie des belles lettres dont Mons. Colbert était le protecteur et de la quelle estaient Monsieur Chapelain scavantissime pour le grec et qui a traduit Xenophon, Mons. Charpentier et quelques autres.”

cade, at least not in any traditional sense.4 But, the fact that Perrault has been referred to as the archi-

tect of the Louvre for so long despite the doubt and evidence to the contrary points to something inter-

esting: that the notion of what an architect is and does, seems to be in flux in the story of the Louvre --

perhaps for the first time in history.

The familiar explanations of Perrault's rise to architectural prominence usually focus on Perrault

himself. However, this essay considers another possibility: that by focusing our historical gaze only on

the individuals and events of an age, we overlook a larger, deeper structure of intentions and strategies

that may have been organizing actions and giving them their meaning. And, that it was these underly-

ing strategies that gave Colbert a deep confidence and motivation that in some way mitigated his risk.

This essay explores the possibility that with Louis's patronage and the command of his subordinates,

Colbert was attempting to implement a plan of renewal and unification of knowledge — something

along the lines of Francis Bacon’s “Instauratio Magna,” published in parts earlier in the 17th Century,

and that the renewal of architectural knowledge was primary in Colbert’s renewal plan.

Bacon: New Atlantis and the House of Salomon

By the end of the 16th Century, Aristotle's world view was loosing authority, particularly at Cam-

bridge where Francis Bacon was a student. Bacon argued that Aristotle's logic based on syllogisms

was unsuitable in the modern age. For Aristotle, a statement is true when its conclusion follows from

its premises; premises that are incontrovertibly true. But for Bacon, it is the premises themselves that

should be questioned.5 The entire structure of syllogistic logic fails, in Bacon’s critique, as that thinking


-- 3 --

4 See Robert W. Berger, The Palace of the Sun : The Louvre of Louis Xiv (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993).

5 “Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far.…” “Now my method, though hard to practice, is easy to explain; and it is this. I propose to establish progressive stages of certainty. The evidence of the sense, helped and guarded by a certain process of correction, I retain. But the mental operation which follows the act of sense I for the most part reject; and instead of it I open and lay out a new and certain path for the mind to proceed in, starting directly from the simple sensuous perception.”

is, “by no means equal to the subtlety of nature”.6 Instead, Bacon conceived of a methodological

framework of gradual reduction based on inductive reasoning. Bacon's methods require a return to the

raw evidence in the world, “starting directly from the simple sensuous perception.”7 Investigators ob-

serve the world in a state of unaffected wonder, accumulating instances of experience.8 These observa-

tions are collected and then interpreted through various stages of 'intellectual machinery.' Through

these interpretative stages, the investigators derive increasing narrowing axioms that gradually move

human understanding towards a faithful comprehension of the world -- an understanding build on fac-

tual experience and not on abstract principles. A significant part of Bacon’s plan is devoted to address-

ing the inherent impediments to attaining clear reason. By far, experience is the best proof, says Ba-

con, but human experience, and consequently all knowledge of the world, is inevitably contingent on

the distortions inherent in our various human conditions. Consequently, Bacon's system makes allow-

ances for this corruption of knowledge by fragmenting the observations into multiple layers of investi-

gators, all with unique perspectives, who patiently and cooperatively construct a faithful understand-

ing of reality.

Bacon published his thinking in several treatises, and three are noteworthy here. In The Advance-

ment of Learning (1605), Bacon articulated his critique of Aristotelian philosophy and attempted to per-

suade the royalty of England to adopt his massive reorganization plan. A decade later in The New Or-

ganon, he organized his plan into two books of aphorisms. But it may have been his strange fictional


-- 4 --

6 See The New Organon, Book I., XIII.

7 The New Organon, Preface.

8 The difference between 'experience' and 'experiment' in the 17th Century is interesting. The difference in the meanings is significant to us today, but it wasn't so clear cut in Bacon's texts. He uses the term 'experience' but he had a serious fascination with experimentation. What relieved a potential sticking point is Bacon's idea of what an experiment was. Unlike the experiment of modern science, an inductive experiment could never begin with a hy-pothesis. It does not try to prove something that is believed to be true prior to the experiment. For Bacon, an 'ex-periment' is more an investigation of a wonder, or setting up a condition in nature to see what might happen. Conse-quently, Bacon’s ‘experiment’ is closer to everyday background experience.

