.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
In some instances in England the French style became so dominant that it is very difficult indeed on stylistic grounds to separate English from French carpets. This is certainly so in the present example. In style it is completely French: the rosette is classical, the bouquets of flowers each end spring from acanthus urns, and there is an inner border which is very similar indeed to a late Napoleonic design by Saint Ange. The uncompromising nature of the outer key-pattern stripe also lacks the softness of the design features of the large carpet in lot 237. This is a magnificent and powerful carpet which has also managed to survive in remarkably good condition through nearly two centuries of very variable types of wear.
It is in the construction that the similarities between this carpet and lot 237 are apparent. While a little finer in weave, with not such thick passes of weft between each row of knots, the present carpet has all the major features seen in its larger cousin. The warps are thick ivory wool, there is an even thicker primary weft running straight through the construction while a thin hemp secondary weft between each row of knots holds the structure together. The back appears ridged with bands of wefting appearing somewhat irregularly between rows of knots.
Little is known of the designers of British carpets of this period. The third quarter of the 18th century is reasonably documented, but by 1800, of the pioneers in handwoven carpets, only Axminster remained in production. Yet after the factory burnt down in 1828 even that business never really recovered. Their hand-woven manufacture was transferred to Wilton in 1838, where it continued to the 20th century. The tragedy for the present day historian was that the Axminster records and design books were also burnt in the fire, so our knowledge comes principally from studying carpets which were made for specific interiors. Even so, Tattersall can only write of the most prestigious commission of the period, the carpet commissioned for the Prince Regent's Throne Room at Carlton House, that 'it [is] most probable that this is English work; and Axminster again is a possibility' (C. E. C. Tattersall: A History of British Carpets, London, 1934, p. 70). Bertram Jacobs, writing in 1970, says of the same carpet that he cannot explain its construction, knowing what was known about Axminster looms at the time, but still by default attributes it to that workshop (Bertram Jacobs: Axminster Carpets, Hand Made, 1755-1957, Leigh on Sea, 1970, p. 49). Tattersall helpfully gives short technical analyses of the carpets he examined. These, however, show a number of different structures, even for carpets which can be proved to have come from the same maufactury (A History of British Carpets, pp. 94-96), so this cannot be used as a conclusive indication of origin. Whether this indicates more than workshop tradition within Axminster, or whether some 'Axminster' carpets will one day be shown to have been woven contemporaneously but at a different centre, should one day be revealed by future scholarship.
It is in the construction that the similarities between this carpet and lot 237 are apparent. While a little finer in weave, with not such thick passes of weft between each row of knots, the present carpet has all the major features seen in its larger cousin. The warps are thick ivory wool, there is an even thicker primary weft running straight through the construction while a thin hemp secondary weft between each row of knots holds the structure together. The back appears ridged with bands of wefting appearing somewhat irregularly between rows of knots.
Little is known of the designers of British carpets of this period. The third quarter of the 18th century is reasonably documented, but by 1800, of the pioneers in handwoven carpets, only Axminster remained in production. Yet after the factory burnt down in 1828 even that business never really recovered. Their hand-woven manufacture was transferred to Wilton in 1838, where it continued to the 20th century. The tragedy for the present day historian was that the Axminster records and design books were also burnt in the fire, so our knowledge comes principally from studying carpets which were made for specific interiors. Even so, Tattersall can only write of the most prestigious commission of the period, the carpet commissioned for the Prince Regent's Throne Room at Carlton House, that 'it [is] most probable that this is English work; and Axminster again is a possibility' (C. E. C. Tattersall: A History of British Carpets, London, 1934, p. 70). Bertram Jacobs, writing in 1970, says of the same carpet that he cannot explain its construction, knowing what was known about Axminster looms at the time, but still by default attributes it to that workshop (Bertram Jacobs: Axminster Carpets, Hand Made, 1755-1957, Leigh on Sea, 1970, p. 49). Tattersall helpfully gives short technical analyses of the carpets he examined. These, however, show a number of different structures, even for carpets which can be proved to have come from the same maufactury (A History of British Carpets, pp. 94-96), so this cannot be used as a conclusive indication of origin. Whether this indicates more than workshop tradition within Axminster, or whether some 'Axminster' carpets will one day be shown to have been woven contemporaneously but at a different centre, should one day be revealed by future scholarship.