The Early Georgian Period covers an interval of about forty years,—from the accession of the House of Hanover in 1714 to the appearance of Chippendale’s The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director in 1754. During this period, strange to say, the art of the Regency and Louis XV., though not unfelt, has not so much influence as a spurious Gothic revival, an equally spurious “Chinese” furore and a fetish worship of Palladio and Classic architecture.

The commanding figures in the taste of the day were William Kent, Richard Boyle, third Earl of Burlington, and John Talman. Kent and Talman studied in Rome under the Chevalier Luti. When the Society of Antiquaries was established in its present form in 1718, Talman was appointed its first director. He died in 1726. Kent attracted the attention of the Earl of Burlington, and from 1716 to 1748, when Kent died, he received the shelter and hospitality of the Earl’s town house.

Kent’s charming personality, and the authority he assumed in art matters in consequence of his foreign training, enabled him to win a high position in fashionable circles. He soon became the arbiter of taste. Horace Walpole testifies: “He was not only consulted for furniture, as frames of pictures, glasses, tables, chairs, etc., but for plate, for a barge, for a cradle. And so impetuous was fashion that two great ladies prevailed on him to make designs for their birthday gowns. The one he dressed in a petticoat decorated with columns of the five orders; the other, like a bronze, in a copper-coloured satin with ornaments of gold.” Walpole also says: “Kent’s style predominated during his life.” Besides the numerous mansions he built for the nobility in the Classic style, he also built a “Gothic” house for Henry Pelham.

Pope says:

Kent was a painter, architect and general designer, and nobody has been found to oppose Hogarth’s dictum that neither England nor Italy ever produced a more contemptible dauber. Hogarth satirizes him in two of his prints: Masquerades and Operas (1724), and The Man of Taste (1732). In the former, the statue of Kent surmounts Burlington Gate, and supported on a lower level by the statues of Raphael and Michael Angelo; in the latter, he again towers above the same two artists over the gate (of taste), which is being whitewashed. On a scaffolding Alexander Pope’s diminutive form is wielding the brush and spattering passers-by with the whitewash. The Duke of Chandos gets most of it. The Earl of Burlington is mounting the ladder with more material.

Burlington House, Piccadilly, was practically rebuilt about 1716 from the Earl’s plans. It formed a striking exception to the mixed and commonplace architecture of the period, and aroused the enthusiasm of contemporary writers. Gay writes: “Beauty within, without proportion reigns.” Lord Hervey, however, sneers at its lack of accommodation:

This mordant wit also satirizes another residence at Chiswick owned by Lord Burlington, which was built about 1730 after the model of the celebrated villa of the worshipped Palladio. According to Hervey’s, “It was too small to live in and too large to hang to a watch.” Burlington designed mansions for others also. One of these, belonging to General Wade, in Cook Street, provoked Walpole to say: “It is worse contrived in the inside than is conceivable, all to humour the beauty in front.” Lord Chesterfield also suggested: “As the general could not live in it to his ease, he had better take a house over against it and look at it.”

The discomfort of the interior arrangement of even the most magnificent houses built at the beginning of this period is attested by more than one writer. Pope sneers at Blenheim as follows:

How strong the fashionable taste of the day was for Gothic, Chinese and French decorations is gathered from the indignant writings of contemporaries who could not bear to see their pet Classic neglected. We learn that by the middle of the century the craze for the French and Chinese had somewhat abated. In 1756, Isaac Ware has much to say on the late tendencies. He speaks bitterly of the degeneracy of modern taste, and attacks those who “flew into every absurdity that the scope of things could afford. Of this we see instances in many expensive works which stand, and will stand to disgrace our country: and we have models of them, and of others as ridiculous, proposed for imitation.... We have seen architecture, a science founded upon the soundest principles, disgraced by ignorant caprice, and fashion very lately attempted, and it would be well if we could not say attempts now, to undermine and destroy it by the caprice of France, and by the whims of China.

“How must a man of true taste frown to see in some of the best buildings of that country, as it would pretend for the encouragement of arts, Corinthian capitals made of cocks’ heads. It is called the French (order) and let them have the praise of it; the Gothic shafts and Chinese bells are not below or beyond it in poorness of imagination.

