[114] The most authoritative French writers are misleading in affirming that no radical departure from their best building traditions was made by the French architects of the Renaissance. Thus Viollet le Duc (Dict., vol. 3, _s. v._ _Château_, p. 174) says of these architects, “Toujours fidèles a leurs anciens principes, ils ne sacrifièrent pas la raison et le bon sens.” But while affirming this, these same writers sometimes make admissions which so materially qualify the affirmation as to deprive it of its truth; thus the same author, remarking on the changes that were making in the character of the château, adds (p. 185), “Nous accordons que la tentative était absurde; mais la renaissance française est, à son début, dans les lettres, les sciences ou les arts, pleine de ces hésitations.”
[115] Martin, _Hist. de France_, vol. 7, pp. 378–382.
[116] Cf. Viollet le Duc, _s. v._ _Château_, p. 190.
[117] I use Willis’s term, “continuous impost,” for an impost in which the jambs pass into the arch without the interposition of a capital, and without change of profiling.
[118] Du Cerceau’s plate (_Les Plus Excellents Bastiments de France_, vol. 2, plate 4) is incorrect, like most of his other plates, in giving the semicircular form to the openings of this façade.
[119] _Reigle Géneralle de Architecture_, etc., Paris, 1568.
[120] Said by Palustre, _L’Architecture de la Renaissance_, p. 176, to have been “servilement imité du temple de Jupiter Stator.”
[121] These lower arches are concealed from view on the external façades by a basement wall.
[122] Adolphe Berty, _Les Grands Architectes Français de la Renaissance_, Paris, 1860, p. 70.
[123] Milizia, _Memorie_, vol. 1, p. 404.