DUTCH FURNITURE UNDER FRENCH AND ORIENTAL INFLUENCE.
The Dutch Craftsmen in the Employ of Louis XIV—Huguenot Emigration—
Marot—The Sopha—Upholstery—The Bed—Chairs—Sconces—Tables—Rooms—
English and Dutch Alliances—Hampton Court—Queen Mary—
Looking-glasses—Chandeliers—Chimney-pieces—The _style refugié_—
John Hervey’s Purchases—Oriental Furniture manufactured after
European Patterns—Complaints of Home Manufacturers—Trade with the
Indies—“Prince Butler’s Tale”—Enormous Importations—Imported
Textiles—Foreign Textiles for Upholstery.
The last designer of furniture of any importance that has hitherto
demanded attention is Crispin van de Passe. The next one is also a
Dutchman. It is noticeable that the arts and crafts of France and
England were always deeply affected by the activities of the Low
Countries. France, even during the reign of Louis XIV, owed much to
Dutch culture and energy. Boulle, who was of Dutch extraction (_see_
page 115), gave his name to a special kind of furniture which he
developed and elaborated.
Another name famous in Decorative Art was that of Cander Jean Oppenordt,
born in Guelderland in 1639. He emigrated to Paris to seek his fortune,
and became “_ébéniste du Roi_,” was naturalized in 1679, and allowed a
lodging in the Louvre in 1684. To him was given the charge of furnishing
the Palace of Versailles, and in 1688 he made some beautiful marquetry
furniture for the Duke of Burgundy. His son, Gilles Marie Oppenord
(1672–1742), was architect to the Duke of Orleans.
France owed much to Italy, Belgium and Holland during the first half of
the seventeenth century, but what she borrowed she repaid with interest.
In 1685, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes induced fifty thousand
families of the best French blood, intellect, art, culture and
craftsmanship to seek voluntary exile. The Huguenots took refuge from
the _Dragonnades_ in England, Holland and Germany; and those countries
benefited by the short-sighted policy of a bigoted king. So many
goldsmiths, carvers, architects, designers and artists were among the
emigrants that their subsequent work in the art world came to be known
as the _style refugié_.
Undoubtedly the most commanding figure in this band was Daniel Marot. He
was a member of a family of eminent French artists. He was a pupil of
Lepautre, who for many years worked at the Gobelins manufactory and
dominated the first period of the Louis XIV style. This style was
particularly majestic, pompous and heavy, the general forms consisting
of a mixture of the straight line and curve, and broad surfaces adapted
for decoration. The heavy straining-rail and pilaster as a support are
also characteristic. The ornaments consist of Roman and heroic trophies
of antiquity, helmets, cuirasses, casques, plumes, swords, shields,
laurel-wreaths and clubs, winged Victories, the elliptical cartouche,
river gods leaning on urns, large cornucopias, heavy garlands, or swags,
of fruit and leaves, the broad acanthus leaf, the mascaron, the swelling
scroll, and the combination of scroll and shell. Lepautre was also fond
of introducing the alcove into a room.
[Illustration:
FIG. 39.—_Screen in the style refugié._
]
A typical screen of this period is shown in Fig. 39. The massiveness and
boldness of curve of the lines of the frame are characteristic of the
artists of the Louis XIV period who formed the _style refugié_; and the
grace and fancy of the design in the tapestry filling are worthy of more
than passing consideration. The _Chinoiserie_ influence is already
apparent in the small hanging canopy.
At this date the _sopha_ was greatly in vogue. This was really nothing
more than the old settle with carved framework, and richly upholstered.
It rarely accommodated more than two persons, and, as a rule, only one
is shown sitting upon it. The legs and straining-rail followed the
general lines and decoration of those of the stands for cabinets,
toilet-tables, etc. The arms were sometimes solid or stuffed, and
sometimes open-work covered with velvet or other textiles. Sometimes the
_sopha_ is furnished with a bolster at both ends. Typical forms are
shown in Figs. 40, 41 and 42.
Although Marot was well acquainted with porcelain and Eastern wares in
France, he found the prevailing taste much more extravagant when he took
refuge in Holland. There he became the supreme exponent of the _style
refugié_. William of Orange appointed him his chief architect and
minister of works, and Marot accompanied him to England at the Glorious
Revolution a couple of years later. In Holland, he designed much
interior work for palaces and noblemen’s seats, including staircases,
panelling, chimney-pieces, cornices, china-shelves and brackets, and all
kinds of domestic furniture. He was also extremely prolific in designs
for sumptuous upholstery in velvet, worsted and other textiles for
chairs, screens, hangings, curtains, bed-heads, etc. Marot died in 1718;
and his published works of Decorative Art include many hundred designs
representative of that period immediately preceding the Regency, known
in England as “William and Mary” and “Queen Anne.”
