of sculpture about the room; for otherwise there will be nothing with
which it can correspond. Therefore, against all other considerations,
let him design at all times a simple chimney-piece for a room that is
hung, and a continued one for a room that is finished any other way. No
wainscot is or can be made without panels; and it will be easy to make
the upper part of a continued chimney-piece correspond with them, let
them be of whatsoever kind.... No more will be required than to form a
regular design of an upper part for the chimney-piece intended to be
placed there, and to execute it with the common mouldings of the
panels.... The purpose of the work is to raise an ornament like that of
the other parts of the room from the chimney-piece to the ceiling; and
in such manner to adapt this to the chimney-piece itself that it shall
seem naturally to rise from it and be connected with it; that it shall
be a regular and proportioned part of the chimney work at the same time
that it is also a regular part of the ornament of the room....
“It is the first object that strikes the eye, on entrance and the most
conspicuous part of the room, and for that reason, while he gives it the
same air as the rest, let him make it somewhat richer. When the common
mouldings of the wainscot have some sculpture, let those which are
continued over the chimney have more, as well as be laid in greater
number, and to whatever degree the rest is carried, let this part exceed
it.
“Rooms that are hung are debarred by the rules of the science from the
advantage of this ornament; but for all other kinds whatsoever, it is
very well adapted. Where the walls are plain stucco, this upper part of
the chimney-piece must have very little ornament; but even in that case,
as the lower part will naturally be very plain, a light representation
of its most conspicuous parts in the space above will be far from
unpleasing.
“Let him (the student) not suppose this circumstance of room finished
with plain stucco to be a parallel case with that of one hung with paper
or damask, and in which we limited him to the use of a simple chimney.
Here the space within the panel over the chimney being plain as the rest
of the wall, at the same time it admits the grace of this addition,
keeps up a similarity with the rest, without anything improper in
itself; but, in the other case, the great contrast in the colour or
figures of the paper or silk would break in upon the intended composure
of the whole; and the mouldings, whether in wood or stucco, would appear
to be stuck on the paper, not to rise from it, as they will certainly
appear to do from the stucco-wall. The upper part of the chimney-piece,
which in the case of our plain stucco-wall shews itself only what it is,
that is, a light ornament continued from the lower work of the chimney,
will, where there is paper or silk, have the aspect of a frame; and
these will appear as pictures in it. All know how poor this must look,
since, in the reality, what could be so mean as the thought of framing a
piece of the hanging?”
Having now learned from contemporary authorities the most approved
styles of decoration of ceilings, walls and chimney-pieces during the
Early Georgian period, we may proceed to say a few words concerning the
Gothic and Chinese influence. The Chinese fad, which is often wrongly
attributed to Sir William Chambers, was no new thing, as we have already
seen. In the preface to his book of designs he had made in Canton, he
clearly states that his object is to correct the absurdities that were
daily produced for the public as “Chinese.” He says:
“It was not my design to publish them, nor would they now appear, were
it not in compliance with the desire of several lovers of the arts, who
thought them worthy of the perusal of the publick, and that they might
be of use in putting a stop to the extraordinary fancies that daily
appear under the name of Chinese, though most of them are mere
inventions, the rest copies from the lame representations found on
porcelain and paper-hangings.”
[Illustration: PLATE XXVII]
Towards the middle of the century, many books appeared by Johnson,
Edwards and Darly, Halfpenny and others, giving designs for Chinese
temples, arches, garden-seats, bridges, palings, etc. When Chippendale
brought out his book, as we shall see, he felt compelled to bow to the
prevailing taste, and give designs of Chinese character.
Just as the Chinese fashion is attributed to Chambers, so the Gothic
revival is frequently erroneously attributed to Horace Walpole. It is
true that he greatly liked to encourage that form of architecture, but
the taste was reviving before he had any influence.
In 1742, Langley published his _Gothic Architecture_. He says it is
“restored and improved by a great variety of grand and useful designs
entirely new in the Gothic Mode for the ornamenting of buildings and
gardens exceeding everything that’s extant.” The subscribers to this
work included eighty-one of the nobility, two bishops, nine judges, two
ladies of title, sixteen gentlemen, three carpenters, one smith and one
mason.
