Chapter V: Part 5

After examining Batty’s dressing-table and chest-of-drawers, the latter of which he has even neglected to supply with handles, we are astonished to come across anything so graceful as the console-table on Plate XXVI., which also appears in his book. However, in our examination of French designs, we come across this very table signed Picau, so that Mr. Langley has shamelessly transferred a French design to his own book without acknowledgment, as Picau considerably antedated Langley. The influence of the French decoration is also noticeable in the bookcase, No. 1, Plate XXV.

Langley thus catered to some extent to the tastes of those who admired the French styles, but he did not approve of them himself. He says:

“The great pleasure that builders and workmen of all kinds (those called cabinet-makers, I think, only excepted) have of late years taken in the study of architecture has induced me to the compiling of this work. And indeed I am very sorry that cabinet-makers should have been supine therein; because of all small architectural works none is more ornamental to buildings than theirs, when well and justly executed, as being generally made with such kinds of materials which Nature has wantonly adorned with delightful textures of colours that contribute very greatly to their beauty.

“The evil genius that so presides over cabinet-makers as to direct them to persevere in such a pertinacious and stupid manner that the rules of architecture, from whence all beautiful proportions are deduced, are unworthy of their regard, I am at a loss to discover; except Murcea, the Goddess of Sloth, acts that part and has thus influenced them to conceal their dronish, lowlife incapacities and prompt them, with the fox in the fable, to pronounce grapes sour that ripen out of their reach.

“Cabinet-makers originally were no more than spurious indocile chips, expelled by joiners for the superfluity of their sap, and also, by instilling stupid notions and prejudice to architecture into the minds of youth educated under them has been the cause that at this time ’tis a very great difficulty to find one in fifty of them that can make a book-case, etc., indispensably true after any of the Five Orders without being obliged to go to a joiner for to set out the work and make his templets to work by.

“But if these gentlemen persist much longer thus to despise the study of this noble art, the very basis and soul of their trade, which now to many joiners is well understood, they will soon find the bad consequences of so doing and have time enough on their hands to repent of their folly—and more especially since that our nobility and gentry delight themselves now more than ever in the study of architecture, which enables them to distinguish good work and workmen from assuming pretenders.”

On Plate XXV. are three of his eight designs of bookcases, which, “if executed by a good joiner, and with beautiful materials, will have good effects, or even if by a cabinet-maker, provided that he understands how to proportion and work the Five Orders, which at this time, to the shame of that trade be it spoken, there is not one in a hundred that ever employed a moment’s thought thereon, or knows the Tuscan from the Doric, or the Corinthian from the Composite Order, and more especially if the Doric freeze hath its triglyphs and mutules omitted. In short, the ultimate knowledge of these sort of workmen is generally seen to finish with a monstrous Cove, on an Astragal, crowned with a Cima Reversa, in an open pediment of stupid height.

“When a Gentleman applies himself with a good design of a book-case, etc., made by an able architect, to most of the masters in this trade, they instantly condemn it and allege that ’tis not possible to make cabinet works look well that are proportioned by the Rules of Architecture; because, they say, the members will be too large and heavy, etc., whereas the real truth is that they do not understand how to proportion and work the members of these designs, and therefore advise the unwary to accept of such stuff as their poor, crazy capacities will enable them to make, and wherein ’tis always seen that the magnitudes of their Coves and Cima Reversas (their darling finishing) are much larger members than any members of a regular cornice (even of the Tuscan Order) of the same height, wherefore, ’tis evident that all their assertions of this kind are used for nothing more than to conceal an infinite fund of stubborn ignorance which cannot be paralleled by any other set of mortals in the world. This I mention that for the future Gentlemen may have a more particular regard in the choice of works and workmen, in this way, than any have heretofore done. For I do affirm that a good joiner will not only execute a design of this nature in much less time than any of the common run of cabinet-makers can, but will perform it in that masterly manner which is known but to very few, if any, in the cabinet trade.”