Upholstery was an exceedingly important part of interior decoration at
that period, and there were right and wrong ways to hang curtains and
decorate the framework of beds with valances, fringes, lambrequins, etc.
Figs. 44 and 45 show two of Marot’s arrangements of lambrequins.
The massive bed with its four posts of carved oak, which had so long
been in fashion, had now been supplanted by one in which upholstery was
the chief decorative feature. This bed consisted of a light frame
supporting a canopy, the four corners of which were surmounted by a
bunch of plumes, or ornaments, or knobs, in imitation of ostrich
feathers, called “_pommes_.” The furnishings of the bed, including
head-board, canopy, counterpane, curtains and valances, were of the same
material—velvet, brocade, silk, satin, chintz, or white dimity worked in
coloured crewels or worsted. Three beds of this period are to be seen at
Hampton Court Palace—William’s, Mary’s and Queen Anne’s. Both William’s
and Mary’s are now in the Private Diningroom. The former, which is about
fifteen feet high, is covered entirely with crimson damask, and Mary’s,
which is much smaller, with crimson velvet. The small bed used by George
II when he lived in this Palace, and which stands between William’s and
Mary’s, may also belong to this period. Queen Anne’s bed is more
elaborate. This stands in her State Bed-chamber; and it is not unlikely
that Queen Anne’s bed originally belonged to Mary; for she owned a
number of very handsome beds draped with materials of the latest
fashion. The elaborate designs upon the rich Genoa velvet that adorns
this piece of furniture are quite in the Marot style.
[Illustration:
PLATE XLVII.—_Carved Oak Bahut._
CLUNY MUSEUM, PARIS.
Fig. 38: Ornament in the Auricular Style.
]
The bed of this period was particularly suited to Marot’s taste, and he
made many designs, in which the festoon is conspicuous.
The bed shown in the frontispiece of this book is a typical example of
Marot. The heavy cornice is adorned with a cartouche in the centre and
four “_pommes_” of ostrich feathers in vases at the corners. The
headboard is also characteristic of Marot, and consists of an urn with
swags of leaves and husks, with mermaids as caryatides or supporters at
the sides. At the base of the bed is a mascaron. The silk draperies are
arranged in formal swags tied with bows of silk and cords and tassels,
and the valance around the bottom of the bed is similar to the cornice
decoration. Running around the cornice is a brass rail for the outside
curtains, which can be drawn around the bed enclosing it entirely, with
the exception of the “_pommes_.” The counterpane, bolster and pillow are
covered with material that carries Marot designs. The pillow is adorned
with tassels.
Another of Marot’s designs for a bed is reproduced in Plate XLVIII. This
is interesting on more than one account. The carving of the canopy shows
the advent of the _rocaille_ work that ran mad during the periods of the
Regency and Louis XV. The scrolls in the woodwork at the foot of the bed
are of the same form as the stretchers in tables, chairs, stands and
stools of the period. The decoration of the room is worth notice also.
The walls are covered with tapestry, and the same lambrequin that adorns
the bed is repeated all along the walls under the cornice. The same
decoration is repeated around the seat of the armchair on either side of
the bed. The low foot-posts of the bed are surmounted by “_pommes_,”
which usually hold the positions above, here occupied by carved shells.
Finally, the sconce mirror over the chair is graceful in form.
Queen Anne’s bed at Hampton Court Palace gives one a good idea of the
Marot decoration. It has a square canopy and tester, below which hang
curtains that when drawn enclose the entire bed. The head-board is
upholstered. The furnishings of this bed are entirely of stamped or cut
velvet, a white ground with formal patterns of crimson and orange. The
chairs, tabourets and long forms are also covered with this material.
A beautiful chandelier of silver decorated with glass balls hangs from
the ceiling, which was painted by Sir James Thornhill. The design
depicts Aurora rising from the ocean in her chariot, drawn by four white
horses and attended by cupids, while Night and Sleep sink away.