This list shows that it was already fashionable to take interest in
“Gothic.” Horace Walpole was one of the subscribers, but the claim made
for him of having originated revived interest in Gothic architecture is
disposed of by the fact that he was not yet in possession of _Strawberry
Hill_, and it was not till 1750 that he wrote: “I am going to build a
little Gothic castle.” In fact, in 1756, Isaac Ware calls it a “late
taste” and implies that it is already on the wane. He writes: “The
Gothic is distinguished from the antique architecture by its ornaments
being whimsical and its profiles incorrect. The inventors of it probably
thought they exceeded the Grecian method, and some of late have seemed,
by their fondness for Gothic edifices, to be of the same opinion; but
this was but a caprice, and, to the credit of our taste, is going out of
fashion again as hastily as it came in.... The error of the late taste
has been in attempting to bring the Gothic into use in smaller
buildings, in which it can never look well.”
The Englishmen of taste had adopted the French fondness for ruins in
decoration, and real and artificial ruins in their gardens. It is said
that some even dismantled their castles to have respectable ruins of
their own.
In Langley’s _Principles of Gardening_, published in 1728, this taste is
catered to. Among his plates is “an avenue in perspective, terminated
with the ruins of an ancient building after the Roman manner”; and eight
plates are devoted to “views of ruins after the old Roman manner for the
termination of walks, avenues, etc.” These ruins, some of which are of a
false Gothic style, are to adorn “such walks that end in disagreeable
objects,” and “may either be painted upon canvas, or actually built in
that manner with brick, and covered with plastering in imitation of
stone.”
We get a faint hint of the rococo also from the following advice: “When
figures of shell-work are erected in the midst of fountains, we receive
a double pleasure of a fountain and cascade also by the waters agreeably
murmuring down the rocky shells.”
Langley was far more responsible for the “Gothic” craze than Walpole
was. Besides writing books on the subject, his services were engaged by
the latter, doubtless on account of his being the authority of the day
on that subject. Walpole’s good sense, however, soon taught him
dissatisfaction. When we look at the Gothic chimney-pieces and other
features that adorned the rooms of Strawberry Hill, we cannot wonder at
his dissatisfaction. We learn from the _Gentleman’s Magazine_:
“Through the inability of his architects, particularly of Langley (who,
though esteemed capital in his day, knew nothing of the art of
constructing modern Gothic), his ideas were never properly executed. Mr.
Walpole often complained they were rather Moorish than Gothic; however
he could not at that day procure better assistance. He was always,
however, among the first to depreciate his own architecture.”
Mrs. Delany’s letters afford evidence of the prevailing Gothic taste. In
1754, we hear: “I am working stools in worsted chenille for the Gothic
cell.” In 1756, she mentions a great Gothic hall in her description of
Lady Oxford’s house. She also says:
“The chapel is to be new built in the same taste; the alterations Lady
Oxford made in this place cost above 40,000 pounds, and her apartment is
the prettiest thing I ever saw, consisting of a skylight antechamber or
vestibule, adorned in the Gothic way. The rooms that encompass it are a
library, a dressing-room, a room fitted up with china and Japan of the
rarest kinds, and a Gothic room full of charming pictures, and
embellished with everything that can make it look gay and pleasant; it
is lighted by a window something of the Venetian kind, but prettier, and
the whole breadth of one side of the room.” Then, in 1758:
“My closet is just hung with crimson paper, a small pattern that looks
like velvet; as soon as dry, I shall put up my pictures; and I am going
to make a wreath to go round the circular window in the chapel, of oak
branches, vines and corn; the benches for the servants are fixed, the
_chairs_ for the upper part of the chapel are a whim of mine, but I am
not sure till I see a pattern chair that I shall like it; it is to be in
the shape and ornamented like a Gothic arch.”
Hogarth should be a very valuable guide to the furniture of this period.
As a rule, however, he seems to care very little about the delicate
details and generalizes the forms, giving an impression of excessive
heaviness and clumsiness. However, occasionally we get a good hint, as
in the bed in the scene of the countess’s toilet in _Marriage à la
Mode_. One of Hogarth’s tables is shown on Plate XXVIII., No. 1. It will
be noticed how little trouble he has taken to indicate the special kind
of foot, whether hoof or ball-and-claw. An _escritoire_ from one of the
plates of the _Industrious Apprentice_ is shown on Plate XXVIII., No. 2.
