.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
These magnificent ormolu chandeliers, a very rare near pair, are the embodiment of the grandeur and luxury associated with the reign of Louis XIV and the Régence. Because of the immense work, material and artistry required to create these chandeliers, they ranked among the most costly items produced in the ateliers of leading bronziers at the time. The Aitken chandeliers are indeed most closely related to the oeuvre of the single most influential and celebrated craftsmen of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, André-Charles Boulle himself.
Primarily known as a cabinetmaker, Boulle was equally well-versed in drawing, painting, sculpture and the casting of gilt bronzes. As ébéniste du Roi, he was free from the restrictions of guild regulations and was afforded the privilege to work outside his own designated specialty. As a result, his workshop was permitted to produce a variety of gilt bronze objects, including chandeliers, which he began producing circa 1700. His engravings published by Mariette, circa 1720, under the title 'Nouveau desseins...' are an invaluable source of information on of his production. A number of designs for chandeliers were published, and though many of these were not executed to the letter, various combinations and variations of these designs can be identified among Boulle's known chandeliers.
The design of the Aitken chandeliers is most related to three known examples: a six-light model attributed to Boulle sold Christie’s, New York, 23 October 1998, lot 102 from the collection of André Meyer; another formerly in the Riahi Collection, sold 6 December 2012, lot 10; and an eight-light example at the Residenz in Ansbach, Germany. All of these chandeliers share a multi-faceted (hexagonal or octagonal) central socle and turned and berried inverted knops. The hexagonal socle also features on a Boulle design published by Mariette for a 'grand lustre a huit branches'; while a design by Daniel Marot, from his Nouveau Livre d'Orfèvrie Inventé par Marot Architecte du Roi, published in 1710 but conceptually dating from twenty to thirty years earlier, shows the use of paneled S-scroll arms decorated with husk-trails.
Stylistically, the Aitken chandeliers belong securely in the early eighteenth century, retaining the grandeur of the Baroque era while clearly anticipating the arrival of the Rococo. Their arms are relatively tightly curved, and are cast with acanthus leaves, contrasting with those found on earlier Louis XIV silver models of the 1680s. The use of these consoles carrées clearly indicates a departure from the architectural precision of the Baroque towards Régence sensibilities, suggesting a production after 1720. The arms on these chandeliers are cast en coquille and are particularly close to those on an example by the Boulle workshop dated 1728-30, now at the château de La Roche-Guyon (see M. Deldicque, André-Charles Boulle, Saint-Rémy-en-l'Eau, 2024, pp. 272-79), and another at Drottningholm. The female masks of the upper vases of the Aitken chandeliers also relate to those mounted between the arms on some other Boulle examples, including one in the Royal Palace, Stockholm (documented in situ since the early eighteenth century) and one at the musée du Louvre (OA 5101).
The many similarities above strongly suggest that the model for the Aitken chandeliers was produced at the Boulle atelier. Boulle himself retired in 1715, but left his workshop and entire production to his sons, who were extremely familiar with their father’s practices and continued his legacy for decades.
Early provenance for the Aitken chandeliers is not known, as without specific characteristics the identification of such chandeliers in eighteenth-century inventories or sale catalogues remains tentative. Lustres à six branches de cuivre doré are recorded in eighteenth-century documents but detailed descriptions are rare, rendering it almost impossible to trace the early history of a specific work. Furthermore, many of chandeliers that were recorded in the eighteenth-century were dispersed after the Revolution, only adding to the difficulty and complexity of their research. Single ormolu chandeliers are included relatively frequently in eighteenth-century auction catalogues and also appear periodically on today’s market. Pairs of chandeliers, however, are extremely rarely offered on the art market; the only documented mention of a pair in an eighteenth-century auction catalogue was lot 196 and 197 in the anonymous sale of Comte Guillaume du Barry (separated husband of Madame du Barry), on 21 November 1774 (see H. Ottomeyer and P. Pröschel, Vergoldete Bronzen, vol. II, Munich, 1986, p. 504).
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
It is uncertain whether the Aitken chandeliers were conceived as a pair. Few pairs and sets of identical, or almost identical, chandeliers are recorded and survive to this day, such as the set of four chandeliers at the Residenz in Ansbach. The Ansbach set furthermore did not originate as a group of four, but instead began with the delivery from France of a single chandelier, after which a matching group of three were subsequently cast by local court bronziers Joseph Bianchini and Jean Houdan (see ibid, vol. I, p. 55, fig. 1.16.11). This in no way diminishes the artistic value of the three later-cast models, but rather highlights the pragmatic eighteenth-century practice of using existing gilt bronze works as surrogates, when the chef-modèle was not available.
