e in their way, struck me as a little stupid;
they are the exaggeration of an exaggeration. In a building erected
after the days of defence and proclaiming its peaceful character from
its hundred embroideries and cupolas, they seem to indicate a want of
invention. I shall risk the accusation of bad taste if I say that,
impressive as it is, the Chateau de Chambord seemed to me to have
altogether a touch of that quality of stupidity. The trouble is that it
stands for nothing very momentous; it has not happened, in spite of
sundry vicissitudes, to have a strongly-marked career. Compared with
that of Blois and Amboise its past is rather vacant; and one feels to a
certain extent the contrast between its pompous appearance and its
spacious but somewhat colourless annals. It had indeed the good fortune
to be erected by Francis I., whose name by itself expresses a good deal
of history. Why he should have built a palace in those sandy plains will
ever remain an unanswered question, for kings have never been obliged to
give reasons. In addition to the fact that the country was rich in game
and that Francis was a passionate hunter, it is suggested by M. de la
Saussaye, the author of the very complete little account of the place
which you may buy at the bookseller's at Blois, that he was governed in
his choice of the site by the chance that a charming woman had
previously lived there. The Comtesse de Thoury had a manor in the
neighbourhood, and the Comtesse de Thoury had been the object of a
youthful passion on the part of the most susceptible of princes before
his accession to the throne. This great pile was reared, therefore,
according to M. de la Saussaye, as a _souvenir de premieres amours_! It
is certainly a very massive memento; and if these tender passages were
proportionate to the building that commemorates them, the flame blazed
indeed. There has been much discussion as to the architect employed by
Francis I., and the honour of having designed this splendid residence
has been claimed for several of the Italian artists who early in the
sixteenth century came to seek patronage in France. It seems well
established to-day, however, that Chambord was the work neither of
Primaticcio, of Vignola, nor of Il Rosso, all of whom have left some
trace of their sojourn in France; but of an obscure yet very complete
genius, Pierre Nepveu, known as Pierre Trinqueau, who is designated in
the papers which preserve in some degree the history o