But modern academic French sculpture feels the weight of De Musset’s handicap—­it is born too late into a world too old.  French art in general feels this, I think, and painting suffers from it equally with sculpture.  Culture, the Institute, oppress individuality.  But whereas Corot and Millet have triumphed over the Institute there are—­there were, at least, till yesterday—­hardly any Millets and Corots of sculpture whose triumph is as yet assured.  The tendency, the weight of authority, the verdict of criticism, always conservative in France, are all the other way.  At the Ecole des Beaux-Arts one learns, negatively, not to be ridiculous.  This is a great deal; it is more than can be learned anywhere else nowadays—­witness German, Italian, above all English exhibitions.  Positively one learns the importance of style; and if it were not for academic French sculpture, one would say that this was something the importance of which could not be exaggerated.  But in academic French sculpture it is exaggerated, and, what is fatal, one learns to exaggerate it in the schools.  The traditions of Houdon are noticeably forgotten.  Not that Houdon’s art is not eminently characterized by style; the “San Bruno” at Rome is in point of style an antique.  But compare his “Voltaire” in the foyer of the Comedie Francaise with Chapu’s “Berryer” of the Palais de Justice, to take one of the very finest portrait-statues of the present day.  Chapu’s statue is more than irreproachable, it is elevated and noble, it is in the grand style; but it is plain that its impressiveness is due to the fact that the subject is conceived as the Orator in general and handled with almost a single eye to style.  The personal interest that accentuates every detail of the “Voltaire”—­the physiognomy, the pose, the right hand, are marvellously characteristic—­simply is not sought for in Chapu’s work.  Of this quality there is more in Houdon’s bust of Moliere, whom of course Houdon never saw, than in almost any production of the modern school.  Chapu’s works, and such exceptions as the heads of Baudry and Renan already mentioned, apart, one perceives that the modern school has made too many statues of the Republique, too many “Ledas” and “Susannahs” and “Quand-Memes” and “Gloria Victis.”  And its penchant for Renaissance canons only emphasizes the absolute commonplace of many of these.

On the other hand, if Houdon’s felicitous harmony of style and individual force are forgotten, there is hardly any recognized succession to the imaginative freedom, the verve, the triumphant personal fertility of Rude and Carpeaux.  At least, such as there is has not preserved the dignity and in many instances scarcely the decorum of those splendid artists.  Much of the sculpture which figures at the yearly Salons is, to be sure, the absolute negation of style; its main characteristic is indeed eccentricity; its main virtues, sincerity (which in art, of course, is only a very elementary virtue) and good modelling