There are a number of subtle differences in size, construction, execution and gilding between the two Aitken chandeliers, which together suggest that one of them is of slightly later manufacture. On the very slightly larger chandelier, every element is sand-cast and finished with leaf gilding, while the other one is smaller and shows signs of lost-wax casting, thus implying that it is most probably an aftercast of a chandelier of this model. Its gilding also differs from that of the slightly larger one, and its surface is chased differently. For one example, the chased panels of the larger chandelier are framed with lines comprise of minute joined dots, whereas the equivalent panels on the smaller chandelier are marked off by sharp smooth lines. The differences in chasing are most apparent in the female masks, which are drawn differently and finished with more texture on the larger chandelier. This also suggests that the masks on the smaller chandelier are not aftercasts of a chandelier of this model. Taken generally, the individual elements of the larger chandelier, such as the drip pans, nozzles and masks, are as a rule more robust and heavier.
Subtle differences are also observable inside each chandelier. At its core, the leaf-gilt chandelier is held together by a central rod that is entirely hammered, typical of the 1720s, whereas the other chandelier’s central inner stem was extruded and subsequently hammered; a technique used from the 1730s onward. Looking closely at the tool-marks on the two rods also reveals that the jaws of the clamps used on the two are clearly different. The lower finials are also attached to the rods of each chandelier differently: the leaf-gilt one is constructed with a plate inside the finial, which does not exist on the other chandelier. Furthermore, on the aftercast chandelier the leaf mounts on the lower socles attach by screwing in from the outside. And finally, this chandelier is also assembled with an extra bobbin-shaped piece below the large central knop, making it slightly taller than the other. XRF testing reveals that the compositions of the two bronze alloys are very similar, with significant commonality to their chemical impurities: the quantities of anitimony, silver and iron being particularly close between the two (each alloy including 0.07% antimony, 0.07-0.08% silver and 0.47-0.52% iron). This suggests that they were produced in the same workshop, sourced ingots from the same supplier. The very slight metallurgical differences can be explained by the time passed between the production of each chandelier.
Based on the above subtle differences in construction, execution and gilding, but taking into consideration the functionally identical design and very similar metal compositions, the most probable scenario is that both chandeliers were produced by the Boulle workshop, though at different times and using different molds of the same model. The leaf-gilt example was executed as part of the earlier commission from the atelier, using the workshop's chef-modèle, circa 1720. The other chandelier was, around ten years later, also cast at the Boulle workshop mostly after another existing chandelier of this model, but not the Aitken leaf-gilt chandelier itself. Whether the two were matched as a pair circa 1730-1740, or united at a later time, is impossible to ascertain.
ANDRE-CHARLES BOULLE AND BOULLE FILS
Born in Paris in 1642, the son of a maître menuisier en ébène, Boulle himself achieved his maîtrise at a young age in 1666, although it is interesting to note that he also trained as a painter early in his career. His remarkable talents as a marqueteur were recognized in his early years, and when in 1672 the apartments at the Louvre of the royal ébéniste Jean Macé became vacant, none other than Colbert, first minister to Louis XIV, recommended him to the king as le plus habile de Paris dans son métier, upon which he was appointed Ebéniste, Ciseleur, Doreur et Sculpteur du Roi. This title reveals how from the very start of his career (and in direct contravention of guild regulations, after the guilds were introduced in 1715), he combined the production of cabinet-work and gilt-bronzes in his workshop, which at one stage included no fewer than six benches for gilding, casting and chasing mounts alone. Although strict guild regulations ordinarily prevented artists from practicing two professions simultaneously, Boulle's favored position allowed him protected status and exempted him from the guild rules. This resulted in a remarkable degree of artistic unity in his oeuvre. It is fascinating to note in this respect that the celebrated Italian baroque sculptor, Bernini, himself visited Boulle's workshops during a trip to Paris in 1665 and advised him on his designs. Boulle's unique ability, aided no doubt by his early training as a painter, was to synthesize all these influences with his own technical virtuosity, and invent designs that combined all into an integrated whole. As early as 1715, he handed over his workshops to his four sons: Jean-Philippe (1678-1744), Pierre-Benoît (c. 1683-1741), André-Charles II (1685-1749) and Charles-Joseph (1688-1754), all four of whom were then granted the very prestigious Royal title ébéniste du roi. Boulle himself died in 1732.