The ball-foot and drop-handles are clearly shown in this. One of
Hogarth’s chairs, which was a very common pattern during this period, is
that of No. 4, Plate XXVII. The models also numbered 9, 10 and 11 are
generally known as Hogarth chairs. No. 7 is one of Halfpenny’s designs
for a Chinese chair. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are also types of chairs in
use before Chippendale brought out his book. No. 5 is an early model of
the “Windsor chair,” which came into favour during the reign of Queen
Anne and maintained its place for a century and a half. This chair dates
from about 1710. The central drawing represents a folding chair-bed. The
frame is of mahogany and the back filled with cane. The back is curved
at the top and straight at the sides, which have two curved pieces, or
wings, projecting forward. The arms are curved and the four cabriole
legs end in club feet. The backs of Nos. 9, 10 and 11 on this plate
curiously agree with the form of the fire-back No. 3 on Plate XX. This
general model appears in the inventories as the “Crown-back chair.” With
the exception of the Windsor chair, which was very often made of cheap
wood, the chairs on this plate were made of walnut or mahogany and
upholstered with velvet, cloth, leather, Turkey-work, leather, or
haircloth plain or figured.
The seat is movable, and no upholstery nails or braids were used, the
frame of the wood giving the necessary finish. The dumb-waiter on Plate
XXVIII. dates from about 1740: it is of mahogany decorated with incised
floral pattern in outline. No. 2, Plate XXVI., shows a toilet
swinging-glass dating from about 1730 which exhibits a little of the
French influence. It has a wood frame carved and gilt with flowers,
foliage and scroll ornament. Nos. 1 and 3 are other common forms of
mirrors of this period. The frames are frequently of mahogany picked out
with gold.
The general proportions of the room shown in Plate XXIV. are taken from
Hogarth’s _Marriage à la Mode_.
As a rule, the bed was the four-poster of oak, walnut or mahogany draped
with upper and lower valances and curtains. The window curtains always
matched those of the bed, and unless the chairs were of cane, or
leather, they were also covered with the same material. These hangings
were of silk or worsted damask, serge, flowered or figured russell,
harrateen, camlet, mohair, or chintz. Numerous products in silks and
cotton from India were also used. The Early Georgian bedroom was seldom
draped in white: the different bedrooms frequently are described as the
“Blue,” the “Yellow,” the “Red,” or the “Green Room.”
Sometimes a room contains an alcove and an alcove bed after the French
style, and the field-bed is not unfamiliar. The latter, however, is
chiefly reserved for the unimportant bedrooms.
The furniture includes small chairs and easy chairs, chests-of-drawers,
cases-of-drawers, chests-upon-chests, sometimes a press, a secretary,
and almost invariably two or three tables. One small table always stood
by the bed for such conveniences as a candlestick, etc.
The dressing-table was a case-of-drawers, such as is seen to the right
in Plate XXIV. Upon this is spread a toilet and over it hangs a mirror.
This is, of course, a species of commode. This piece of furniture of
late years has been called improperly a “low-boy,” as the high
case-of-drawers that sometimes stands on cabriole legs and sometimes on
six spindle-shaped legs joined by stretchers, has been called a
“high-boy.” Another variety is the chest-upon-chest consisting of a
double case-of-drawers.
These pieces are made of mahogany, walnut, cherry, or they are japanned,
painted with Chinese or Japanese subjects and lacquered, or painted and
lacquered in imitation of the French work of the day. The tall clock is
also frequently japanned and brightened with brass mounts. The frames of
looking-glasses and pictures are also frequently lacquered.
Engravings and mezzotints, which are very much in vogue, are framed in
this style, or in black. Although the grate is rapidly gaining favour,
the brass andirons have not been banished. In either case the hearth
furniture, tongs, shovel, etc., is of brass, more or less ornate.