Isaac Ware, who, as we have seen, was a determined enemy to the French innovations, says: “We shall here direct the eye of the student from the frivolous decorations which France has furnished us to those which dignified the works of Greece and Rome, and have been an honour to the names of some of our own architects in times of better taste.” Though he prefers the nobler style of Inigo Jones, he advises the architect “to consider the other kind of richness. We consider the proprietor dislikes the former kind; he thinks it too heavy, or he has corrupted his taste in France so far as to dislike the Grecian science. He desires to have a ceiling as rich as that proposed to him, but more airy; and he will have some of the French crooked figures introduced into it.”

“A continued chimney-piece can only be proper where there are ornaments 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.”

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.

-----

Footnote 15:

Bridgman was a famous landscape gardener of the day, and Gibbs a noted
architect.

LOUIS XV. PERIOD

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.

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.

The list of artists who contributed to interior decorations during the Louis XV. period is a long one. It includes: Boffrand, Le Roux, Oudry, Brisseux, Huquier, Pineau, Mondon, Cuvilliés, Gravelot, Boucher, Blondel, Babel, Germain, Marvye, Chedel, Jombert, Babin, Cochin, Pillement, Peyrotte, Eisen, Demarteau and Martinet. These are the great masters of the style. The principal smaller ones are: Aubert, Crepy, Vassy, Bachelier, Roumier, Vervien, Caylus, Lassurance, Lange, La Collombe, Dubois, Bouchardon, Prevost, Le Grand, Fraisse, Blanchard, Marsenois, De La Cour, Canuc, Poulleau, Mollet, Mansart, De Jouy, Perault, Dumont, Aveline, Cornille, Chamblin, Bellay, Vanerve, Pelletier, Paty, Chopart, Borch, La Datte, Lamour, Girard, Ballechou, Herisset, Hubert, Metayer, Servandoni, Sloiste, Caque, L’Hermitais, Roy, Duval, François, Charpentier, Lebas, Radel, De Lorme, Courtelle, Viriclix, Tessier, Lattre, De Laborde and Harpin.

One of the cabinet-makers who best produced the ideas of Meissonier was Jacques Caffieri (b. 1678), who was “_sculpteur, fondeur et ciseleur du roi_.” Even if he did not himself manufacture, he directed the production of splendid cabinet-work. His work is distinguished by grace and aristocratic elegance. He executed a great quantity of bronze for the famous cabinet-maker, Œben. Many extant works bear the mark of a C surmounted by a _fleur-de-lis_, and these are usually attributed to this master, but the great inequality of excellence makes many critics doubtful. Œben was a pupil of Boulle, and devoted himself exclusively to the branch of marquetry in cabinet-making, leaving the metal decoration to his assistants, Caffieri and Duplessis. His work was in the greatest favour with Madame de Pompadour, who bought it through the merchant Duvaux, one of whose best customers was the king himself. Œben died about 1756, and his works helped to furnish all the mansions and castles of the _Marquise_ and King in Paris, Fontainebleau, Compiégne, Versailles, Bellevue, Crécy, Champs, Saint-Ouen, and la Celle Saint-Cloud. His widow married his foreman, J. Henri Riesener. The other great cabinet-makers of this period whose works are to be found in the Rothschild, Wallace, South Kensington, and other famous collections, are Bernard, Boudin, Ollivier, Dubois and Cremer, who worked principally in artificially coloured marquetry, and Gamier, Pafrat and Roubo. The latter wrote a very valuable treatise called _L’Art du menuisier_.

The taste for Chinese and Japanese art was very insistent, but at the same time only skin-deep. There was no true feeling for the profundity of the wonderful art in the patient work that produced the Chinese and Japanese lacquer. It was regarded as a toy. However, progress is noticeable, and fashion gladly welcomed the art products of the Far East. In _Angola_, a novel within the period, we read: “Upon my word!” says the Count to the Countess, “you have a splendid chimney-furnishing, and those Chinese cabinets are charming. Is this the _rue du Roule_?[16] I am simply crazy about that little man. Everything that he sells is so expensive and scarce.” “Oh,” says the Countess, “it is a pretty good selection.” “Well,” replies the Marquis, “there is simply a divine taste in everything there. There are little divinities in the most wonderful forms. This one, for instance; this and your fool of a husband are as like as two peas.” Another description from the same work and in the same tone tells us a “_lit de repos_, in a niche of damask, coloured rose and silver, looked like an altar consecrated to delight; an immense screen surrounded it, and the rest of the furniture was in perfect accord with it; consoles, jasper corner-shelves, China cabinets loaded with the most rare pieces of porcelain, and the chimney-piece was decorated with corpulent gods of the most wonderful and clownish shapes.”