Primarily known as a cabinetmaker, Boulle was equally well-versed in drawing, painting, sculpture and the casting of gilt bronzes. As ébéniste du Roi, he was free from the restrictions of guild regulations and was afforded the privilege to work outside his own designated specialty. As a result, his workshop was permitted to produce a variety of gilt bronze objects, including chandeliers, which he began producing circa 1700. His engravings published by Mariette, circa 1720, under the title 'Nouveau desseins...' are an invaluable source of information on of his production. A number of designs for chandeliers were published, and though many of these were not executed to the letter, various combinations and variations of these designs can be identified among Boulle's known chandeliers.
The design of the Aitken chandeliers is most related to three known examples: a six-light model attributed to Boulle sold Christie’s, New York, 23 October 1998, lot 102 from the collection of André Meyer; another formerly in the Riahi Collection, sold 6 December 2012, lot 10; and an eight-light example at the Residenz in Ansbach, Germany. All of these chandeliers share a multi-faceted (hexagonal or octagonal) central socle and turned and berried inverted knops. The hexagonal socle also features on a Boulle design published by Mariette for a 'grand lustre a huit branches'; while a design by Daniel Marot, from his Nouveau Livre d'Orfèvrie Inventé par Marot Architecte du Roi, published in 1710 but conceptually dating from twenty to thirty years earlier, shows the use of paneled S-scroll arms decorated with husk-trails.
Stylistically, the Aitken chandeliers belong securely in the early eighteenth century, retaining the grandeur of the Baroque era while clearly anticipating the arrival of the Rococo. Their arms are relatively tightly curved, and are cast with acanthus leaves, contrasting with those found on earlier Louis XIV silver models of the 1680s. The use of these consoles carrées clearly indicates a departure from the architectural precision of the Baroque towards Régence sensibilities, suggesting a production after 1720. The arms on these chandeliers are cast en coquille and are particularly close to those on an example by the Boulle workshop dated 1728-30, now at the château de La Roche-Guyon (see M. Deldicque, André-Charles Boulle, Saint-Rémy-en-l'Eau, 2024, pp. 272-79), and another at Drottningholm. The female masks of the upper vases of the Aitken chandeliers also relate to those mounted between the arms on some other Boulle examples, including one in the Royal Palace, Stockholm (documented in situ since the early eighteenth century) and one at the musée du Louvre (OA 5101).
The many similarities above strongly suggest that the model for the Aitken chandeliers was produced at the Boulle atelier. Boulle himself retired in 1715, but left his workshop and entire production to his sons, who were extremely familiar with their father’s practices and continued his legacy for decades.
Early provenance for the Aitken chandeliers is not known, as without specific characteristics the identification of such chandeliers in eighteenth-century inventories or sale catalogues remains tentative. Lustres à six branches de cuivre doré are recorded in eighteenth-century documents but detailed descriptions are rare, rendering it almost impossible to trace the early history of a specific work. Furthermore, many of chandeliers that were recorded in the eighteenth-century were dispersed after the Revolution, only adding to the difficulty and complexity of their research. Single ormolu chandeliers are included relatively frequently in eighteenth-century auction catalogues and also appear periodically on today’s market. Pairs of chandeliers, however, are extremely rarely offered on the art market; the only documented mention of a pair in an eighteenth-century auction catalogue was lot 196 and 197 in the anonymous sale of Comte Guillaume du Barry (separated husband of Madame du Barry), on 21 November 1774 (see H. Ottomeyer and P. Pröschel, Vergoldete Bronzen, vol. II, Munich, 1986, p. 504).
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
It is uncertain whether the Aitken chandeliers were conceived as a pair. Few pairs and sets of identical, or almost identical, chandeliers are recorded and survive to this day, such as the set of four chandeliers at the Residenz in Ansbach. The Ansbach set furthermore did not originate as a group of four, but instead began with the delivery from France of a single chandelier, after which a matching group of three were subsequently cast by local court bronziers Joseph Bianchini and Jean Houdan (see ibid, vol. I, p. 55, fig. 1.16.11). This in no way diminishes the artistic value of the three later-cast models, but rather highlights the pragmatic eighteenth-century practice of using existing gilt bronze works as surrogates, when the chef-modèle was not available.
