HEPPELWHITE FURNITURE. HEPPELWHITE CHAIRS, TABLES, BOOK-SHELVES, CABINETS, CUPBOARDS, SIDEBOARD and BEDS
Line is the principal characteristic of later eighteenth-century furniture to which the name of Heppelwhite is given. The style suggests a pleasant compromise between the virility of Chippendale and the formal reticence of Sheraton. Heppelwhite furniture indicates no violent change. It would seem as though the strongest conviction of the designer had been that dogmatic views were on the whole undesirable and that a medium course was the best to steer in catering for a fickle public.
Heppelwhite furniture has the quiet charm of reticence, and never fills one with astonishment. An exceptional piece of carving by Grinling Gibbons is in itself a very remarkable achievement of craftsmanship. It is a tour de force. The same may be said of the more elaborate pieces by Chippendale and Sheraton, and the French schools of the eighteenth Century are renowned for masterpieces of surprising workmanship. But Heppelwhite catered, it would seem, for a more middle-class public than Chippendale, and he was more of a tactful tradesman than Sheraton. He desired to conduct a prosperous cabinet-making business for a
good and apparentry succeeded in doing so.
His furniture reflects this in some subUe way. There is no gorgeousness about it. There is no suggestion that be was patronised by the extremely wealthy. Even the finest examples of Heppelwhite s furniture are models of grace rather than grandeur.
A. Heppelwhite & Co. published a book in the 1788 which is commonly taken as illustrating the principal characteristics of Heppelwhite furniture. But, we found with Chippendale, the year of publication did not exemplify the best period. George Heppelwhite, the founder of the business, had been dead two years when the ” Cabinet Maker and Upholsterer’t Guide,” as it was called, came out. Miss Constance Simons researches at Somerset House revealed the administration of the goods and chattels of George Heppelwhite of the Parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, London, to have been granted on the 27th June, and that afterwards the widow of the cabinet-maker carried on the business under the style of A. Heppelwhite & Co.
As an advertisement for the firm, the “Guide” was brought out later on, and it certainly had a great sale. It was bought largely by the trade even more largely than Chippendale’s bookand this accounts in great measure for the enormous amount of Heppelwhite furniture produced ail over the country. It should be remembered that the craft was still a tradi-tional one. Cabinet-makers learnt their trade at the bench and not from books, though other publications about furniture had been brought out notably those of Ince and Mayhew (1762), Robert Manwaring (1765), Matthias Lock and H. Copland (176S), and John
Crunden (1770). Sheraton’s book, The Cabinet Maker’s and Upholsterer’s Drawing Book’ did not appear until 1791. But these publications, as far as technical instruction goes, are almost childishly inadequate. In the sense in which we understand the term they give scarcely any detailed information. It is, indeed, very instructive to note the complete confidence which Chippendale has in the intelligence of the joiner and cabinet-maker who may be disposed to copy his designs. There is nothing elementary about the directions. The workman is supposed to be able to set out the job from a sketch and two or three main dimensions. N0 doubt a skilled cabinet-maker could do the same to-day, but he would have had, probably, the advan-tage of considerable technical instruction, and access to hosts of elementary works on carpentry and joinery.
In the eighteenth century books on the simpler operations of cabinet-making were almost unknown, though a large number of books on architecture and building were published. The apprentice learnt from his master, who used the quality known as ” nous” in adapting designs from publications such as those of Chippendale and Heppelwhite. He had to think for himself very largely. He was not spoon-fed but had to contrive his own methods of interpretation.
Sheraton, who is more particular about detailed instructions than many writers, simply says in reference to an elaborate bed in his book : ” The manu-facturing part may easily be understood by any workman.” Many joiners and cabinet-makers of the time must have had very slight acquaintance with printed matter and may have been in some cases. Popular journalism as we understand it to-day was non-existent. The craftsman trusted to his observation and the skill of his hand rather than to printed instructions, and it is to this method of going to work that we owe the interesting character of English furniture made in different parts of the country.
