September, i p i 6 
29 
tent of architectural amenity that it 
could boast consisted of a cornice, some 
plaster ceiling ornaments of question¬ 
able merit and, perhaps, a mantel of 
insipid lines. Whatever architectural 
traits the exterior of the house might 
possess did not “come through”; they 
were external incidents that might 
safely be left together out of account 
in so far as they might affect furnish¬ 
ing calculations. 
The revival of sanity in domestic 
architecture during the past three dec¬ 
ades has fortunately given us houses 
in which the exterior traits find their 
appropriate reflection in interior fea¬ 
tures of distinct individuality, and 
thereby interest is tenfold increased. 
A house, for instance, conceived in 
Tudor or Stuart modes will have its 
more important rooms high panelled, 
with richly wrought mantel and over¬ 
mantel, beamed ceiling and ranges of 
leaded casement windows. A house 
of early Georgian type will show in 
its rooms large panels enclosed with 
mouldings of strongly individual pro¬ 
file, prominent cornices, overmantels 
of insistently architectural pattern and 
door and window trims of unmistak¬ 
able affinities. Then, again, houses of 
Adam provenance, or designed in one 
of the French styles, will unquestion¬ 
ably give plain indication of their 
source of inspiration by the features 
of their interior treatment, especially 
in details of plaster and woodwork. 
Between interior woodwork and fur¬ 
niture, in all periods, the analogies 
have been visibly close. The restora¬ 
tion of interior architecture to its 
proper status has vastly enhanced 
decorative interest, opened up new 
avenues of opportunity and stimulated 
the art of furnishing but, at the same 
time, it has also imposed certain limi¬ 
tations and bounds to be observed. It 
is to set forth duly the nature both of 
these limitations and also of the en¬ 
larged opportunities in the fields of 
furnishing that the following para¬ 
graphs have been written. 
Contour and Design 
In nine cases out of ten people are 
first conscious of the furnishing of a 
room and, after that, of its architec¬ 
ture. In many instances, indeed, they 
become conscious of the architecture 
through the furnishing. This fact 
shows how important it is to preserve 
congruity between the furnishings and 
the architecture of a room so that both 
may be factors of an harmonious 
whole. And congruity does not mean 
a rigid adherence to single period 
styles. This quality of congruity, this 
just relationship between furniture 
and architecture, is based upon (1) 
correspondence of contour and pro¬ 
portion; (2) correspondence of design and 
proportion in decorative detail; (3) corre¬ 
spondence or contrasting harmony of color. 
The earliest architectural style whose 
features are frequently reproduced in 
America is that of the English house of 
the Tudor and Stuart periods, that is to say, 
the English house of the latter part of the 
16th century and, more especially, the 
greater part of the 17th century. The distin¬ 
guishing feature of the low-studded rooms in 
was emphasized. Now, the furniture 
that ordinarily went into such rooms 
shared the same contour. It was not 
tall. It was long in proportion to its 
height. Witness the long refectory 
tables, the benches, the buffets, the 
settles, the low court cupboards and 
dressers. There were no conspicu¬ 
ously curving lines in them; long, 
horizontal lines dominated their as¬ 
pect. Their contour accorded with 
the proportions of the room. A tall, 
high-shouldered Queen Anne bureau 
bookcase, with a double hooded top 
or an interrupted pediment would 
appear narrow in such a room and 
awkwardly lofty with its top reaching 
nearly to the angle of wall and ceiling. 
All its lines were calculated to empha¬ 
size height rather than breadth because 
it was made for rooms with loftier 
ceilings and dimensions more nearly 
square than long and narrow. Thus 
much for correspondence of contour 
and proportion of this period. Now 
let us consider it more in detail. 
Period Parallels 
To illustrate the correspondence of 
design and proportion in decorative 
detail, reference to one or two pieces 
of furniture in a similar setting will 
suffice. A court cupboard, a hanging 
cupboard or a chest—other pieces of 
furniture, too, for that matter—would 
display, in the first place, small panels 
quite similar to those that formed the 
wainscot of the walls. In the second 
place, the decorative motifs employed 
on the furniture had their counter¬ 
parts in the fixed woodwork. The 
strapwork, the guilloche banding, the 
foliated scrolls or what not that ap¬ 
peared on the chests, cupboards or 
tables found their echo in the carvings 
of the overmantel, the cornice or the 
newel post and balustrade. If turned 
balusters appeared in the door of a 
hanging or livery cupboard, a glance 
would show that they were but a re¬ 
flection of the form and character of 
the spindles of the balustrade. 
By way of contrast, suppose a high¬ 
shouldered, slender Sheraton armchair 
to be set close beside a staircase in a 
Stuart oak-panelled room or hallway. 
The stair with its balusters of buxom 
proportions and its robust, carved 
newel post will look dumpy, stodgy 
and clumsy, while the chair will look 
flimsy, spindly, insufficient and gen¬ 
erally out of keeping. The stair is 
good and the chair is good, but it’s as 
plain as the nose on one’s face that 
they don’t go together and they won’t 
go together. The fine reeding or flut¬ 
ing of the chair’s legs and arm posts, 
the slender, upright proportions and 
altogether vertical aspect of its com¬ 
position tend to carry the eye upward, 
while the lines of the staircase and 
panelling tend to keep it traveling in a 
horizontal direction. The conception of the 
chair’s mass is out of scale with the propor¬ 
tions of the room. Furthermore, all the de¬ 
tail of the chair’s ornament, whether turned 
or carved, is refined and delicate, whereas 
all the detail of ornament in its architectural 
setting is stout and insistent. The Sheraton 
chair, in this instance, is clearly a misfit. 
(Continued on page 58) 
Placed to show the incompatibility of some period 
mixing, the slender proportions of this Sheraton 
chair are manifestly out of key with the generally 
robust contour of the Stuart background 
Compare the size of the wall panelling and the size 
of the cabinet panels, and the relation between the 
two is clear. Their combination enhances the unity 
and purity of the decoration 
a house of such type are beamed ceilings or 
else plaster ceilings with more or less elabor¬ 
ate ribbings and parge work, walls wainscot- 
ted high up with small oaken panels, carved 
overmantels, sometimes embellished with 
polychrome painting and gilt, and, finally, 
ranges of leaded casement windows leaving 
long, unbroken wall spaces between them. 
Such rooms were apt to be long in propor¬ 
tion to their breadth and height, and in 
everv wav the dominance of horizontal lines 