There are a number of subtle differences in size, construction, execution and gilding between the two Aitken chandeliers, which together suggest that one of them is of slightly later manufacture. On the very slightly larger chandelier, every element is sand-cast and finished with leaf gilding, while the other one is smaller and shows signs of lost-wax casting, thus implying that it is most probably an aftercast of a chandelier of this model. Its gilding also differs from that of the slightly larger one, and its surface is chased differently. For one example, the chased panels of the larger chandelier are framed with lines comprise of minute joined dots, whereas the equivalent panels on the smaller chandelier are marked off by sharp smooth lines. The differences in chasing are most apparent in the female masks, which are drawn differently and finished with more texture on the larger chandelier. This also suggests that the masks on the smaller chandelier are not aftercasts of a chandelier of this model. Taken generally, the individual elements of the larger chandelier, such as the drip pans, nozzles and masks, are as a rule more robust and heavier.
Subtle differences are also observable inside each chandelier. At its core, the leaf-gilt chandelier is held together by a central rod that is entirely hammered, typical of the 1720s, whereas the other chandelier’s central inner stem was extruded and subsequently hammered; a technique used from the 1730s onward. Looking closely at the tool-marks on the two rods also reveals that the jaws of the clamps used on the two are clearly different. The lower finials are also attached to the rods of each chandelier differently: the leaf-gilt one is constructed with a plate inside the finial, which does not exist on the other chandelier. Furthermore, on the aftercast chandelier the leaf mounts on the lower socles attach by screwing in from the outside. And finally, this chandelier is also assembled with an extra bobbin-shaped piece below the large central knop, making it slightly taller than the other. XRF testing reveals that the compositions of the two bronze alloys are very similar, with significant commonality to their chemical impurities: the quantities of anitimony, silver and iron being particularly close between the two (each alloy including 0.07% antimony, 0.07-0.08% silver and 0.47-0.52% iron). This suggests that they were produced in the same workshop, sourced ingots from the same supplier. The very slight metallurgical differences can be explained by the time passed between the production of each chandelier.
Based on the above subtle differences in construction, execution and gilding, but taking into consideration the functionally identical design and very similar metal compositions, the most probable scenario is that both chandeliers were produced by the Boulle workshop, though at different times and using different molds of the same model. The leaf-gilt example was executed as part of the earlier commission from the atelier, using the workshop's chef-modèle, circa 1720. The other chandelier was, around ten years later, also cast at the Boulle workshop mostly after another existing chandelier of this model, but not the Aitken leaf-gilt chandelier itself. Whether the two were matched as a pair circa 1730-1740, or united at a later time, is impossible to ascertain.
ANDRE-CHARLES BOULLE AND BOULLE FILS
Born in Paris in 1642, the son of a maître menuisier en ébène, Boulle himself achieved his maîtrise at a young age in 1666, although it is interesting to note that he also trained as a painter early in his career. His remarkable talents as a marqueteur were recognized in his early years, and when in 1672 the apartments at the Louvre of the royal ébéniste Jean Macé became vacant, none other than Colbert, first minister to Louis XIV, recommended him to the king as le plus habile de Paris dans son métier, upon which he was appointed Ebéniste, Ciseleur, Doreur et Sculpteur du Roi. This title reveals how from the very start of his career (and in direct contravention of guild regulations, after the guilds were introduced in 1715), he combined the production of cabinet-work and gilt-bronzes in his workshop, which at one stage included no fewer than six benches for gilding, casting and chasing mounts alone. Although strict guild regulations ordinarily prevented artists from practicing two professions simultaneously, Boulle's favored position allowed him protected status and exempted him from the guild rules. This resulted in a remarkable degree of artistic unity in his oeuvre. It is fascinating to note in this respect that the celebrated Italian baroque sculptor, Bernini, himself visited Boulle's workshops during a trip to Paris in 1665 and advised him on his designs. Boulle's unique ability, aided no doubt by his early training as a painter, was to synthesize all these influences with his own technical virtuosity, and invent designs that combined all into an integrated whole. As early as 1715, he handed over his workshops to his four sons: Jean-Philippe (1678-1744), Pierre-Benoît (c. 1683-1741), André-Charles II (1685-1749) and Charles-Joseph (1688-1754), all four of whom were then granted the very prestigious Royal title ébéniste du roi. Boulle himself died in 1732.