CHIPPENDALE FURNITURE. CHIPPENDALE TABLES, CHARS, BEDS, DRESSERS, CUPBOARDS, BEDS, SOFAS
NO style of furniture is better known to the average collector than Chippendale, yet no style has suffered more from general ignorance about it. The name appears to have caught the imaginations of collectors, apart from the huge prices realised at auction for authentic work of Chippendale. Even to-day, when one would have thought the general characteristics of the style would be well known, it is not uncommon to hear auctioneers describe pieces of furniture as Chippendale which haveno more connection with the great cabinet-maker than they have with the great auk. People rarely seem to mind this florid inaccuracy and most of the spectators at a sale do not appear to know it. The name is a good one with which to advertise, and providing a piece of furniture looks more or less like mahogany in poor condition the seller is usually safe enough in describing it as Chippendale. Alliteration, too, has done much to perpetuate the general belief that chairs were the principal work of Chippendale, and one is constantly finding their present price set up as a sort of standard by which to gauge values. But for all this the fact remains that furniture by Chippendale is still the strongest magnet to draw those who are interested in eighteenth-century woodwork to any collection about to be brought under the hammer.
Authentic evidence of any piece of furniture having actually been made by Chippendale himself, or even turned out of his Workshops, is astonishingly rare, considering the immense inducements there are to find it. For if the owner of a table, cabinet, bedstead, or side table supposed to be by Chippendale can bring documentary evidence in support of the claim the priee realised on selling may go up to almost anything, according to the competition there is among buyers. Considering the immense numbers of examples of Chippendale’s work in existence, which are generally accepted by experts as genuine, it is a very suspicious circumstance that more invoices and bills of the firm are not forthcoming to substantiate the belief in this authenticity. The Chippendale firm must have had a big business in its dayЧindeed quite colossal if ail the pieces of furniture known by the name really came from the establishment, and after ail the period only dates back a Century and a half. Mr. Percy Macquoid has given in his well-known work reproductions of bills from Chippendale, and Miss Constance Simon* also illustrates specimens. But such documents themselves partake of the character of valuable manuscripts, so scarce are they, quite apart from their influence on the prices of furniture to which they allude. The fact is that Chippendale furniture in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred was made by Chippendale simply because authority asserts it. Proof is nearly always absent. The course taken is to conclude that if an article has the well-known decorative characteristics exploited by Chippendale, is exceptionally well designed and executed, and is old, then it is genuine.
Up to this time in English furniture no cabinet-maker had emerged as an individual. Grinling Gibbons alone as a carver appears to have retained his per-sonality. Daniel Marot, the officiai architect to William III., as we have seen, influenced decoration and furniture considerably at the end of the seventeenth Century, but he was an imported expert and was not primarily a woodworker. There must, of course, have been many extremely expert cabinet-makers in the later Stuart and early Georgian days, but they cannot be connected by name with any particular class of work. Even if their names could be found, they would mean nothing to us. But with Chippendale it was different. He advertised himself, and it is largely through the advertisement of his book, ” The Gentle-man’s and Cabinet Maker’s Director,” that he has become so famous. Original copies of this work (1754) are now exceedingly scarce, and if in perfect condition would bring ?50 or ?60 at auction. Even editions subsequently published have appreciated in price, for collectors are glad to have for reference the principal means extant for authenticating Chippendale furniture.
Before dipping into the pages of the ” Director ” it will be helpful to give a few biographical details of the
family of the great cabinet-maker so as to fit him into his particular niche in the history of English furniture.