There are scores of little tricks and dodges in the craft of cabinet-making which are taught at the bench, yet even to-day have scarcely figured at ail in text books. The writer had an opportunity at one time of going over the tool chest of an old cabinet-maker who had inherited the implements of his trade from his father, who must have been at work in the late eighteenth century. Some of the tools were inexplicable, and their use could only be guessed at. Many of them were obviously self made, probably for special occasions, so that Heppelwhite furniture, in common with that of his contemporaries, was not mechanicaly reproduced by cabinet-makers who had access to the designs in the book. It was copied and adapted, skilfully or unskilfully, according to the ability and circumstances of the worker. Heppelwhite’s book was a good guide to fashion in furniture. It showed what style of work was being done in London, and opened the eyes of the country craftsman to novelties.
Fashion had changed considerably since the issue of Chippendale’s ” Director.” In France the frivolity of Louis Quinze had developed into the comparative soberness of Louis Seize. English furniture-makers still looked to the French for leadership in artistic taste, and Heppelwhite followed the fashion like every-one interested in the arts. The brothers Adam were still very influential and George Heppelwhite was employed by them. Indeed, he must have owed much to their direction in design. Some pieces of furniture of the Heppelwhite school have almost more Adam than Heppelwhite about them. In his rendering of the late French Renaissance, Heppelwhite seems to have been more English than Chippendale, possibly because his work had to be carried out at a reasonable cost, a condition of things Chippendale did not always have to put up with. There was a gentle graciousness about Heppelwhite’s furniture which was never achieved by French work of the same period. In this softness of expression he undoubtedly surpassed the brothers Adam, who were inclined to stifmess and angularity.
As in the case of Chippendale, collectors will be wise to regard the name of Heppelwhite as merely a convenient label on style. They will in ail probability never discover a piece of furniture which can be cer-tainly identified as having been made by Heppelwhite himself, or even turned out of the Workshops of Heppelwhite & Co. The greater part of the furniture which can fairly enough be ascribed to this successful designer was made subsequent to the publication of the ” Guide’ and as Sheraton published his book so soon afterwards, the influence of the two great makers was experienced together in many a Workshop. The ” Guide ” indicated the character of George Heppelwhite’s furniture as translate into a fashionable development, and is not exactly a reflection of that which he made
long before the Company came into existence.
To start with the chair, which will reveal more of significance to the average observer than many other pieces, the principal feature is the form of the back, usually shield shape. It is possible that Heppelwhite himself turned out in the aggregate more chair-backs of other forais than the shield, but the latter was popular and was recognised then and now as on the whole the best thing he did in this direction.
The finest shield shape backs represent a type. They are pure Heppelwhite, and are one of the most important contributions made to the story of eighteenth Century English furniture. No doubt they were evolved, but the steps of the evolution are not apparent. In some cases it is possible to see the influence of Chippendale in early Heppelwhite work, but the pure shield-back chair eludes anything but the most imaginative connection with the former style. It is carved and nearly always in mahogany, but unlike Chippen-dale chairs, the carved ornament is applied for the most part within the outline of the structure. It does not flow out to vary the boundary line. The shield is uninterrupted all the way round, the grooves or boundary beading being nearly always continuous. Reference to the Chippendale chairs should make this point clear.
It will be seen that in these two examples the crest rails have their carved decoration clothing the form on the outside and thus varying the outline. But the Heppelwhite chairs show these shield-shaped and oval backs in a continuons uninterrupted sweep. Occasionally an instance will be found in which a Heppelwhite chair has a small carved rosette or knot on each side of the trame of the back, from which a detail of festooned drapery will be sus-pended, but in the majority of cases such details will be found only with in the shield or oval.