[Illustration:
Figs. 40, 41 and 42.—“_Sophas._” Fig. 43.—_Lower part of Chair, by
Marot._ Figs. 44 and 45.—_Lambrequins, by Marot._
]
Marot’s armchairs owe their effect almost entirely to upholstery: the
framework is certainly solid, heavy and ungainly. He prefers carved feet
of animals’ claws to the popular Dutch bulb. A typical form of the seat
and legs appears in Fig. 43. The top of the back is usually a straight
line, though, if the chair is designed for a prince or noble, the centre
sometimes rises in a carved crown or coronet. The woodwork is generally
gilded.
Marot’s sconces usually had only one candle socket (_see_ Plate XLIX).
When the mirror was of silver, or any burnished metal, its surface was
generally convex. When it was of glass it was flat, but very often the
edges were bevelled. The three examples on Plate XLIX show the
characteristic ornamental details of mascarons, floral scrolls, and
heavy _chutes_ of the bell-flower or wheat-ear. The same ornamentation,
intermingled with “_pommes_,” geometrical lines and broken scrolls,
distinguishes the two large mirrors above. Other handsome oval and
rectangular mirrors appear on Plate L. The lower one on the right, with
cornucopias disgorging _chutes_ of fruit, bears the crossed double L of
Louis XIV, with a royal crown, and therefore must belong to Marot’s
early period before he went to Holland. The mascarons and human figures
on the other mirrors on this plate also belong to the early Louis
Quatorze period.
On Plate LI are two more mirrors, large and small, one above an inlaid
console table and three candle or candelabra stands. These are
interesting as showing the extent to which Marot made use of caryatides
and swags in decorative work. It will be noticed that his Junos, Floras
and Venuses are functional as well as graceful and decorative. With
their heads and arms they have real work to do and weights to support.
Tables of Marot’s design are represented on Plate LII, which also gives
a series of eight mascarons. Plate LIII shows three of Marot’s tall
clocks, with details of decoration and designs for key handles. The
little frieze of designs for keyholes at the top of the Plate show that
the forms of china-ware were even invading goldsmiths’ work.
It will be noticed that the grandfather’s clock in Marot’s mind was
somewhat more ornate than the modern idea of that timepiece. Chippendale
owed a heavy debt to Marot’s forms of clocks and candlestands.
Marot’s designs for rooms show the limit to which porcelain could be
used as a decorative feature. There are brackets, brackets everywhere.
Vases of different shapes and sizes stand on the ledges, oval, circular
or straight, above the doors and stud the cornices; but it is the
chimney-pieces that serve, as the tiered _dressoir_ did in Mediaeval
days for plate, in the display of porcelain. The corner chimney-pieces
of Hampton Court with their diminishing shelves give some faint idea of
the many plates of Marot’s designs. Some of these show brackets and
shelves that support hundreds of cups, saucers, pots, bowls, bottles and
vases. In one extreme case more than three hundred pieces may be counted
on the chimneypiece and hearth alone. These are not merely suggestions,
for we have evidence that, in Holland, rooms decorated in this style
really existed. Thus one poet sings:
OF THE PORCELAIN ROOM
_.... Geheel zijn huis, ja zelfs het klein gemak,
Blonk als een diamant—duizend fijne kopjes
Vercierden ’t kabinet, hoe veel japanse popjes,
Uit amber, zeekoraal en roosverw paerlemoer,
Vervulden ’t groot salet._
(His whole house, even his small parlour,
Shone like a diamond—a thousand small cups
Decorated this parlour; how many Japanese figures (dolls)
Of amber, sea-coral and pink mother-of-pearl
Filled the big room!)
[Illustration:
PLATE XLVIII.—_Bed and Bedroom, by Marot._
]
On Plate L two brackets will be noticed, for the support respectively of
one and three China jars.
A typical English mansion of this period is Holme Lacy in Herefordshire.
Though dating from Tudor days, it was partly rebuilt and decorated in
the reign of William III. The principal apartments are well
proportioned, and are embellished with richly stuccoed ceilings, with
compartments of flowers and other designs. The “saloon” is particularly
remarkable for its ceiling of pendent flowers and fruits, and carvings
by Grinling Gibbons over the chimney-piece. Superb carvings by this
great master, representing birds, shell-fish, fruit and flowers, are to
be seen in all of the rooms on the ground floor, which communicate with
one another by folding doors. The gardens, too, are noticeable, for they
were also laid out in the style of King William’s day, and contain yew
hedges of extraordinary height and thickness.