The first we hear of the family is that it was known in Worcestershire, where the great Chippendale’s father was a wood-carver of some local repute. There were three Chippendales concerned in the story of eighteenth-century cabinet-making, the last of whom succeeded his father in business and carried on the name with a partner named Haig, who subsequently retired. Miss Constance Simon gives the dates of the various developments of the Chippendales’ business through consulting records as follows :
The parish register of St. George’s Chapel, Mayfair, yields the information that a marriage was solemnised on the 10,th May, 1748, between Thomas Chippendale and Catherine Redshaw of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Later on, ” at Christmas, 1749, Chippendale took a shop in Conduit Street, Long Acre, and in 1753 removed to larger premises N0. 60, St. Martin’s Lane.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, April 5th, 1755, says : ” A fire broke out in the Workshop of Mr. Chippendale, a cabinet-maker, near St. Martin’s Lane, which consumed the same, wherein were the chests of twenty-two workmen.” The Public Advertiser of 1766 is quoted as follows by Miss Simon : | Whereas by the Death of Mr. James Rannie, late of St. Martin’s Lane, Cabinet-Maker and Upholder, the partnership between him and Mr. Thomas Chippendale dissolved at his death, and the Trade will for the future be carried on by Mr. Chippendale on his own account.” The exact year of Thomas Chippendale’s death Miss Simon has found in an entry in the burial register of St. Martin’s Church. ” 1779 November 13, Thomas Chippendale.” In reference to the will, she also quotes under date of December, 1779: “On the sixteenth day, administration of the goods, chatteis, and credits of Thomas Chippendale, late of the parish of St. Martin’s in the ffields in the Co. of Middlesex, deceased, was granted to Elizabeth Chippendale widow, the relict of the said deceased, having been first sworn duly to administrate. ” After this event Chippendale’s eldest son succeeded to the business, Miss Simon’s consultation of directories yielding the following particulars :
The firm from 1779-1784 was styled Chippendale & Haig, but in 1785 Haig appears as the senior partner. Haig withdrew from the firm in 1796. In 1814 Chippendale opened a shop in the Haymarket, N0. 57, and for four years carried on the old St. Martin’s Lane business simultaneously with the new venture. In 1821 he removed to 42 Jermyn Street.” Miss Simon also notes that the will of this Thomas Chippendale was proved by Sarah Wheatley on 28th January, 1823.
A simple table of biographical details may be more useful to the average reader than further quotations which would only serve to elaborate facts already well authenticated.
FATHER
1720-1725. Approximate time of the first Thomas Chip-pendale removing from Worcestershire to London with his son, who became the famous cabinet-maker.
SON
1748.Marriage of the second Thomas Chippendale.
1748.His establishment of a shop in Conduit Street,
Long Acre.
1749.Removal to 60, St. Martin’s Lane.
1753. His publication of У The Gentleman’s and Cabinet Maker’s Director.”
1766. Death of Thomas Chippendale’s partner, Mr.
James Rannie. 1779. Death of the second Thomas Chippendale.
GRANDSON
1779-1784. Partnership of the third Thomas Chippen-dale and Thomas Haig.
1796. Withdrawal of Haig from the business.
1814. Chippendale’s shop opened in the Haymarket.
1821. Removal of the business to Jermyn Street.
1823. Proving of the third and last Thomas Chippen-dale’s will.
Now although the interest of the history of the family of Chippendale for a hundred years chiefly centres round the middle period when the most famous of the three cabinet-makers was in full work, collectors will find specimens dating from about 1780 very common. But they lack, as a rule, the character which distinguished the earlier work, and show evidence of the change in fashion which was asking for stiff, attenuated forms and inlay in place of substantial suavity and carving.
Reference has already been made to the walnut settee as in some respects reminiscent of the work of Chippendale. At one time, indeed, it was actually catalogued as dating from 1760-1780. Ob-viously this was putting it very late, but the form of the ball and claw legs and the carving on the knees are very like Chippendale work about 1740. The legs of this piece may be usefully compared with those of the stool opposite, which show the C form on the insides of the knees.
The C form which is found over and over again in Chippendale’s work has been rather fancifully attributed to the cabinet-maker’s delight in introducing the first letter of his name into his carving. A similar notion is abroad about the S shape in seventeenth-century work, which, as noted in chapter five, is regarded by the very imaginative as being derived from the first letter of Stuart. But the C form is found in Louis Quinze decoration in profusion everywhere, and Chippendale is known to have been strongly influenced by French work of his day. The gilt girandole in Room 56 of the Victoria and Albert Museum, acquired in 1913, is an excellent illustration of Chippendale’s French rococo manner.
It is very much the wisest plan for the modest collector to regard the name of Chippendale as indicating a style in furniture, and not as that of an individual. There is plenty of character about the style, but there is very little recognisable evidence of individual work about any one article. A piece of furniture is not like a picture, which affords so wide a field for the manifestation of the artist’s personality.