These Chinese cabinets were principally of lacquer, more or less adapted to French demand. Just as soon as the French taste required Oriental goods, orders were sent abroad and the “Heathen Chinee” was quick to supply the foreign market. The native art was gladly modified by the merchants in accordance with the demands of foreign trade. Sometimes even French and other goods were transported to China to have the finishing touches added there. Of course, the time came when native craftsmen tried to meet the demands of fashion by imitations of the Eastern ware. The trouble was that for a long time the home workmen could not produce the proper varnish and make a satisfactory lacquer. Some workmen boldly used native varnishes without attempting to imitate the Chinese and Japanese, and produced charming work of the most delicate finish; but these, unfortunately, scarcely outlasted the special entertainment for which they were manufactured. The undoubted chiefs of these varnishers were the Martins. In 1744, a decree of the Council allowed “_au Sieur Étienne Martin le cadet exclusivement à tous autres, à l’exception du Sieur Guillaume Martin_,” the privilege of manufacturing for twenty years all kinds of relief-work in the Japanese and Chinese taste. In addition to the above-mentioned, we must not forget the brothers Julien and Robert. The number of panels, carriages, sedan-chairs, boxes and ceilings and walls that they varnished is innumerable. The rage for their work was such that the wonderful Boulle-work in marquetry on the walls of Versailles that Louis XIV. had had executed for his son were destroyed and replaced by Martin decorations on a green background. They also did a lot of work for Madame de Pompadour at Bellevue. Their fame spread, so that Frederick the Great summoned Robert’s son, J. A. Martin, to decorate Sans Souci. Voltaire even thought the Martin work worth writing couplets in its praise.

Like all fads, the _Vernis Martin_ aroused criticism and enmity. Mirabeau indignantly denounces the “_voitures Vernis par Martin_.” Notwithstanding jealousy and abuse, the _Vernis Martin_ held its own, and to-day is a thing of great price. Good as it was, it could not compare with the Japanese and Chinese lacquer, and the specimens that have survived are relatively scarce. It may be interesting to note that the old lacquers that sunk in the shipwreck of the _Nile_, in 1874, near Yokohama, were found practically uninjured a year afterwards. At the same time, the modern products of Kioto and Yeddo were entirely destroyed.

In the Louis XV. period, the word apartment means a complete suite of living-rooms. There are three kinds of apartments, large, medium and small. A large apartment consists of a vestibule, a first ante-chamber, a second ante-chamber, a principal chamber, a _salon_ or company-room (reception-room or drawing-room), a bedroom and several cabinets (studies), and _garde-robe_ (wardrobe rooms). The medium apartment has fewer rooms and the small apartment still fewer. However, to be complete, the smallest apartments must comprise four rooms,—an ante-chamber, a chamber, a cabinet (dressing-room) and a _garde-robe_ (a wardrobe), to which a small staircase leads. Each room has its own especial decoration. First comes the vestibule. This is a passage leading into the apartment. It is ornamented with columns, or pilasters, and circular niches, in which statues are placed. The ante-chamber comes next to the vestibule, and is destined for the servants. This room is ornamented in simple style: the woodwork of the doors and windows gives it its chief decoration, but mirrors and handsome paintings are often hung on the walls, and sometimes the corners are rounded for the sake of effect. This room frequently contains a stove, so that the cold air from the vestibule may be tempered before it reaches the inner apartments.