At this period English and Dutch taste were identical. This is only what
we might expect when we consider the bonds that united the reigning
houses and nobility of the two countries. Mary, the eldest daughter of
Charles I, married the Prince of Orange; and their son, William, married
Mary, the daughter of James II. During this period, also, some of the
English nobility went to the Low Countries for wives. In 1650, the Earl
of Derby married Dorothea Helena, a daughter of John Baron de Rupa, in
Holland. She was a Maid of Honour of another ill-fated Stuart,
Elizabeth, the beautiful Queen of Bohemia. Baron Colepepper married
Margaret van Hesse, and the Earl of Arlington married another Dutch
woman, Isabella, daughter of Henry of Nassau, Lord of Auverquerque, in
the early days of the Restoration. The Earl of Bellomont married
Isabella’s sister. The Earl of Ailesbury, in 1700, married Charlotte
d’Argenteau, Countess d’Esseneux and Baroness de Melobroeck in Flanders:
and the list might be extended. Incidentally we may note that, in 1646,
the Earl of Berkeley married Elizabeth Massingberd, the daughter of the
treasurer of the East India Company.
It has already been noted that Charles II was hospitably entertained in
Holland at his sister’s court during part of his exile. We have also
seen that James II was a connoisseur in Oriental art products. When the
daughter of the latter, Mary, married her cousin William and settled
down in Holland, her mind was fully receptive to Dutch tastes and ways
of living. When she became Queen of England, on the exile of her father,
it was a Dutch palace into which she transformed Hampton Court, that
splendid enforced gift of Wolsey’s to Henry VIII. The English student,
therefore, need not cross the Channel to study Dutch interior decoration
and furniture of the close of the seventeenth century. The majority of
the rooms and grounds are still practically in the same condition as
they were when inhabited by William and Mary, under whose direct orders
the work was designed and supervised by Marot and Sir Christopher Wren.
A considerable amount of the Marot furniture still survives there. Defoe
tells us in his _Tour_ (1724):
[Illustration:
PLATE XLIX.—_Mirrors and Sconces, by Marot._
]
“Her Majesty (Mary) had here a fine apartment (Hampton Court), with a
set of lodgings for her private retreat only, but most exquisitely
furnished, particularly a fine chintz bed, then a great curiosity;
another of her own work while in Holland, very magnificent, and several
others; and here also was Her Majesty’s fine collection of delft ware,
which indeed was very large and fine; and here was also a vast stock of
fine china-ware, the like whereof was not then to be seen in England;
the long gallery, as above, was filled with this china, and every other
place where it could be placed with advantage.”
Although an Englishwoman, Mary had all the virtues and tastes of a Dutch
_vrouw_. She kept her husband informed of all that happened from day to
day, bewailed his absence and neglect, and busied herself and her Maids
of Honour with needlework, and, perhaps, with tenderly dusting her
cherished porcelain. When in London, she used to spend many an hour and
all her pocket money shopping at the India houses and in the New
Exchange. She set the fashion for china-mania, and may well have
inspired Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s lines:
“What shall I do to spend the hateful day ...
Strait then I’ll dress and take my wonted range
Thro’ India shops, to Motteux’s, or the Change,
Where the tall jar erects its stately pride,
With antique shapes in China’s azure dyed;
There careless lies a rich brocade unrolled,
Here shines a cabinet with burnished gold.
But then, alas! I must be forced to pay,
And bring no penn’orths, not a fan away!”
Hampton Court was remodelled under Mary’s direction. It almost entirely
lost its Tudor character, and became characteristically Dutch in
appearance. Sir Christopher Wren’s talents were called into requisition
to design the shelves, cornices and tiered corner chimney-pieces that
are still to be seen there. Verrio was employed to adorn the staircases
and ceilings with his gaudy frescoes. Grinling Gibbons, a Dutchman, whom
Evelyn had discovered, was responsible for the carvings that even to-day
are the admiration and despair of the woodworker. The fish-ponds and
gardens were laid out in the formal Dutch taste, with fountains, clipped
trees, hedges, avenues, geometrical beds, an orangery and an aviary of
tropical birds. The furniture was due to Marot and Wren.
The comparatively small amount of furniture now to be seen in the
show-rooms of Hampton Court belongs mainly to this period. It consists
principally of chairs, stools (_tabourets_), beds, card-tables, mirrors
and chandeliers.