Two bedrooms described in 1738 will give an idea of the appearance of
the sleeping-rooms of the age. One was a Green Room; the bed-curtains,
window-curtains, and chair coverings were of green harrateen. The floor
was covered with a Turkey carpet, and the chimney-piece was bright with
brass andirons and other hearth furniture. A pier-glass was hung between
the windows, and the rest of the furniture consisted of twelve chairs
and a couch, a dressing-glass and drawers, a bureau-table and three
large sconces with arms.
The other room was furnished in yellow mohair. There were six chairs, a
large chair, two stools, a desk and bookcase with glass doors, a
dressing-table and glass, a chimney-glass and sconce, a bed and brass
andirons, etc. The window curtains and window cushions matched the bed,
whose bolster and counterpane, as well as draperies, were of yellow
mohair.
[Illustration: PLATE XXVIII]
-----
Footnote 15:
Bridgman was a famous landscape gardener of the day, and Gibbs a noted
architect.
LOUIS XV. PERIOD
[Illustration]
THE LOUIS XV. PERIOD
The gloom and solemnity of the last years of Louis XIV., ruled by a
morose monarch and his bigoted, unacknowledged wife, gave place to the
license of the Regency, and the exuberant vitality of a young king, the
influence of which is fully reflected in decorative art. The Regency saw
a short period of inflated wealth such as had never been dreamed of by
any living man. Law’s Mississippi Bubble, before it was pricked, enabled
men to get rich in a day, and some of the upstarts paid fabulous sums
for the best work that artists of all kinds could produce. Architecture
had to give up parade and magnificence, and cater to comfort and
convenience. Paris saw mansions and pretty little houses rise by the
hundred. Their furniture and decoration bore the stamp of gaiety and
caprice. There was open rebellion against the rigid rule of the last
reign.
Le Brun’s divinities become gay and frisky and laugh at you. Fauns get
very hairy about the snout, plants climb and frolic along the limbs of
the goddesses. Olympus becomes human; partitions are built to break up
the too cold and imposing grand galleries and transform them into
_cabinets particuliers_. The pier invades the walls, the chimney-piece
assumes shell forms. In fact, as the subtle “Advice to lovers of
design,” which heads Oppenord’s collection of engravings says, these
works are composed in a “taste after the antique,—but richer.” Then, we
are led on to the charming follies of Meissonier, whom later we shall
see go even further, growing ever and ever more “rich,” but still
thoroughly under the illusory conviction that his style is “antique.”
Now we have arrived at what is perhaps the most exquisite and perfect
period of the history of furniture in France. The workers of the Regency
and of the reign of Louis XV. united with an incomparable manual
dexterity a grace, fancy and caprice that is found nowhere else except
perhaps in the best art of Japan.
Perhaps the greatest furniture-maker of this time was Charles Cressent
(b. 1685). For the perfection of his workmanship, he ranks as high as
André Charles Boulle, and perhaps surpasses the latter in the qualities
of seductiveness and elegance. He was an engraver as well as a carver.
Copper played a great part in the ornamentation of his coloured
marquetry works, and he was able to set his own mark of taste and
finesse directly upon his productions.
[Illustration: PLATE XXIX]
The Orient was exercising a powerful influence on French as on Dutch and
English taste. We have seen that a liking for the contrast of richly
coloured exotic woods was noticeable toward the end of the reign of
Louis XIV. The Siamese embassy with its rich offerings of porcelain and
lacquer had concentrated the eyes of the Court for a moment on the art
of the East. French artists catered to the novelty, and from then till
the middle of the Eighteenth Century the lacquers of China and Japan
were actively though freely imitated.
First, the monkey was all the rage as a decorative motive. Monkeys climb
up piers, swing on garlands in panels, and not only play their usual
malicious tricks, but musical instruments also. They appear in all
attitudes and combinations. Watteau, Huet, Gillot and even Chardin, the
realist, bowed to the demand for _Singerie_. A good example of the use
made of the monkey in furniture decoration is the beautiful Regency
screen on Plate XXX., in which the characteristic scroll and shell also
appear.