Next comes the second ante-chamber, where the servants who are in direct attendance upon the master wait. Sometimes this room is used for a dining-room, or a drawing-room. If used as a drawing-room, the woodwork is more or less richly carved, handsomely framing mirrors and pictures. Console-tables with marble slabs stand underneath the mirrors, contributing to the decoration of the room and exhibiting handsome vases, ornaments, etc. Sometimes the walls are adorned with rich tapestries reaching to the wainscot, which is of the same height as the slab of the chimney-piece. When used as a dining-room, the buffet is the chief feature. After indicating the place of the buffet, D’Aviler says: “The buffet can be incrusted with marble or Portland stone, or wainscotted with woodwork. This consists of a recess which occupies one entire side of the room; here you place a table of marble or stone supported on consoles, beneath which you may stand a small stone basin for cooling the wine bottles. On each side of the table is a deep niche, ornamented with aquatic attributes, such as Tritons, dolphins and mascarons of gilded lead, which throw water into the little basins below, from which it escapes, as well as into the basin underneath the table. The back of the buffet is ornamented with a little gallery with consoles, above which is hung a picture, usually representing fruits or flowers, a concert of music, or other pleasant subjects. This one (represented in D’Aviler’s book) represents upon a background of foliage, grapes and birds, a bust of Comus’s God of Festivity, upon which two little Satyrs are placing a crown of flowers and grapes.”

The chamber is the principal room in an apartment. Formerly it included all the rooms inhabited by the master except the vestibules, salons, peristyles and galleries.

The bedroom is the sleeping-room where the bed is placed. As a rule, this faces the windows. The decoration cannot be too rich, but this does not mean an overloading of ornament, as the best adornment consists of panels, mirrors and pictures well distributed. The large mirror is hung between the two windows opposite the bed, and below it is placed a console-table of gilded wood with a marble slab. Each window is furnished with a seat and has glass panes and an outside railing. On each side of the window, in the corners of the room, are pilasters, like those that decorate the rest of the room. Opposite the chimney-piece is another glass, beneath which stands a rich commode. Pictures are placed over the doors and mirrors.

The bedroom may also be hung with tapestries of silk like the hangings of the bed. The pattern should be of large floral branches and leaves.

The _chambre de parade_ demands the handsomest kind of furniture. Here visits of ceremony are received. A magnificent bed stands here in a rich alcove, or is separated by a balustrade from the rest of the room. The railing is quite high, gilded, and terminates in Corinthian columns. Carved panels with pilasters, painted white and brightened with gold, decorate the walls. A rich cornice, ornamented with consoles, and whose metopes are enriched with bas-reliefs and trophies, runs around these panels. The ceiling should be tastefully painted, and pictures, mirrors and handsome furniture should complete the decoration.

White and gold, according to D’Aviler, is the most elegant composition, especially if the wall behind the balustrade, where the bed is placed, is covered with a tapestry of blue silk, and the bed hung with blue and white curtains, ornamented with gold braid. The form of this room is important: (1) it must be deeper than wide, so that, if the space occupied by the bed is excepted, the room is square; (2) the windows must be opposite the bed; (3) the chimney-piece must mark the centre of the room and be exactly opposite the principal entrance.

As a rule, the _salon_ is rectangular. Its proportions are 4 to 3 or 2 to 1. There are square, round, oval and octagonal _salons_. Sometimes Corinthian columns are used for decoration and to frame the mirrors and pictures. The decoration is left largely to the taste of the owner, but whatever is chosen must be of great richness and charm, because the _salon_ is supposed to be “a retreat after a day spent in hunting or after a walk.” Here the inmates and guests gather to enjoy the evening with cards or conversation and light refreshments.

The cabinet is a little room in the apartment, consecrated to study. It should be secluded and removed from all noise. As a rule, it is between the ante-chamber and the bedroom. The morning hours are usually passed in the cabinet. The servants go into the bedroom through the exits by the bed, and the master or mistress is undisturbed in his cabinet, which is decorated in the simplest kind of fashion so as not to take the thought away from study. Sometimes the cabinet consists of three little rooms, one _arrière-cabinet_ where books, etc., are kept and which is very private (_cabinet secret_); the next is a _serre-papier_, where titles, contracts, business papers and money are kept; while the third is a kind of wardrobe and toilet-room, which communicates with the bedroom, and has an exit for the servants. The name cabinet is also given to the room where the ladies make their toilette, have their oratory, or take their noonday rest.

