eradicate tradition: the names of streets and of the months were changed, and
churches were either desecrated and used for other functions or demolished.
The result was plunder and devastation, a condition to which the army also
contributed, for bronze statues and leaded windows were used as a cheap source
of metal for weapon manufacture (Haskell 1993: 236–8). Both medieval and
early modern monuments suVered the most from this situation.
Decrees were issued mainly in 1792 and 1793 that ordered the destruction
of every monument relatedWrst to the monarchy and later to the Church. By
1797 eighteen buildings had been pulled down in Paris (Re ́au 1994: 292–5,
379–95). In the midst of all this chaos, several depots to store what was being
dismantled were set up in Paris, including one at the nationalized convent of
the Petits Augustins. The man in charge of it, Alexandre Lenoir (1761–1839),
inspired theWrst museum of national monuments. As it turned out, religious
objects in the museum were converted into national symbols. Yet, not sur-
prisingly, given the circumstances in which the museum was born, the objects
it exhibited, together with the political diYculties it faced and its ultimate
closure, provide a good example of the way in which the balance between the
antiquity of the Great Civilizations and a national past was still weighted
towards the former. Nevertheless, the very existence of such a museum and
the large number of visitors it attracted also shows that the national past,
especially that of the medieval and post-medieval periods, was not totally
rejected and that it was indeed making a place for itself on the intellectual
scene.
The Museum of French Monuments (Muse ́e des Monuments Franc ̧ais) was
Wrst opened in 1793, although it was only established on a permanent basis
after 1795 under the name of the National Museum of French Monuments
(McClelland 1994: 165). It is worth noting that the term ‘national antiquities’
was being used in a novel way from only a few years earlier, from Aubin Louis
Millin’s publication of his 1790National Antiquities(with the full title of
Antiquite ́s nationales, ou recueil de monuments pour servir al’histoire ge ́ne ́rale et particuliere de l’empire franc ̧ais, tels que tombeaux, inscriptions, statues,
vitraux, fresques, etc; tire ́s des abbayes, monaste`res, chaˆteaux et autres lieux
devenus domaines nationaux) (Schnapp 1996: 52). 1 He insisted on the histor-
ical value of monuments as national antiquities, while being one of theWrst to
apply the methods normally followed in classical archaeology for the analysis
of France’s own past (Gran-Aymerich 1998: 37–8). The institution required
a politically astute director—as Lenoir proved to be—to ensure its survival.
1 The term ‘national antiquity’ was being used earlier, since at least the sixteenth century
(Mora 1998; Sweet 2004), but in the context of the French Revolution, its meaning took a more
political tone.
The Early Search (1789–1820) 319