Sheraton also used the shield shape, but his rendering of it gave a short horizontal line on the crest rail. Tins feature is never seen in a Heppelwhite chair with shield back, the outline of the top being always bow-shaped. Reference to the examples illustrated will reveal another characteristic feature. The two supports of the back run down in a gentle wave and dis-appear behind the seat to join the legs. Sometimes a tiny scroll is seen on the outer side at the junction with the shield frame. In most Sheraton chairs the curve of the support will be stopped well above the seat level, the continuation down being square and plinth like. From this square shaping in Sheraton work a rail frequently passed across to strengthen the frame. Heppelwhite did without this extra rail. His back supports combined with the sinuous arms make a piece of constructive framework which for strength has never been surpassed.
It is due to the f act that Heppelwhite’s work and that of Sheraton have so much in common that frequent comparison between the two must be made. Some examples of late eighteenth-century cabinet-making, indeed, are so constructed as to defy ail attempts at authentication. They may partake of the characteristics of both Heppelwhite and Sheraton. As a general rule such pieces are not so valuable as those which express purity of style, but they are often
extremely interesting.
Heppelwhite’s arm work was superior to that of Sheraton in contour, and its approach to the front part of the chair. There is a better realisation, too, of the value of concave surfaces arranged to be complementary to one another in the construction of the back and arms. A Heppelwhite back is often concave, but not always. The arms sweep out laterally and the elbow dips toward the seat before it reaches a point immediately above the front legs. Sheraton’s chairs give a sense of more sympathetic relationship between front legs and arms. Heppelwhite’s establish a more convincing connection between arms and back. The front legs of Sheraton’s arm-chairs may be looked upon roughly as vertical posts, running up well above the seat level to the elbow. Heppelwhite front legs stopped at the seat, at which point the arms sometimes joined them. In the case of the shield-shaped back shown, the lower sweep of the arms joins the seat frame well back from the front legs.
The serpentine line is typical of a great deal of cabinet-making by the Heppelwhite school. It is found in side tables, sideboards, chests of drawers, Pembroke tables, bed testers, wardrobes, chairs, and many other pieces of furniture. The chair with oval back shows it in the shape of the front rail, and the one with shield back at page 210 is also slightly serpentine. Ail fashionable chair-making from about 1760 began to show more spring and liveliness than it had done hitherto. There was less weight
and a better sense of the value of spread about the legs, which were placed so as to obtain a stability which would otherwise have to be obtained by stoutness of material. Heppelwhite chairs more certainly than those of Sheraton touched the point of perfection between lightness of appearance and constructive rigidity. It is quite possible for chairs to be strong enough for their purpose but to look weak. This is a fault in design more frequently seen in Sheraton than in Heppelwhite.
In decoration the furniture under consideration illustrated the employment of more varied methods than that of Chippendale. It was carved, inlaid, painted, or lacquered. But there was rarely a case in which the opportunity for elaborate enrichment was abused. Familiar carved details are the Prince of Wales’ feathers, wheat ear, wheel form, ribbon and bow, and anthemion, with festoons of conventionalised drapery suspended from rosettes.
Sometimes chair-backs were filled within the en-circling frame by designs having little suggestion of the old-time plain or pierced splat, and on the whole such examples are more characteristic of pure Heppelwhite. The splat, however, as seen in Queen Anne furniture and in elaborated form that of Chippendale, was used to suggest a vertical centre ornament. Classical details reminding one of Adam enrichment were employed, the pendant row of husks, the vase, and the lyre being instances. The last mentioned, indeed, was probably in the first instance an idea suggested by Adam.
Collectors may find Heppelwhite chairs with padded or upholstered backs probably oval or shield-shaped, They were called cabriole chairs. Accompanying the padding in the back is a small arm pad and to correspond the seat will be upholstered. The drop-in seat is not a characteristic of Heppelwhite.
Upholstered chairs were commoner after 1750 than is often supposed. But as the Covers wore out and exposed the stuffing they became relegated to inferior rooms in the house and subsequently broken up. Caricatures of social life at the time frequently show these stuffed chairs and they suggest Heppelwhite more than any other maker. Skirts of ladies’ dresses were ample, so the arms of chairs were well thrown out, and their supports curved backward. It is a curious thing that the ” Guide gives no illustration of what we regard as a very typical Heppelwhite chairthe wheel back, a design which was also found in settees. A curious caricature by Collings of 1786, called ” The Disinherited Heir,” shows the wheel back in use, though the draughtsmanshipfrom the point of view of a designer of furniture exceedingly poor.