Again, it was never the custom to sign pieces of furniture as pictures are signed. Yet there seems to be an idea abroadЧmore with regard to Chippendale than any other worker in woodЧthat pieces of furniture can be identified as actually having been made by one particular person. The collector may make up his mind that if he waits for proof of such authorship in the case of any English eighteenth Century cabinet-maker before buying, he will never become possessed of anything. Even in cases which can be proved by documentary evidence as having come from the firm of Chippendale, there is no certainty that the great Thomas Chippendale actually did the work with his own hands. If the paragraph in the Gentleman’s Magazine already quoted shews anything clearly beyond the fact that Mr. Chippendale had a Workshop, it is that in that Workshop no fewer than twenty-two cabinet-makers were regularly employed. These considerations, however, do not detract from the fame of the master whose influence on the furniture of his day was so manifest.
It is difficult to attempt a broad definition which will enable the novice to recognise Chippendale furniture when he sees it, because the style passed through so many different phases. Yet some such generalisation appears necessary to start with so that the collector can form a rough idea of its main characteristics.
Chippendale furniture is made most frequently entirely of mahogany, with carved enrichment, and no inlay. Its construction is sturdy, but its ornamentation often exceedingly light and fragile. Most of it
shews skilful exploitation of curvilinear forms. Fretted or pierced ornamentation is common, and in generalthe design of the decoration foliows Louis XV. models. Old Chippendale furniture in colour is inclined to brown, often becoming deep chocolate with an almost metallic looking patina. It is never a hot red. The following articles are commonly found in old Chippendale : chairs, stools, settees, commodes, dining tables, side tables, bookcases, card tables, basin stands, wine coolers, tripod tables, picture and mirror frames, writing tables, brackets, wardrobes, console and pier tables, organ cases, bureaux, secretaires, tall-boys, candlestands, clock cases, china cabinets, fire-screens, tea-caddies, bedsteads, and chests of drawers.
As far as can be ascertained Chippendale never made a sideboard as we understand the term. Even his side tables rarely had a drawer in them. The piece of furniture exploited by Heppelwhite and Sheraton with its flanking cupboards and drawer between is never to be seen in Chippendale furniture. The brothers Adam, it is true, had pieces of furniture made by Chippendale to their design, which at first consisted of a side table with separate pedestals having cupboards on which stood knife cases or butlers’ urns. Later these separate pieces were incorporated into the well-known Adam sideboards.
The principal phases of decorative character exploited by the great cabinet-maker were three, but it must be understood in giving them that they are not necessarily to be found separately in separate pieces of furniture. Frequently they are mixed together, not always very successfully. But they followed one another in point of time.
The first of the three was the mainspring of Chippen-dale’s decoration up to about 1750, after which the Chinese craze came in and continued up to about 1765, when the Gothic taste began to supersede it. Late Chippendale furniture shews frequently the influence of Louis Seize ornamentation, with which, however, its true character has nothing in common. After the death of the great Thomas Chippendale in 1779, the firm in its later development made furniture according to the demands for classical work brought in by R. and J. Adam, who commissioned the cabinet-makers to construct to their designs. Very fine examples of this phase are to be seen in three mahogany chairs made by Chippendale from designs by Adam and in the possession of the Worshipful Company of Drapers. These chairs have nothing in their design which is charac-teristic of what we know as true Chippendale. They have fine oval backs fretted out in wheel fashion and the legs are tapered in the fashion of Heppelwhite, and finished with ” term ” feet.
It is difficult to see how the great Chippendale, who it is surmised must have been born in the reign of Queen Anne, could have been influenced in this work by Louis Quatorze furniture, though it is sometimes stated that his earlier work shows evidence of it.
Louis Quinze came to the throne of France in 1715 and was succeeded by Louis Seize in 1774, and French writers have within recent years argued that the style in French decorative art known as Louis Quinze in reality began long before the death of the Grand Monarque.
Mr. G. Owen Wheeler, in his valuable work on furniture,* has gone to great pains to establish his contention that Chippendale was fully acquainted with Chinese forms in decoration before the return of Sir William Chambers who is usually credited with the introduction of the Chinese vogue into England from the East, and the reasons he gives seem certainly convincing, it He points out that Chambers, who had left England in 1744 at the age of eighteen for the East Indies, only returned in 1755 and published the book of Oriental designs he had collected two years afterwards, whereas in 1754 Chippendale’s ” Director ” contained Chinese designs which he issued in the hope of improving the Chinese taste.” Mr. Wheeler brings more evidence of a similar character to bear.