The _garde-robe_ is the room where the clothes are kept and where the body-servants sleep. Some architects like a chimney-piece here, for the sake of an occasional fire.

Such is the arrangement and decoration of the large apartments. It will be noticed that carved panels, with or without pilasters, and panelled doors surmounted by paintings or panes of glass occur in nearly every room. The wall decorations are important. D’Aviler says:

“The paintings in the spaces above the doors or other parts of the room should, especially in the first rooms, show the qualities of the master, or his exploits, so as to announce by these allegories the respect due to the person who lives there.”

One of the favourite ways of arranging the bedroom, particularly for the small apartment, was to place the bed in a niche, from which circumstance the room received the name of _chambre en niche_. D’Aviler describes it as follows:

“As for the _chambre en niche_, the bed is viewed from the front; an arm-chair may stand on either side, the alcove being ten to eleven feet wide. If it is smaller, the bed must be turned sideways, and the width of the alcove must not be more than the length of the bed, its depth also being restricted to the breadth of the bed. (See Plate XXIX.) This will cause it to be called a niche, and the room will also receive the same name. In this case, for the sake of symmetry, a false bolster is placed at the foot of the bed, which has caused it to be called the two-bolster bed (_lit à deux chevets_). These rooms are usually covered with carpentry, all the mouldings and ornaments of which are gilded. Sometimes people content themselves with varnish.”

D’Aviler, however, greatly prefers the _chambre en alcove_ to the _chambre en niche_, and goes on to explain that the alcove is the part of the bedroom in which the bed is placed. “Usually the top of it is formed by a parallel headpiece of carpentry work, accompanied by two other panels vertical or perpendicular to it. Sometimes, also, it is separated from the rest of the room by an _estrade_, or by several columns or other architectural ornaments. This makes quite a fine effect, and it is susceptible of great decoration. Besides the magnificence in sculpture, painting and gilding, of which the panels are susceptible, the back of the alcoves may also be adorned with mirrors; which light up the room and do away with the deep shadows which a bed almost always produces in a room. This kind of strengthening has a peculiar usefulness when it is well placed or arranged in a room; there is then enough space remaining on both sides for small wardrobes, or at least entrances into other wardrobes. The alcove is thus accompanied by two doors with glass in them to admit light into these little wardrobes, and they may be very richly decorated.”

In Blondel’s _Maisons de plaisance_ (1734), he gives us a very clear insight into the arrangement and furnishing of a fashionable, though somewhat modest, house of the period. We cannot do better than paraphrase his recommendations.

As the building is intended to receive only a few people at a time, all the rooms, with the exception of the _Salon_, in case of a reception, are not very large.

“The vestibule is graceful in form; in the four angles are niches with statues. The four doors are symmetrically arranged. The outside door faces that leading to the _Salon_. This room is high in proportion to its size. The decoration is of woodwork, painted white, without gilding, because it is so situated as to serve as a passage to the outer rooms around it. However, the servants having the vestibule for retirement and the _Salon_ being then able to be occupied by the masters, it is therefore adorned with pictures, sculpture and mirrors. In cold weather, there is a fire here for those who want to warm themselves after their different amusements, the apartments to the right and left being reserved for the relaxation of the masters of the house.

“On the right of the _Salon_ is a room for play. Opposite the windows that light it, is a niche for a sofa, and in the two angles are recesses for cabinets for holding the chess, tric-trac, counters, etc. Opposite the chimney-piece, the wall is panelled and carved, the ornaments being varnished and gilded.

“All these small rooms being intended for recreation of the mind, nothing should be neglected to render the decoration fine and gay. It is here that genius may soar and abandon itself to the vivacity of its caprices, whilst in the _apartments de parade_ it must restrict itself to the most rigid rules of conduct and good taste, and not fall into the unrestrained liberties of the carving of to-day, which should be banished with all the more reason that true architects scarcely tolerate them in the rooms we are now describing.