work, New Atlantis (1624) that had the greatest impact in Colbert's Paris.9 In New Atlantis, Bacon retells

the story of The New Organon as a didactic fable. In his tale, shipwrecked sailors discover a hidden soci-

ety named Bensalem that is operating in perfect social harmony and efficiency.10 This virtuous civiliza-

tion was committed to the discovery of the knowledge of the world, and showing that the pursuits of

scientific knowledge is not incompatible with a life of religious devotion. And at the heart of Bensalem

was an esteemed institution that the brethren of Bensalem called The House of Salomon where they

carried out their research and discovery. 11

Colbert and the renewal of architecture

Bacon is remembered primarily for his influence on modern science, but his plan was to affect

knowledge in its totality. “All of knowledge is my province,” wrote Bacon.12 And if Colbert was indeed

attempting to implement a broad, Baconian-like plan, there is good reason to believe that the renewal

of the knowledge of architecture would have been in the front of his thoughts.

I submit that after gaining control over all royal architecture in January 1664, Colbert's actions

show that he launched a project to reorganize architectural thinking, following a Baconian-like plan.

A few months after he assumed control of the king’s building program, he began dispatching envoys of


-- 5 --

9 All three of the mentioned treatises were written in Latin and were therefore read by the Parisian savants from the time of their original publishing. Colbert’s Latin was probably not good, but he did exchange correspondence with Jean Chapelain in Latin. A French rewrite of New Atlantis was available after 1631. Colbert biographer Jacob Soll links Colbert to Bacon, but he can only say for sure that Colbert "knew of" Bacon. Of course, it is fair to say that in 17th Europe, nearly everyone knew of Bacon. (Dana J.) Pierre Amboise's French Edition, 1631(Histoire Naturelle de Mre Francois Bacon, Paris, 1631) – this first French translation of New Atlantis has never been thoroughly stud-ied. It contains interesting omissions, changing names within Solomon's House, interesting editorial choices. NA presented as the practical part of Bacon's instauration, Solomon's House being the necessary device to put into prac-tice Sylva's program. Moreover, in the French preface to NA, Bacon is said to have started the building of Solomon's House (Gorhambury is presented as a House of experiments, Bacon's correspondence as a way to create an interna-tional academy etc.).

10 "But hear me now, and I will tell you what I know. You shall understand that there is not under the heavens so chaste a nation as this of Bensalem; nor so free from all pollution or foulness. It is the virgin of the world."

11 New Atlantis, p. 4, in Bacon, Francis, Robert Leslie Ellis, Douglas Denon Heath, and James Spedding. The Works of Francis Bacon ... Collected and Edited by James Spedding ... R. L. Ellis ... And D. D. Heath. 14 vol. Longman & Co. etc.: London. 1857-74. "Ye shall understand (my dear friends) that amongst the excellent acts of that king, one above all hath the pre-eminence. It was the erection and institution of an Order or Society, which we call Salomon's House; the noblest foundation (as we think) that ever was upon the earth; and the lanthorn of this kingdom. It is dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God. Some think it beareth the founder's name a little corrupted, as if it should be Solamona's House. But the records write it as it is spoken. So as I take it to be de-nominate of the king of the Hebrews, which is famous with you, and no stranger to us."

12 Letter to William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, published in The Works of Francis Bacon: Baron of Verulam, Vis-count St. Alban, and Lord High Chancellor of England 14 Vols. (1870) James Spedding, Robert L. Ellis, Douglas D. Heath, editors, Vol. VIII p. 109.

investigators to travel the world to experience

and record the architecture they observed.