Sir William Chambers, it appears to the writer, can in this connection only be regarded as a convenient name wherewith to indicate a revival in the taste for Chinese art, which had fitfully been in evidence in various forms since the time of Charles II. Chippendale in his extensive borrowings from the French must have obtained Oriental detail with the debased rococo features he exploited. For the French had used this detail considerably, not only in schemes of lacquered and painted decoration, but also for the general structure of pieces of furniture. M. Andre Sag Ho points out that in studying the most rococo examples of the furniture of the Louis XV period, such as some of the works of Meissonier or Jacques Cafheri, for instance, there is no difficulty in discovering Chinese detail. French as well as English travellers like Sir William Chambers went to the East and returned laden with ideas to incorporate into Western art.
Examination of Chippendale’s famous publication, ” The Gentleman’s and Cabinet Maker’s Direct or,” shows the list of subscribers to the first edition to have numbered 317, of whom 149 are returned as cabinet-makers, joiners, upholders, and others engaged in the furnishing trade. The rest of the subscribers are l* noblemen and gentlemen | whom Chippendale ap-peals to in his preface to believe that if they will only honour him with their commands every design in the book can be improved … in the execution of it.”
The places of residence of the many cabinet-makers who subscribed are not given in the majority of cases, but from those which appear it is evident the publication had a widespread circulation. A number are returned as having been sent to subscribers in York and Liverpool, Nottingham and Scarborough, as well as London.
The object of the book is fully explained in the preface and appears to have been twofold, to assist the buyer in the choice of designs, and the maker in the execution of them. There are a hundred and sixty plates, with descriptive letterpress to each one, and as careful measurements are given of the pieces of furniture illustrated, the publication must have been of great service to the trade. The significance of the ” Director ! to collectors of to-day is the
Chippendale’s work as distinguished from that of his contemporaries, and the assistance it gives in identifying genuine pieces. But the embarrassing fact is that some of the features we regard as being essentially Chippendale are not to be found illustrated in the work, notably the bail and claw foot, and many of the engraved plates show designs for pieces of furniture which the author never executed. The discrepancies have been explained by students of old English furniture in various ways.
Perhaps the appeal of the book to the two classes, gentlemen and cabinet-makers, and its date (1754) will together show why the work appeared as it did. Chippendale appealed to gentlemen as prospective customers, so he showed them articles of the latest fashion which in decorative character partook of a mixture of rococo, Chinese, and Gothic details. He was asking wealthy and aristocratie people for commissions to execute fine and elaborate work. Obviously it would have been of no use putting before these the plain, unadorned furniture of the farmhouse, or the old-fashioned claw and bail which had been in use for half a century. Then cabinet-makers would need no instruction in perfectly plain work which they had been turning out more or less according to tradition for the same period of time. They would want some-thing in fashion which would help them in their work for fashionable people. It seems to the writer that Chippendale advertised the new, the fashionable, and the elaborate, and left the plain and homely alone as being scarcely worthy of the expense of copperplates.
The book starts with a bow of veneration to the Five Orders of Architecture, and a few rules as to how to draw in perspective, the rest of the work being taken up with examples of many different pieces of furniture. Notwithstanding the rules, many of the pieces are in most villainous perspective and it requires little imagination to agree with Chippendale in his statement that in work the designs will be vastly improved. He notes in his preface that some of the profession have been diligent enough to represent them (especially those after the Gothic and Chinese manner) as so many specious drawings, impossible to be worked off by any mechanic whatsoever.” “It is not altogether surprising that they did take this point of view, for the detail in some of the plates is far too elaborate for woodwork, and as far as we know never was carried out.
A great many pieces of plain Chippendale furniture (using the name in its broad sense) which were made subsequently to the publication of the ” Director ” might well have been copied minus most of the ornament directly from the pages of the book. For there are chairs, bookcases, tables, chests of drawers, china cabinets, settees, and other pieces which a good cabinet-maker would translate easily enough without the costly enrichments, yet still retain the essential characteristics of the style. The hundred and forty-nine craftsmen who obtained possession of the book by subscription, one may be sure, used it in their Workshops and did a good deal to multiply the ” Chippendale ” furniture found so easily all over the country to-day.
The following list of pieces of furniture made by Chippendale or cabinet-makers of his school is given to enable the collector to identify some of the common characteristics of the style.