Attention should be paid to the feet of chairs. The thimble shape is seen and also the spade or ” term.” On the whole, Heppelwhite did more with the feet than Sheraton, sometimes carving them with leaf forms. Fluting with carved husks diminishing in size downward is often to be found on the legs. In plain examples there will be stretcher work Connecting
the legs, as in the chair at page 210. Round, fluted, or grooved legs are common, also square ones, delievered by beading and finishing at the bottom without feet.
At the close of the eighteenth Century the number of pieces of furniture in use in ordinary houses had increased enormously. Heppelwhite’s list in his book comprises no fewer than three hundred different designs on a hundred and twenty-six plates. Such a work must have been invaluable to the country cabinet-maker. But of course these plates do not correspond in number to the pieces of furniture. Many designs were given for each piece. An analysis of the plates reveals, however, over forty different articles which might well have been used in furnishing a house.
The Heppelwhite sideboard included very often a cellaret on one side and a drawer on the other, thus Coming nearer to the sideboard which reached its completed but debased form in the middle of the nineteenth Century. Heppelwhite Sheraton too also included a small secret cupboard at one end of the sideboard at the back of the drawer, which was con-sequently made shorter. It will be found that the front line of the sideboard is often serpentine. The cupboards are never convex on plan, always concave, and there is usually a drawer between them. Side tables without drawer or cupboard accommodation continued to be made with pedestal cupboards to stand at each and surmounted by knife boxes. These side tables are straight fronted and suggests in their carved detail the Adam influence. Heppelwhite makes no distinction in his book between the fitted piece of furniture and the simple table, calli both of them sideboards. The right-hand drawer, if there was one, was fitted with partitions for nine bottles behind which was a place for cloths or napkins. In the left-hand drawer were two divisions, the back on lined with green cloth to hold plate under a Cover the front one lined with lead for holding water to was glasses. It is explained in the ” Guide ” that ” must be a valve cock or plug at the bottom, to let o the dirty water ; and also in the other drawer, to change the water necessary to keep the wine, etc., cool ; or they may be made to take out.”
Heppelwhite gives a rule as to the dimensions oi sideboards, saying that the generai custom was to make them from five and a half to seven feet long, three feet high and from twenty-eight to thirty-two inches wide. He also says that they were often made to fit into recesses, so that in cases where the collector comes across a sideboard of uncommon proportions it may indicate a special commission and possibly special features introduced.
The pedestals which, as already noted, stood flanking the united sideboards, were provided with racks and a stand for a heater, so that plates might be kept warm in the dining-room. Knife cases were made by Heppelwhite, but collectors may discover that the inside cuttings are different” from those shown in the photograph, for the vase was frequently used for water to keep the butter cool or for ice. Japanned copper was found a convenient material for making vases for holding water.
Under the sideboard was placed the cellaret, made of mahogany and hooped with lacquered brass hoops, the inner part being divided into partitions and lined with lead for bottles. Common shapes were circular or octagonal in plan and standing on four legs slightly splayed out. They had handles at the sides and a lid. Knife cases with serpentine fronts and sloping lids are frequently to be found in second-hand dealers shops ; but their value depends entirely upon the quality of the wood used and the execution of the inlaid or painted decoration, for they are not in them-selves rarities.
The bureau bookcase, or, as Heppelwhite calls it, the desk bookcase, was a piece of furniture very popular with the country cabinet-maker. It was straight-forward in design and presented few dfficulties of execution. It had no curved surfaces, and the lower part, although demanding neatness and skill in its making, could be treated in the traditional way.
It was rather different with the secretary and bookcase, the lower part of which was made to look like a shest of drawers when closed. It was more complicated and must have been new to many cabinet- makers. Collectors will find examples of the secretary bookcase rarer than the bureau bookcase. It was not, of course, peculiar to Heppelwhite, for Sheraton made many examples, and those he gives in his book, although more elaborate in appearance than those of the ” Guide,” must have tempted many a cabinet-maker to copy them.