Many of these specimens are extremely interesting, showing the Marot
taste. Of the latter, there are stools, chairs and tables with the heavy
scroll foot and stretchers, the latter joining in the centre and
supporting there a carved ornament; other tables have four scroll
supports and stand on bulb feet. Some of the stools and tabourets have
gilded woodwork. Among the later style we may note a chair in William
III’s Presence Chamber, with tall back, jar-shaped splat, cabriole leg,
hoof feet and straining-rails, the front one higher than the other; and
also two card-tables in the King’s Drawing-room, with slender legs
ending in the hoof foot, and the tops supplied with wells for the
counters and slight depressions for the candles.
[Illustration:
PLATE L.—_Mirrors, by Marot._
]
About thirty handsome looking-glasses of the period are there. Many of
them are pier-glasses hung, of course, between the windows. One of the
most noticeable of these is a fine pier-glass in William III’s State
Bedroom, dating from his time. This has a border of cut blue glass, the
edges are bevelled, and the centre contains the monogram W. R.,
surmounted by the crown in blue and white glass. A similar mirror hangs
over the fireplace.
Another looking-glass with a blue glass frame hangs between the windows
in Queen Mary’s Closet.
Another beautiful chandelier hangs in William III’s Presence Chamber:
this is of silver, with eight lower and four upper arms. It is decorated
with the harp, thistle, etc. A still more ornate one hangs in the
Queen’s Audience Chamber. This is a magnificent combination of silver
and crystal, with silver sea-horses and lions supporting the silver
branches, crystal balls and drops, and a crystal crown on top.
The mantelpieces are extremely interesting, as many of them are of the
old inverted funnel shape, and are supplied with tiers of shelves—
sometimes as many as six—for the reception of ornaments. Upon these now
stands a good deal of blue and white china, many pieces of which
belonged to Queen Mary. Pieces that are known to have belonged to her
are two blue and white jars and two goddesses in Queen Mary’s Closet,
and two goddesses and two vases, about eighteen inches high, on the
mantelpiece of William III’s Presence Chamber.
Charles II, who, while a royal refugee, spent much time in Holland, had
acquired the new taste. It was there, doubtless, that he saw visions of
wealth in the Indies that later led him to grant the English East India
Company a charter, and to embark on a disastrous and inglorious war,
which resulted in London hearing foreign guns for the first time since
England was a nation. His keen appreciation of Oriental works of art,
however, was somewhat dulled when his bride, Catherine of Braganza,
brought him a shipload of cabinets and ceramics in lieu of the dowry her
mother had promised, although Evelyn, in his description of Hampton
Court (1662), says: “The Queen brought over with her from Portugal such
Indian cabinets as had never before been seen here.”
It is frequently asserted with apparent authority that Mary carried the
Dutch taste for porcelain and the manufactures of the Far East into
England; but, as we have seen, this idea is not well founded. Herself a
china-maniac, she merely set the royal stamp of approval on contemporary
taste, and made Hampton Court a model of the _style refugié_. That style
dominated English and Dutch homes before she heartlessly danced in the
Palace of Whitehall from which her father had fled.
Hampton Court, remodelled under her directions, was not completed till
1693. Many documents show that the _style refugié_ was popular in
English aristocratic homes before that date.
[Illustration:
PLATE LI.—_Mirrors, Console Table and Candlesticks, by Marot._
]
Under William and Mary, London swarmed with Dutch merchants and refugee
Huguenot arts and craftsmen, and was almost as much of an Eastern bazaar
as Amsterdam was. Mary set the pace, and wealth and aristocracy gladly
followed. As an example of the vogue, we cannot do better than take the
diary of the wealthy John Hervey, afterwards Earl of Bristol, and quote
a few entries of expenditure.
He was always buying porcelain and other Oriental wares “for dear wife.”
On July 6, 1689, he notes: “Paid to Katherine Scott for 12 leaves of cut
Japan skreens, 2 pieces of India damask and 6 Dutch chairs, £65.” In the
following July, he also bought from John van Colima, a Dutchman, who had
probably followed William III to London, “a parcel of old China for £3
2_s._ 6_d._” Though the Earl dealt more extensively with “Medina ye
Jew,” “Leeds ye mercer,” “Seamer ye goldsmith” and many “India houses”
in the New Exchange, we find him still patronizing the Dutchman after
the death of his first wife, as is shown by the following entries:
“1696, Jan. 11: Paid Calama, ye Dutchman in Green Street, for a parcell
of china for my dear wife, £31 8_s._ 4_d._ May 4: Calamar, ye Dutchman,
for another parcel of China, £10 4_s._” Two years later he also pays
“John Van Collema, for an Indian trunk, £35.” Another Dutchman who
enjoyed this nobleman’s patronage was “Mr. Gerreit Johnson, ye
Cabinett-maker,” who, on May 25, 1696, was paid £70 “for ye black sett
of glass, table and stands, and for ye glasses, etc., over ye chimneys
and elsewhere in my dear wife’s apartment.”