The monkey, however, was not the sole motive of decoration. Chinese and
Japanese screens, jars and fans soon asserted their rights; and
“_chinoiserie_” was in full swing. The walls and furniture for a time,
as in England, show strong evidence of the “Chinese” taste. In France,
however, it is followed at a greater distance from the original, and
artistically modified and developed. The “_chinoiserie_” of Watteau and
Gillot has only a faint though delicate flavour of the real Far East.
This “_chinoiserie_” had some effect on furniture in certain ornamental
details, and Cressent’s work shows traces of the prevailing taste.
The artist who perhaps had the greatest influence in producing the Louis
XV. _rocaille_ style was J. A. Meissonier (b. 1695), who by his
contemporaries was abused for having broken up the straight line
outrageously and pushed the curve to extreme limits. He was the
abomination of all who held the angular and dry in reverence. A very
able designer, Cochin, in 1754, issues an appeal to goldsmiths,
chisellers, interior woodwork carvers, engravers, etc. He begs them
“when carving an artichoke or celery head in natural size to be kind
enough not to set beside it a hare as big as a man’s finger, a lark of
natural size, and a pheasant one-fourth or one-fifth size; children of
the same size as a vine-leaf; or figures of a supposed natural size
supported by a decorative flower that could scarcely support a little
bird without bending; trees with trunks slimmer than one of their own
leaves, and many other sensible things of the same order. We should also
be infinitely obliged to them if they would be kind enough not to change
the uses of things, but to remember, for instance, that a chandelier
should be straight and perpendicular, in order to carry the light, and
not twisted as if it had been wrenched; and that a socket-rim should be
concave to receive the running wax and not convex to shed it back upon
the chandelier; and a multitude of equally unreasonable details that
would take too long to particularize. Similarly, carvers of interior
decorations of rooms are begged to be obliging enough, when executing
their trophies, not to make a scythe smaller than an hour-glass, a hat
or Basque drum larger than a bass-viol, a man’s head smaller than a
rose, nor a sickle as big as a rake.”
In reply we have the following protest: “It was necessary to find
another kind of architecture in which every worker could distinguish
himself and bring that kind of skill within the reach of everybody;
nevertheless, accepted tastes should not be rudely shocked by the sudden
production of novelties too remote from the reigning taste, thereby
risking a hissing. At first the famous Oppenord served us zealously....
He made lavish use of our favourite ornaments and brought them into
favour. Even now he is useful to us, and there are some of us who take
him as a model.... We found a stronger support in the talents of the
great Meissonier. It is true that the latter had studied in Italy, and
consequently was not one of us, but as he had wisely preferred the taste
of Boromini to the wearisome antique taste, he had thereby come closer
to us; for Boromini rendered the same service to Italy that we have to
France, by introducing there an architecture gay and independent of all
those rules that anciently were called good taste. Meissonier began by
destroying all the straight lines that were used of old; he curved the
cornices and made them bulge in every way; he curved them above and
below, before and behind, gave curves to all, even to the mouldings that
seemed least susceptible of them; he invented contrasts;—that is to say,
he banished symmetry, and made no two sides of the panels alike. On the
contrary, these two sides seem to be trying which could deviate most,
and most oddly, from the straight line that till then they had been
subject to.”
As Oppenord may be said to have presided at the opening of the Regency
style, so Meissonier inaugurated that of Louis XV. His _rocaille_
escaped the exaggerations of the contemporary foreign masters, and kept
within the bounds of good taste.
Among other decorators, less inventive but of charming taste, who
followed in the traces of Meissonier were Michel, René Stoldz or La
Joüe, Chevillon, etc. The Print Room of the _Bibliothèque Nationale_
possesses a collection of the beautiful designs of the two last-named
artists in water-colour and _gouache_. These designers used many of the
same motives as Meissonier, the shell, the cabbage-leaf, the shrimp (of
course, the forms derived from these objects), but they added to their
decorations still more fleeting and vague elements, such as falling
water, the ostrich plume, etc. La Joüe is a real past master in the art
of introducing into a decorative panel a cascade which sometimes falls
from nowhere and loses itself in pearly foam: for him everything serves
as a pretext for a cascade: neighing horses plunging in the water, an
open-jawed dragon clinging to the base of a column, a hunted stag
vomiting a jet of water into a fount whose marble rim is full of twists
and contortions.