The feet of such pieces as chests of drawers, ward-robes, and bookcases were mostly made by Heppelwhite square with bracketed ogee shaping. Sometimes there was a wave sweep between them and the feet were splayed out. A pair of cupboard doors sometimes took the place of the drawers in the lower part.
Other examples in the ” Guide ” which were largely copied were the wardrobe, and single and double chests of drawers. The former had two long drawers and two short ones below, and a cupboard above with sliding shelves. Probably no piece of furniture so simple and suitable for its purpose was ever invented, and even to-day, with the competition from the modem hanging wardrobe fitted with dress suspenders and hooks, it holds its own uncommonly well. Chests of drawers followed the form adopted by ail makers towards the close of the eighteenth century. They were either single or double, the latter usually being about six feet high and known to us as tall-boys or high-boys.
Frequently in country sale rooms one can find those delightfully fitted dressing tables which close up by means of folding doors on the top. They were made both by Sheraton and Heppelwhite, but most of those
which are of the plain utilitarian order originated from the ” Guide.” The various partitions into which the well under the folding lids was divided were in-tended for combs, powders, essences, patches, pins, and other articles for the toilet. The glass, which is also fitted into the well, in front and is supported by a foot fixed in the back. These dainty bits of furniture are not particularly rare and their value depends entirely upon their condition, and the character of their decoration, if they have any. Inferior wood was often employed in their make, but mahogany was common enough.
Perhaps the most comprehensive article of this and attributed to Heppelwhite was what was known as Rudd’s Table. Heppelwhite says : ” This is the most complete dressing table made, possessing every convenience which can be wanted, or mechanism, or ingenuity supply. It derives its name from a once popular character for whom it is reported it was once invented.” Rudd’s table is one with three drawers side by side in front, the middle one of which slips in and out in the ordinary way. The two side ones slip out and swing to right and left on pins. They contain mirrors on frames which turn up on metal quadrants. Ail the drawers are most elaborately fitted and there is a slide covered in green cloth for writing.
Most of these mechanically perfect little pieces look when closed like nicely made boxes on stands, but some of them appear like chests of drawers. Heppelwhite made a number of these and called them dressing drawers. The principle of construction in ail of them was much the same, the fitted part being in the recess
behind the top drawer, which either ran on a slide or was exposed from above by opening a folding lid.
In his settees Heppelwhite reached almost as great a success as in his chairs. Wheel back settees, made of satinwood and painted, are very scarce and realise if in good condition big prices at auction. In the ” Guide g the settee is spoken of as a sofa, and the dimensions given show them to have been rather long. The author says : I The following is the proportion in general use : length between six and seven feet, depth about thirty inches, height of the seat frame fourteen inches : total height in the back three feet one inch.” Five examples of fully upholstered settees are give in the ” Guide,” but only one with a bar or banister back. This last example is what we should call a four-chair back settee. In design it is obviously adapted from a row of four shield-backed chairs, and is very characteristic of the maker.
Heppelwhite settees have the crest rail in the form of a wave which gently flows into the arms at each end. The fully upholstered ones have in some cases no wood showing on back and seat, but in others a neatly moulded frame is visible ail round. The legs are often round and straight, though the French cabriole was sometimes used.
In acknowledging his indebtedness to the French I for the idea of the ” confidante,” a kind of settee with single chair seats fitted at the ends, the English cabinet-maker says : ” This piece of furniture is of French origin, and is in pretty general request for large and spacious suites of apartments. An elegant drawing-room with modem furniture is scarce complete with-out a confidante ; the extent of which may be about nine feet, subject to the same regulations as sofas. This piece of furniture is sometimes so constructed that the ends take away and leave a regular sofa ; the ends may be used as Barjier (sic) chairs’
Another piece of furniture Heppelwhite adapted from Louis XV. sources was the ” duchesse.” Two ” Barjier ” chairs with a stool between them form a sort of long couch, the chairs facing one another. Settees of the Heppelwhite type were frequently made with serpentine fronts, the seats finished with cane upon which a loose cushion was used. Inlay was occasionally introduced in tiny ovals or circular panels, but for the most part the characteristic carved flutings comprised the decorative enrichment.