Gerreit Johnson, whom the Earl patronized, was a fashionable
cabinet-maker who made the china-cabinets for Queen Mary that were
placed in a room at Hampton Court called “the Delft Ware Closett.” It is
interesting to note that the mirrors and cabinets in the Countess of
Bristol’s boudoir had black japanned framework.
His diary and expense account shows that his purchases of furniture and
_bric-à-brac_ faithfully reflected the prevailing taste for Oriental
wares and the _style refugié_. He did not exclusively patronize
Dutchmen.
In 1688, he paid “to Frenoye, the silkman, for the fringe of the bed,
edgings for the window curtains, etc., £155”; “to the joyner who made
the chairs, stools and squabs for my wife, £19”; and “for gold and
crimson fringe for the India bed quilt, £17.”
In 1689, he bought “for dear wife” a white teapot and basin, £4 16_s._
9_d._; two china basins, £1 1_s._ 6_d._; an India trunk, £7; India quilt
for a bed, £38; a “brockadal hanging in my wife’s anti-chamber, £11
10_s._”; and “to a French varnisher for ten chairs, a couch and two
tabourettes, £12.”
In 1690, his purchases included “silver andirons, for my dear wife her
closett chimney, £13 5_s._“; “a glass screen, £1 1_s._ 6_d._”; “two pair
of basins for dear wife, £1 12_s._“; “a large China punch-bowl, with a
large jarr and two white cupps, £3 5_s._“; “sett of cupps and saucers,
£2”; six other saucers, 10_s._; “two china beakers, £2 11_s._“; two
great jarrs of china and two smaller ones, “with one very little one,”
£7 3_s._; a parcel of old china, £21; another parcel of old china, £6
10_s._; “another sett of old china for dear wife, £22”; “a pair of old
china roul wagons” (large blue and white vases), £7 10_s._ 6_d._; a pair
of china cupps and a little jarr, £1 6_s._; for a china teapot basin, £1
1_s._ 6_d._; an old china bottle and two china dishes, £1 15_s._; “at a
curiosity shop, 10_s._“; “a rich piece of India atlas, £13 10_s._”; “a
parcel of Indian things, £5 7_s._ 6_d._”; and “a pair of china jarrs, £1
4_s._”
[Illustration:
PLATE LII.—_Tables and Mascarons, by Maret._
]
In 1691, he bought a “Jappan travelling strong water cellar, £5 7_s._
6_d._”; a “Persian carpet (all of silk) to lay under a bed, and an old
china roulwaggon, 22 guineys”; “a piece of blue Indian stuff, £2
15_s._”; and “a candle-skreen, £1 6_s._” (The “roulwaggon” is a kind of
vase.)
In 1692, he enters “two china rice potts for dear wife, £5”; “a china
jarr, £2 10_s._”; and “a parcel of china, £2 14_s._”
It is evident from the above that at the close of the seventeenth
century, Huguenot, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, English and Dutch artists
and artisans had combined to produce a style, the leading spirit of
which in England and Holland was Marot.
A noticeable fact in connexion with the European craze for Asiatic art
products is that, though the English and Dutch highly admired the native
wares, the European merchants sent out their own patterns and designs
for furniture and ceramics. It is even maintained that the famous
“Willow Plate” was the design of a Dutchman. The evidence of the
practice of exploiting foreign labour in the field of home taste is
overwhelming; and, as the century advanced, the guilds, city companies
and other trades unions in England, France and Holland grew more and
more restive under the burden of “Chinese cheap labour.” Mazarin was one
of the early enthusiasts in France to encourage Eastern importations.
In the _Mémoirs_ of La Grande Mademoiselle (1658), we read: “The
Cardinal (Mazarin) behaved in a very delightful and galant manner. He
took the two Queens (Anne of Austria and Henrietta Maria) and the
Princess of England and myself into a gallery that was filled with all
that could be imagined in the way of precious stones, jewels, furniture,
stuffs and everything beautiful from China; crystal chandeliers,
mirrors, tables and cabinets of all kinds, silver vessels, perfumes,
gloves, ribbons and fans.”