“This play-room leads into another one where coffee is served. Here Indian and Chinese plants and figures have full licence to take part in the decoration: here they are naturally befitting; and, in my opinion, this is the sole place where they should be admitted.

“Next we enter a _cabinet en niche_, oval in form, which is lighted by a glass door that leads into a little bosquet, which serves as a private promenade for this chamber. Opposite this door is a chimney-piece in an arcade which matches the arcade in which the _lit en niche_ is contained, and opposite which another of the same form is imitated, or the door leading into this room. In this doorway is a staircase leading up to the _entresols_ that are over this room and a little room behind it, which are intended for the servants’ sleeping-rooms.

“From the coffee-room you enter a gallery that terminates the right side of this building. This gallery is symmetrically decorated, and the spaces between the windows are enriched with mirrors and consoles on which are placed various curios, such as bronzes, crystals, porcelains, etc.

“From this gallery you enter the garden.

“To the right of the _Salon_ is a billiard room of a shape appropriate to its use. Ornaments, mirrors and pictures rarely form part of the decoration of this kind of a room on account of the accidents incidental to this game; and the walls are simply covered with large panelling.

“This billiard room leads into a room which in turn leads into a _chambre en niche_; it may be ornamented with tapestries above a wainscot. As for the _chambre en niche_, its walls should be covered with carpentry work all the way up. This will preserve it from the humidity it might have, being on the ground floor, and which always attacks apartments that are not constantly occupied. The decoration is perfectly symmetrical. To combine pleasure and convenience, I have arranged close to it a small _garde-robe_ that is lighted from and opens into a little court. On each side of the niche that contains the bed, there is a door; one serves as a passage into the _garde-robe_, and the other opens into a recess for keeping the linen in and keeping under key whatever the master desires.

“The little court communicates with the kitchens.

“The dining-room on the right of the vestibule is of an irregular form. The chimney-piece faces the two windows; the angles of the superfices on which it is placed are rounded, and in them I have placed niches for marble tables, on which can be set the silver, crystal and dessert, during the repast, and afterwards be put away in the closet next to this room.

“On the other side of the vestibule, is the common room in which the servants dine. Next to it come the kitchens.”

When the dining-room is separate from the suite, it is usually situated on the ground floor, near the large stairway. The architects of the day insisted that it should be well lighted, and, if possible, open upon a garden. The floor was of parquetry, and the walls wainscotted in oak and sometimes carved; yet it was not unusual to have the panels carved, painted white and gilded. The buffet with its fountain and wine-cooler was the centre of attraction. The curtains were of silk, the chairs were upholstered and the floor warmed by a carpet or rugs laid. On the mantel-piece stood a clock and candelabra, and sconces and chandelier holding many candles brightly illuminated the rooms.

One of the changes of this reign was the appearance of the _petit salon_ and _boudoir_, smaller rooms beautifully and comfortably furnished, which were more adapted for intimate social life.

“In order to find useful furniture,” says Jacquemart, “we must pass to the reign of Louis XV., the king who deserted the state apartments for by-places with secret doors and back staircases.”

The Palais Soubise in Paris, the ancient home of the Guises, and the home of the Prince de Soubise, a favourite of Louis XV. and a devoted friend of Madame de Pompadour, is happily extant. The Prince de Soubise took for his second wife, his cousin, Anne Julie Charbot de Rohan, so celebrated for her beauty and her intrigues. The embellishments at the Hôtel de Soubise were begun by them in 1704 and continued by their son, the Duc de Rohan, who died in 1749, and the decorations of this mansion are considered among the triumphs of the “_élégances raffinées_” of the Eighteenth Century. Germain Boffrand, a pupil of Mansart, is responsible for the interior architecture.

The two floors in which the Prince and Princess had their apartments were laid out identically. The Prince occupied the _rez-de-chaussée_, or ground-floor, consisting of a bedroom, a _Salon oval_ and ante-chambers, etc.