He sent a party to Asia, and sent his own son,

accompanied by architect François Blondel,

on a research expedition through much of

Europe and western Asia with orders to ob-

serve and record the architecture they discov-

ered. At about the same time, Colbert moved

to abort the design work that architect Louis Le Vau had been carrying out on the Louvre. Once Le

Vau's project was halted, Colbert proposed a radical idea: he sent out a call to all architects in France

and encouraged them to submit fresh ideas of their own.13 Soon afterward, he expanded the call to It-

aly, which resulted in Gianlorenzo Bernini’s famous sojourn to Paris in 1665. But Bernini's ethereal

claims -- like the beauty of his drawings must surely invoke God's own hand -- and Colbert's incessant

badgering over the impracticalities of those same drawings wore on the two men, and five months after

he arrived, Bernini returned to Rome with his commission ended.

We can now look back at these actions and say that if Colbert were implementing a Baconian-like

strategy for a renewal of architectural thinking, this might have been how he would have initiated it.

As we know, a Bacon-like project would begin with the widest research gathering as possible. At the

House of Salomon, Bacon's narrator describes the occupations of his primary researchers this way:

"[We] have twelve that sail into foreign countries, under the names of other nations,

(for our own we conceal;) who bring us the books, and abstracts, and patterns of expe-

riences of all other parts. These we call Merchants of Light."14


-- 6 --

13 Perrault, Charles, and Jeanne Morgan Zarrucchi. Charles Perrault : Memoirs of My Life. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989.., pp. 54-5. “See also, “Registre ou Journal des délibérations & résolutions touchant les Bâtimens du Roi” found in “Sources II” in Berger, Robert W. The Palace of the Sun : The Louvre of Louis Xiv. Uni-versity Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Pp. 123-4.

14 [Cite per bibilo. version.] And elsewhere,"Every twelve years there should be set forth out of this kingdom two ships, appointed to several voyages; That in either of these ships there should be a mission of three of the Fellow or Brethren of Solomon's House; whose errand was only to give us knowledge of the affairs and state of those countries to which they were designed, and especially of the sciences, arts, manufactures, and inventions of all the world; and withal to bring unto us books, instruments, and patterns in every kind." see Soll, pp. 97-98

It seems that the men Colbert appointed to his research missions, as well as those whose Louvre

ideas he solicited, could be Colbert's version of Bacon's Merchants of Light. Further, it can be said

that the termination of Le Vau's design and the rejection of Bernini's schemes could also figure into a

Baconian comparison. Bacon's rejection of the Aristotelian logic included the rejection of “the spell of

antiquity” that “has so shackled men’s courage”.15 Colbert would have likely seen Le Vau as being in

line with ancient authority, and would have wanted to end that lineage at the Louvre.16 In fact, it could

be said that Colbert's experience with Bernini and the absence of experiential evidence that confronted

him as he listened to him defend his drawings may have provided Colbert with all the justification that

he needed to initiate his plan. Following the Bernini encounters, he likely would have had little diffi-

culty convincing any sceptics in his circle that architecture was one discipline that would certainly

benefit from an inductive investigation.

It is also known that throughout the design phase of the Louvre, Colbert directed a private review

committee that included Le Vau, architect François Mansart, and painter Charles Le Brun. After

Mansart's death in September of 1666, Colbert filled the open position with Perrault, and then made

his Petit Conseil official. Although it is usually suggested that this committee was assembled chiefly to

produce a new design for the Louvre, it merits noting that it was also well positioned to scrutinize

every other proposal as well.17

In the following spring, Colbert directed his Petit Conseil to produce new design drawings for the

Louvre. He provided his committee with a list of requirements, but was emphatic about one particular

demand: they were to fully collaborate. They were instructed to work,


-- 7 --

15 “With regard to authors, it is a mark of supreme cowardice to give unlimited credit to authors and to deny its rights to Time, the author of authors and thus of all authority. For truth is rightly called the daughter of time and not of authority. Therefore it is no wonder if the spell of antiquity, of authors and of consent has so shackled men’s courage that (as if bewitched) they have been unable to get close to things themselves.” The New Organon, Book I, LXXXIV

16 See Gerbino. He completely reorients the debate between Blondel and Perrault: away from the ancients vrs. the moderns to a debate of the methods of erudition, claiming that Perrault was being critical of text-based erudition, not the more general category of ‘ancients’.