Towards the close of the century the craze for Oriental wares had
assumed such proportions that in France Louis XIV enacted sumptuary laws
to protect native industries; and in Holland and England the artisans
grumbled bitterly over the hard times occasioned by the vogue. The
Eastern workmen accepted patterns and supplied orders that natives of
Western Europe could not venture to undertake. The guilds and city
companies admitted the superiority of Oriental work, and cried aloud for
protection. Thus, in 1700, the Joiners’ Company addressed a petition
against the importation of manufactured cabinet work from the East
Indies. In this they state that they have “of late years arrived at so
great a perfection as exceeds all Europe.”
“But several merchants and others,” they continue, “have procured to be
made in London of late years and sent over to the East Indies patterns
and models of all forms of cabinet goods, and have yearly returned from
thence such quantities of cabinet wares, manufactured there after the
English fashion, that the said trade in England is in great danger of
being utterly ruined, etc., etc.”
The following goods, manufactured in India, have been imported within
these four years, viz.:
[Illustration:
PLATE LIII.—_Clocks and Details, by Marot._
]
244 cabinets.
655 tops for stands.
6,580 tea-tables.
818 lacquered boards.
428 chests.
597 sconces.
70 trunks.
589 looking-glasses.
52 screens.
4,120 dressing, comb and powder-boxes.
The Japanners also brought their grievances before the authorities in
1710. The taste for japanned goods had forced them to endeavour to make
worthy imitations for home consumption, and they thought they were
entitled to patronage and tariff protection. The evils are fully
indicated in the preamble to their petition:
“Many of the artificers (cabinet-makers, turners, goldbeaters and
coppersmiths) have brought (the curious and ingenious art and mystery of
japanning, so much improved in England of late years) to so great
perfection as to exceed all manner of Indian lacquer, and to equal the
right japan itself, by enduring the fire in the boiling of liquors.
“Also it will, if encouraged, vastly improve both the wood and iron
trades for cisterns, monteiths, punch-bowls, tea-tables and several
sorts of ironware, which would be useless if not improved by our English
lacquer.
“But the merchants, sending over English patterns and models to India,
and bringing such quantities of Indian lacquered wares (especially
within the last two years), great numbers of families are by that means
reduced to miserable poverty.”
The trade with the Indies thus encountered bitter opposition, and many
tracts were published calling attention to the alleged grievances of
native workmen from its prosecution. In 1700, _Reasons_, a tract, tells
us: “The charter of the East India Company was confirmed by King Charles
II in the thirteenth year of his reign, and the law for permitting
bullion to be exported was made soon after. In 1672 or 1673, several
artificers were sent over by the Company with great quantity of English
patterns to teach the Indians how to manufacture goods to make them
vendible in England and the rest of the European markets. After which
began the trade in manufactured goods from the Indies.”
In 1699, also, a bitter wail went up in a broadside entitled _Prince
Butler’s Tale_:
When first the India trade began,
And ships beyond the tropics ran
In quest of various drugs and spices,
And sundry other strange devices.
Saltpetre, drugs, spice and such trading
Composed the bulk of all their lading:
Bengals and silks of India’s making
Our merchants then refused to take in,
Knowing it would their country ruin
And might prove to their own undoing.
Nor did they carry gold or bullion
To fetch home what supplants our woollen;
Nor were this nation fond to wear
Such Indian toys which cost so dear.
Then were we clad in woollen stuffs,
With cambric bands and lawn ruffs,
Or else in silk which was imported
For woollen goods which we exported;
Which silk our English weavers bought
And into various figures wrought.
That scarce a child was to be seen
Without Say frock, that was of green.
Our hangings, beds, our coats and gowns
Made of our wool in clothing towns,
This nation then was rich and wealthy
And in a state which we call’d healthy.
But since the men of Gath arose,
And for their chief Goliath chose,
And since that mighty giant’s reign
Whose chiefest aim was private gain,
This trade was drove on by such measures
As soon exhausted much our treasures;
For then our chiefest artists went
With patterns, and with money sent,
To make and purchase Indian ware,
For which this nation pays full dear.
Then by great gifts of _finest_ touches
To lords and ladies, dukes and duchess,
So far prevailed as set the fashion
Which, plague-like, soon spread o’er the nation.