A chair which has been much copied in recent years is the Heppelwhite easy chair with side wings above the scroll arms. The legs are square in section and finished with spade-shaped feet, straight stretchers being fitted to stiffen the frame. Heppelwhite refers to these chairs as ” saddle checks ” and says they may be covered with leather, horsehair, or have a linen case to fit over the canvas stuffing. It is the rarest thing to discover one of these easy chairs with the original covering, certainly not the original horsehair, which wore badly in patches. But if the chair had formerly a fine needlework covering, and care had been taken of
it, there would be some probability of its still being good. A Heppelwhite easy chair of this kind is quite a possible find.
Library cases were made of the finest mahogany procurable as a rule. These were commissioned, of course, by well-to-do people and were highly finished, the sash bars being often of metal, gilt, or painted.
Heppelwhite bed pillars are among the most graceful ever made, and simple examples are common enough. They are usually fluted or reeded, the urn shape being frequently used at the greatest thickness. Carved enrichment of wheat ears, the anthemion, husks and leaves is usual, and the long part of the pillar may be relieved by a twisted ribbon. ” Term feet are found on those posts which in use were in-tended to be exposed. In some Heppelwhite beds the lower valance went round the feet of the posts, but in others it simply ran from post to post, leaving the latter fully exposed at the corners, the curtains being looped up high.
The following bits of Heppelwhite furniture may be picked up from time to time in ail sorts of odd places. They were made very largely, being fairly simple in construction, and in price were well within the means of people in moderate circumstances.
Tea Trays.Either inlaid or painted and varnished. Usually oval or scalloped, the ornamentation shewing attenuated acanthus scrolls, ribbons, roses and husk swags.
Tea Caddies.Rather casket-like with feet or plinth bases. Carved, inlaid, or painted. A very simple one often to be met with is the shape of a square prism with hinged lid and divided by a middle partition.
The pole screen frequently figures in prints of interiors representing social life of the late eighteenth century. Embroidery was still a fashion-able occupation, though after the close of the century it began to give way before the mechanical products of the loom. Horace Walpole alludes to various articles at Strawberry Hill decorated by ladies. I In the round Drawing Room :A screen worked in chenille, to suit with the chimney, by the Countess of Ailesbury.”
And again : “A two leafed screen painted on Manchester velvet, with the heads of a Satyr and Bacchante, by Lady Diana Beauclerc, in 1788.”
Hanging Shelves. These have perforated ends, no backs, and are sometimes fitted with little drawers on a scalloped or serpentine front.
Dressing Glasses. Painted or inlaid, with curved supports, and having decoration of vases and swags. Sometimes made of satinwood veneered on oak.
Tambour Writing Tables. Fitted with a sliding shutter to slip down after the manner of a modem roll-top desk.
Shaving Tables and Basin Stands. Both on square plan and standing on tapering legs with term feet. A sliding shutter will sometimes enclose the front. The folding-down mirror is always seen in the shaving interiors and furniture by using the brush of the artist as well as the chisel of the carver. This use of painted decoration on furniture must not be confounded by the collector with lacquering founded on Oriental models, although the latter again became fashionable in the middle of the eighteenth Century owing principally to the influence of Sir William Chambers, who had received many impressions of Chinese work during his travels in the East. Mr. Percy Macquoid, however, referring in his sumptuous work on English furniture to Sir Horace Walpole’s description of the contents of Strawberry Hill, quotes a letter written to Sir Horace Maun as early as 1743 in which the fashionable craze for amateur japanning is rather severely handled. J ‘ ‘ My table I like, though he has stuck in among the ornaments two vile china jars that look like the modem japanning by ladies.”