17 And there is evidence that the Petit Conseil did review previous schemes, notably François Le Vau's proposal of 1664 that included the famous paired columns for the first time. See Berger. Berger's conclusion that the real origin for the paired column scheme came from Le Brun himself, through a design a few years earlier made by François Le Vau suggests that the committee was indeed analyzing the elements of prior schemes to get their inspiration.

“in agreement and in cooperation on all the designs that they would have to do for the

completion of the Palais du Louvre, so that these designs would be regarded as the

work of three of them equally, and that to preserve the union and harmony, none could

be said to be the particular author to the detriment of the others.”18

Following Colbert's orders, the designers summarized their work in two separate designs, and after

deliberations with Colbert and probably others,19 Louis chose the Colonnade scheme with its famously

original paired-columns.

The parallels that can be drawn here between Colbert's actions and a Baconian-like strategy seem

significant. Similar to Colbert’s organization, Bacon's House of Salomon relied on a hierarchical struc-

ture of collaborators -- all set to interpret and evaluate the raw experiential data that are handed up

from other collaborators through levels of inductive methodology. So -- that the review committee

would be a collaboration of men from three unique backgrounds in Colbert's plans could be seen as an

application of a Baconian-like plan, as this de-centring of authority and opening-up for discrete inter-

pretations are fundamental to both. In this light, Perrault’s curious position as doctor of the Petit Conseil

is no longer so difficult to understand -- his scientifically-oriented perspective had a unique value when

mixed among those equally unique points of view of painter and architect. It therefore can be asserted

that in trying to align his own plan with one like Bacon's, Colbert established a committee of distinct

points of view, and consequently dividing the authority that would normally be granted a traditional

architect like Le Vau or Bernini, among three individuals with three different perspectives -- and only

one with experience as an architect.


-- 8 --

18 Author’s translation. From “Registre ou Journal des délibérations & résolutions touchant les Bâtimens du Roi." First published in J. A. Piganiol de La Force, Description de Paris .., Paris, 1742, 11, 627-637, Found in Berger, R., pp. 123-4. ...Monseigneur le Surintendant [Colbert] ayant consideré qu'aucun des Architectes tant de France que d'Italie, n'avait entierement réussi dans les desseins du Louvre qu'ils ont donnés, & ayant estimé que cet ouvrage demandait le génie, la science & l'application de plusieurs personnes qui joignant ensemble leurs differens talens, se secoureroient l'un l'autre & s'aideraient mutuellement, & pour cet effet ayant jetté les yeux sur Messieurs le Vau, le Brun & Perrault, il les manda & fit venir chez lui le Avril 1667. & après leur avoir expliqué son intention, & fait entendre qu'il désirait qu'ils travaillassent unanimement & conjointement à tous les desseins qu'ils y auroit à faire pour l'achevement du Palais du Louvre, en sorte que ces desseins seraient regardés comme l'ouvrage d'eux trois également, & que pour conserver l'union & bonne intelligence, aucun ne pourrait s'en dire l'auteur particulierement au préjudice des autres. Il leur ordonna de travailler incessament en commun à former un plan & une élévation de la façade de l'entrée vers saint Germain [-l'Auxerrois].

19 Colbert called on the services of Roland Fréart de Chambray on several occasions to solicit his intervention. See Chantelou and Berger.

Taking the above comparisons into account: the world-wide architecture research missions; the

mass-solicitation of design ideas from France and Italy; the multiple levels of independent design re-

view; the sorting and merger of ideas by the design committee; and the final proclamation by Louis,

then it begins to appear that the research and design system that Colbert conducted seems to be a

more than reasonable facsimile of the structure of the House of Salomon. And by the end, Colbert

must have been confident that his committee had the opportunity to analyze every possible Louvre

option, derived from multiple and unique perspectives, and had methodically arrived at the optimum

scheme. At that point, he must have seen no purpose for further architectural genius, just the abundant

clarity that only a king could provide.20 Of course, Colbert needed something else: someone with

enough organizational skills and intellectual competence to take the design through construction. For

that and other reasons, he gave the management of the project to the doctor, who as a scholar and

skilled rhetorician, a developing draughtsman, and as we will soon see, someone who was most likely

highly attuned to Colbert's deeper objectives, was a reasonable choice.21

But if Colbert was implementing this massive reorganization of knowledge, why did he never ad-

mit it, or take credit for it? There are several possible answers to this question. First, by the 1660's,