Our ladies all were set a gadding,
After these toys they ran a madding;
And nothing then would please their fancies,
Nor Dolls, nor Joans, nor wanton Nancies
Unless it was of Indians’ making;
And if ‘twas so, ‘twas wondrous taking.
This antick humour so prevailed,
Tho’ many ‘gainst it _greatly_ railed,
‘Mongst all degrees of female kind
That nothing else could please their mind.
Tell ‘em the following of such fashion
Wou’d beggar and undo the nation
And ruin all our labouring poor
That must or starve, or beg at door,
They’d not at all regard your story,
But in their painted garments glory;
And such as were not Indian proof
They scorn’d, despised, as paltry stuff;
And like gay peacocks proudly strut it,
When in our streets along they foot it.
* * * * *
And happy thrice would England be,
If, while they’re living, we could see
Our noble ladies but beginning
To wear our wool of finest spinning,
Or in such silks our workmen make,
For which our merchants cloth to take;
Which soon would bring them in such fashion
As they’d be worn throughout this nation,
By all degrees, and sex, and ages,
From highest peers to lowest pages;
Nor would the meanest trull, or besses,
Delight to wear these Indian dresses,
Which certainly would profit bring
To them, their tenants, and their king.
To show how enormous was the trade with the East Indies at the end of
the century, we need only examine the records of sales of the cargoes of
three ships at the East India House in 1700. In this we omit all mention
of sugar, tea, coffee, bezoar stones, ambergris, drugs of all sorts,
sweetmeats, gems, musk, aloes, carpets, rugs, and all kinds of woven
silk and cotton goods. The other goods, “besides great quantities unsold
of toyes and small goods,” fetched over £200,000, which at the present
day might represent three-quarters of a million sterling:
£
China-ware pieces 150,000
Fans 38,557
Lacquer’d sticks for fans 13,470
Lacquer’d trunks, escretors, bowls, cups, dishes, etc. 10,500
Lacquer’d tables inlaid 189
Lacquer’d panels in frames, painted and carved for rooms 47
Lacquer’d boards 178
Lacquer’d brushes 3,099
Lacquer’d tables not inlaid 277
Lacquer’d fans for fire 174
Lacquer’d boards for screens 54
Screens set in frames 71
Paper josses 1,799
Shells painted double gilt 281
Paper painted for fans 377
Images of copper, stone, wood and earth 600
Pictures 669
Brass and iron leaves for lanthorns
Brass hinges in chests
Embroideries for curtains, valloons and counterpanes
Among the textiles that were imported from the East Indies, Persia and
China at the end of the seventeenth century, and used for curtains,
upholstery, cushions, etc., were many varieties of wrought silks, “dyed
Bengals,” and printed or stained “callicoes,” known under the following
names:
Allibanies.
Allejaes.
Ammores.
Addecannees.
Agentbannies.
Atlasses.
Addaties.
Brawles.
Bengalis or Nilas.
China silks.
Chawters.
Cherconnees.
Chucklaes.
Checquered silks.
Carpetts.
Callawaypoose.
Canvas bolts.
Cuttannees.
Cuttannees, Striped.
Cuttannees, Flowered.
Cuttannees, Wrought.
Culgees.
Chints, Serunge.
Chints, Caddy.
Chints, Surrat.
Chints, Brampore.
Chints, Culme.
Chints, Pattanna,
Chints, Gulconda.
Chints, Wrought.
Damasks.
Derribasts.
Damask nankeens.
Elatches.
Elatches, Lingua.
Ginghams coloured.
Gelongs.
Gelongs, printed and painted.
Gelongs, striped.
Gorgoreas.
Gauzes.
Goachon Cherulas.
Guiney stripes.
Girdles.
Herba Taffeties.
Herba Lungees.
Hockings.
Jammawars.
Longes Flowered.
Mahobutt Bannes.
Mocha silks.
Muttrasses.
Nankeen Taffeties.
Nillaes.
Niccannees.
Paunches.
Pelongs.
Putkaes.
Peniascoes.
Phota Lungees.
Pallungpores.
Peniascoes or Penasses.
Pholcarees.
Quilts.
Romalls silk.
Romalls cotton.
Romalls serunge.
Rastaes.
Shalbasts.
Soofeys.
Sattins plain.
Satin nankeens.
Soops.
Seersuckers.
Sacerguntees.
Sooseys.
Shaulbasts.
Silk Lungees.
Taffeties.
Taffety nankeens.
Velvets.
The above list is copied from a tract protesting against foreign
importations that was printed about 1700.