“It is our misfortune to see at this time (1756) an unmeaning scrawl of (Cs) inverted, turned and hooked together take place of Greek and Roman elegance, even in our most expensive decorations. This is not because the possessor thinks there is or can be elegance in such fond, weak, ill-jointed and unmeaning figures: it is usually because it is French; and fashion commands that whatever is French is to be admired as fine.

“While these French decorations were driving out from the inside of our houses those ceilings which a Burlington had taught us to introduce from Roman temples, and those ornaments of doors which a better taste under Inigo Jones had formed upon the models of the best Roman structures; the Goths seemed to have seized upon pavilions, and the Chinese on rooms of pleasure. The jointed columns rose without proportion for the support of the thatched roof in some lower ground, while bells dangled from every corner of the edifice that caught the traveller’s eye upon an elevation.

“True taste and good admonitions have got the better of these; and they are left for cake-houses for Sunday apprentices. The French are more difficult to conquer; but let us rouse in every sense the natural spirit against them; and no more permit them to deprave our taste in this noble science, than to introduce among us miseries of their government or fooleries of their religion.”

Again he says:

“The French have furnished us with abundance of fanciful decorations for these purposes (ceilings and panels) little less barbarous than the Gothic; and they were, like that species of building (for we will not descend to call it architecture) received with great readyness; the art seemed upon the point of being lost in England; but a better taste has now prevailed. We should, in that danger, have declared for banishing whatever came under the denomination of French ornament; but, now we see it over, the art will be to receive these ornaments with discretion, to adapt them to the few uses for which they are proper, and to soften their luxurious use, and blend them with better figures, till we have reduced them into a more decent appearance.

“A ceiling straggled over with arched lines, twisted curves, with X’s, C’s and tangled semi-circles, may please the light eye of the French, who seldom carry their observation farther than a casual glance; but this alone is poor, fantastical and awkward; it is a strange phrase to use for anything from France, but those who have seen such ceilings as we here describe must acknowledge it is just.”

He then goes on to recommend a ceiling which the plate shows to be Louis XV. in style.

Here then we have direct evidence of the favour in which the styles of the Regency had been received in England. The rocaille decoration and the excessive use of Chinese subjects, and monkeys, arabesques and floral devices, and particularly the broken curve, quickly overcame the opposition encountered from conservative members of the old school and strongly influenced Germany and England.

The expensive French wall-painting and silken hangings are imitated in wall-paper. The taste even spread to America, for Mr. Hancock, of Boston, sent to London in 1736 for paper-hangings for one of the rooms of his new house. He says about three or four years ago one of his friends had a hanging like the sample he sends, but he adds, “If they can make it more beautiful by adding more birds flying here and there, with some landskips at the bottom, should like it well. Let the ground be the same colour of the pattern. At the top and bottom was a narrow border of about 2 inches wide, which would have to mine.... In the other part of these hangings are great variety of different sorts of birds, peacocks, macoys, squirril, monkys, fruit and flowers, etc.”

The macoys (which, of course, are macaws or parrots) and the monkeys proclaim the Regency taste.

Some characteristics of the Regency style are as follows: The legs of the furniture are slightly curved and not so heavy as the Louis XIV. furniture. However, they retain a look of solidity. Round the edge of the table, under the top, is usually a frieze which forms a descending curve in the middle; it sometimes assumes the form of a bow also. This has been called the contour d’arbalÈte. At the top of the legs, and on the corners of other pieces of furniture, are mountings of bronze often showing acanthus motives with a head which is more expressive than the antique mascarons of the preceding style. Sometimes heads of animals also appear. The scroll and shell-work is rapidly becoming ornate. A fine example of Regency work is shown in the lower screen on Plate XXX., in which the prevailing vogue of the monkey is noticeable. Besides Watteau, Chinese designs were also produced by Aubert (d. 1721), La JoÜe (d. 1752), Fraisse (d. 1735), and Mondon le fils (d. 1738). Roumier (d. 1724) designed tables of this period.

The French school, which Chippendale was going to follow almost slavishly in his book of designs, had many admirers in England long before. In 1740, Batty Langley brought out The City and Country Builder’s and Workman’s Treasury of Designs. In this and other works, he gives several hundred designs for buffets, chimney-pieces, cisterns, clocks, table-frames, etc. Some of these are confessedly “after the French manner.” Of these, we have the curious chest-of-drawers on Plate XXVIII., the dressing-table on Plate XXVI. and the clock and bookcase on Plate XXV.

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.