Bacon's inductive plan was already more than fifty years old, and there were no scholars in the West-

ern World who did not know it. So, it is possible that a plan involving Bacon's ideas may have just

been so deeply buried in the background of European intellectual thought that they just no longer rose

to a level of discourse, or that the concepts of Bacon’s strategies were not already completely subsumed

by larger terminologies, like “modern”.


-- 9 --

20 Bacon states that his plan could only be successful if it had the support and involvement of a king or pope, but he was never successful at getting royal cooperation in England. An unspoken position of this essay is that Colbert felt himself to be in a different position in France. He was optimistic that given that he was working with a new, young, competitive King who was undoubtedly familiar with the Baconian plan and what it may mean for the status of France, Colbert had a much stronger chance of acting on the new system.

21 If we take a moment to look beyond the Louvre project, we might see Colbert's plan being implemented in his other enterprises as well -- most notably in his Academy of Sciences, which he established at about the same time as the Louvre project. Historians have often compared Colbert's Academy to the House of Salomon, with its inductive operational methods carried out by savants from diversified backgrounds. Elsewhere, Colbert's prolific obsession with collecting books and manuscripts, and his almost indiscriminate acquisition of various European libraries also can be seen as to have an affiliation to a New Organon tenet. His merger of those books into one large state library -- the first ever -- can also be a part of his parallel Baconian plan and the massive information system that was put to work at the House of Solomon.

Or, perhaps the answer may point directly to the heart of his character. A belief that underpinned

Colbert's policy-making was that the European economy was essentially static. He did not believe that

France could gain without another country losing ground to her.22 He was undoubtedly aware that

Bacon-inspired plans were at the time in various stages of implementation in Florence, Spain, the Vati-

can, and England,23 and we can be certain that he would not have been inclined to make public any of

his competitive strategies.

And lastly, Bacon's plan itself provides a possible explanation to Colbert's unwillingness to ever

discuss his deeper plan. As we've heard, Bacon's Merchants of Light worked with their identities and

intentions concealed. For Bacon, the process of collecting knowledge is a confidential exercise. Bacon

believed that the goal of mankind was to make knowledge useful, and knowledge that is disseminated

widely cannot maintain its validity and effectiveness. It must be collaboratively built into a useful

structure. Furthermore, even the investigators themselves are isolated from the purposefulness of their

discoveries in order to save the validity of their phenomena. The brethren of House of Salomon had

many reasons to value their secrecy, and so did Colbert.

However, that is not to say that there is no evidence that might link Colbert and Bacon. The

strongest material link can be found in a letter to Colbert from Christiaan Huygens, who along with

his father was an outspoken champion of Baconian methods, and leader of Colbert's Academy of

Sciences.24 In his letter, Huygens reminded Colbert that the principal occupation of his new Company

of scientists ought to be to work on a natural history by following, "the design of Verulam". Baron Ve-


-- 10 --

22 As Colbert wrote to King Louis XIV in 1669, "This state is flourishing not only in itself, but also by the want which it has inflicted upon all the neighboring states." (find citation)

23 See citation….

24 Huygens (Dutch) was brought in to lead the Académie and Cassini (Bolognese) to direct the Observatory. [Ron Jelaco, 2013-02-09 6:33 AM The claim (by Hahn) that Huygens was brought in to lead the Académie is important. See comment below 2013-02-07 9:27 .] (Hahn, Louis XIV and Science Policy, in Sun King. p. 198) See also his own citation, "See Roger, "la politique intellectuelle," and Hahn, "Huygens and France."[Ron Jelaco, 2013-02-07 9:27 AM Huygens is the only one that I’ve seen who is documented in vocally promoting Baconian strategies with Colbert. Huygens’ alignment is very clearly defined. So, if Colbert recruited him to create the plan, and then put him in charge, then that is a de facto endorsement of a Baconian strategy for the Académie. It of course is reaf-firmed in the Preface of the “Natural History of Animals.”

