The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-07-20


, therefore to the interior architecture
of the time that one must go for paral-
lei and comparison. Probably no other
piece of furniture has lent itself more
readily to an architectural interpreta-
| ton than the armoire, since really 1t Is
only one degree removed from the
built In cupboard or closet, which may
even use the same name. According
to Hazard, these two classes Of armoire
had already become extinct by the
fifteenth century, but apparently. ex-
cept for a time during the sixteenth
century, when the armoire deux corps
developed and a smaller scale was in
troduced, the architectural character
of the movable type was never lost.
This characteristic of the armoire Is
particularly in evidence in our exam
pie, and is brought out even more
strikingly when a comparison is made
with the other movable furniture of
the period, which under the ebenistes
of the previous century. and still more
SO under Charles Crescent, had been
growing less and less architectonic In
character.
This armoire, we are led to believe,
was probably built to harmonic with
and complete the interior treatment of
a particular room. No documentary
evidence has been forthcoming to prove
this or even to suggest a definite
provenance, and so we can only i'm
agine what its original surroundings
must have been. Considered by itself
alone, however. the piece is a document
of the greatest interest, as 1t illustrates
clearly the changes that were taking
place in design in the early years OF
the eighteenth century. With the ex-
ception, perhaps, of the GROWING pedi-
ment, the heaviness that characterizes
! similar work of the previous century
/ has entirely disappeared and the entire
design suggests searching after a
lightness and elegance which later de-
veloped into the rocaille license of
Meissonier. The insistence on the
vertical line and the suppression OF
the horizontal are indicative of the
change, but the simplicity and firm
ness of the design have been so we'll
| accented that the lack of the structural
| quality, which begins to show only a
| few years later, is nowhere in evidence.
| In the eyes OF the purist there may
! be a lack of complete accord in scale
| and Of just relation-as between the
| head of the door panels and the
| crowning member-but these are de-
tails which the transitional nature Of
the piece may we'll explain. To doubt
the hand of master on this score Is
| indeed out of place when we come to
examine the design and execution of
the details. Apart from its brilliant
execution. the central ornament of
the door panels Is a masterpiece. Of de-
sign which will rank in every way
with any of the work of German
Boffrand at the Hotel Soubise, which
it somewhat resembles. Cnfortu-
nately. the monogram J. NJ. A. in the
ROUNDED does not give us any help in
unearthLng the history of the piece,
as the arms on the cartouche between
the scrolls of the pediment yield as
yet no clue to its ownership.
The perfect preservation of the
piece enables us to see the jewel-like
perfection of the carving, as on the day
| 1t was finished. No one but a bril-
liant and highly trained craftsman
could have done such work, and al
though we cannot blame the author.
it should not be less esteemed than II
we could connect ii with Boffrand or
De Cote. In striking contrast to the
work of the present day and of the
late eighteenth century. the ornament
is carved from the solid wood; the
plain surfaces being set back to OBJ
tain the necessary relief The skill
and labor that this implies is enor-
nous, especially in view of the ex-
IRENE refinement and precision Of the
execution. In this connection, the SUI
perb handling of the various planes in
the door panels should be noted, and
particularly the convex surface Of the
monogram field. where the slightest
technical slip would have spelt disas-
ter. This particular detail exemplifies
the increasing freedom with which
earlier motives were being treated in
connection with such regency motives
as the banded reed moulding. But this
freedom is kept in perfect control by
sufficient emphasis on the simple
framework of the design. 1t is the
omission of this necessary emphasis
which led TO the excuses Of the mid
eighteenth century design.
J The old steel lock and hinges are
still in place and in perfect working