rulam was Bacon's knighted name and nom de plume. Colbert endorsed Huygens' reminder by writ-

ing: “bon” in the margin next to the reference to Bacon.25

Conclusion: Colbert and the invention of the modern architect

If the assertions made here are carried out to their end -- that is, if all the activities related

to the design of the Louvre project were under the direct control of Colbert, and that the indi-

viduals associated with that project were acting under his careful supervision; and further,

that he was following a plan similar to the one proposed by Francis Bacon, as part of a deeper

strategy to renew and reorganize the thinking about architecture -- then what conclusions

might we draw? Was a new kind of architect invented?

To begin, we must accept that it is impossible to believe that the Louvre design could have been

the product of a single individual. Entrusting the origins of this project to any single authority would

have contradicted utterly the most fundamental tenet of Colbert's plans. Rather, only an opposite set of

circumstances could have been possible: the Louvre design could have only come about as the end re-

sult of a methodological process that engaged many participants in varying positions and diverse back-

grounds, who considered multiple options before arriving at an optimum scheme. In the scenario that

results from these assertions, architectural thinking could have begun only in a setting of uncertainty

and wonder, not theoretical predicates and predetermining frameworks. I contend that the history of

events as we can now rejudge them seem to bear out these assertions.

And further, we can now sketch another comparison: between the consequences of Colbert’s 17th

Century experiment and that of a contemporary architectural practice. If we keep the consequences of

Colbert’s structure in mind then we see these elements: the adoption and reliance on a traceable, de-

fensible process; the de-centring of design authority and the routine division of skills and expertise; the

fragmentation of history, perception and design elements and the interrogation of variations that work

to define the optimum variation; and most importantly, the opening up to the possibility of innovation.

The comparison to a contemporary architecture practice is striking.


-- 11 --

25 “… La principale occupation de cette assemblée et la plus utile doit estre, à mon avis, de travailler à l’histoire naturelle, à peu près suivant la dessein de Verulam.” [Huygens’ Memoires]

Did Colbert trust the teams of investigators and decision-makers that he created more than he

would have the traditional architect? Did posing architecture problems to men of “generosity and en-

lightenment, dignity and splendour, piety and public spirit,” like both the brethren at the House of

Salomon and his men of Paris, make more sense to Colbert than relying upon the ungrounded scho-

lasticism of the traditional architect? It seems that he did. But could he have anticipated these ends?

Hardly. In Colbert’s plans, the ends could never amount to more than the consequence of their meth-

odology. We might say that the architecture of the Louvre is the result of an experiment, born in the

wonder of what might be possible, and then nudged along judiciously in the cooperative deliberations

of men from diverse disciplines, who gradually elevated it through interpretive stages up to the highest

levels of certainty. It arrived via a verifiable methodology and grounded conclusions — and not relying

upon contentious, unprovable beliefs.

And the new horizons brought onto the scene by Colbert’s deeper structure brought with

them their own set of possibilities that were theretofore either unthought or marginal, but

could now be explored with new authority. Within those new horizons, the continuity of

history and perception could be reduced to fragmented “instances” of knowledge (or,

“information”) that could forever be interrogated and reassembled from an infinite variety of

perspectives. And where there is neither continuity nor a knowable telos, then the actions of

men can only be guided by their own pursuits, and the motivating power of their inquiry. In

an important sense, innovation could not have been anticipated or even desired at the Louvre,

but it was nonetheless inevitable. If modern architecture does indeed begin at the Louvre, and

if the modern architect were invented there, then it was done so by Colbert and his

persistence to follow a plan; one in which he invested his faith and toil. But, it would also

mean that it was done so inadvertently.


-- 12 --

Documents

Jean-Baptiste Colbert and the Invention of the Modern