Tables.Supported on cabriole legs with ball and claw foot, or with legs square in section, finished with brackets, often perforated, in angle between top of leg and horizontal rail. A Chinese fret will sometimes be found on legs and rails. Dining tables are rare. They have the cabriole or square legs, and big, rather cumbrous flaps supported when up by legs which swing out as brackets.
Chairs.Cabriole legs with ball and claw in earlier specimens, with backs having perforated splat resemb-ling in general formation Queen Anne models. Crest rail sometimes straight, but more frequently curved in one of the many bow-shaped interpretations of the period. Arms padded in those which have upholstered backs. The backs of those having perforated splats . composed in fine specimens of ribbons with rococo detail. Rococo detail carved below the seat and on the knees of the legs. The C scroll commonly in evidence, often in the chair backs and in the angles between seat and legs. In specimens having square legs the Chinese fret is often employed, and there may be an underframing perforated or fretted out to correspond. So-called ” French ” Chippendale chairs feet formed of scrolls taken from Louis Quinze examples. Gothic detail is seen in frets designed in imitation of lancet Windows.
Bookcases. Often made with the centre projecting a few inches, the wings being thus set back. Small ones four or five feet wide will be on the same plane without projection. The cornice with dentils may have a broken pediment and a centre ornament. There will be glazed doors, and in the lower part cupboards or drawers. Perforated decoration is often a feature of the top inside the angles of the broken pediment.
China Cabinets. Sometimes standing on four legs, square in section and decorated with frets ; at other times with the lower part filled in with cupboards and designed with a projecting centre like the bookcases. Chinese frets form a cresting above the cornice and there is frequently a pagoda-shaped top over, enriched with Louis Quinze detail. Top part frequently, but not always, glazed on three sides. The cornice above centre part may be surmounted with a scrolled or horn-shaped top filled in with fret perforation. If the lower part is not filled in the legs may be connected by a decoratively arranged underframing. Plain examples of Chippendale china cabinets usually have cupboards in the lower parts.
Bureaux. Made with a bookcase above enclosed by two doors or by a china cupboard. The lower part may stand on ogee feet and have four or five drawers with a hinged slab for writing. Above the cornice the broken pediment may occur, and sometimes a crown silver and border of greene damaske round it and feathers will be in the centre, perforated frets being employed as well. Fittings inside the bureau follow Queen Anne models closely as to their arrangement, but the carved decoration is Chinese, Gothic, or Louis Quinze.
Side Tables.Long and fairly narrow, a common proportion for a small piain one being five feet long by two feet six inches wide. They have no drawer and stand on square legs finished with moulded or terminal feet. The carved cabriole with pad or claw and bail feet is also seen. In fine specimens the legs are perforated or ornamented with Gothic strap-work or Chinese frets.
Tripod Tables.Made, as their name indicates, to stand on three spreading legs, from the junction of which a carved and turned column rises to support a circular, square, or shaped top. This top has a ” gallery ! round it, often fretted out. A common edging in the shaped topped tables is the ” pie-crust ” which forais a boundary to a dished out centre.
Candlestands.On tripod feet with a more or less decorated column supporting a circular or shaped tray.
Clock Cases.Arched door to face. Case long and narrow, the waist having columns at the sides. Gothic or Chinese fretted ornaments in spandrils over face, in frieze and possibly in the angle pilasters. A pagoda-like dome with carved finials.
Tea Caddies.Not square and box-like, but more resembling caskets with curved sides and carved corners and feet. Fitted inside with small compartments.
Writing Tables. In principle constructed much like our modern pedestal writing desks with drawer at each side of a central opening for the knees. Sometimes the angles were rounded, and rare shapes are serpentine fronted. Angle columns are also seen in elaborate tables. Lion feet and masks above are characteristic but rare.
Settees and Sofas. Those with open backs are often of the two and three chair variety, carved with ribbon work, and C scrolls. The ” apron i or front rail below the stuffed seat may also be carved with gadroon and other ornaments. Chinese frets occasionally form the backs, and square legs are connected by rails. Carved bail and claw feet are common.
Chests of Drawers. Sometimes double or ” tall-boy ” with frieze and angle pilasters fretted in Chinese or Gothic style. The feet are ogee or square bracketed. The low chests of drawers have a simple wave moulding, the ” tall-boys I a cornice.
China Shelves. Usually examples of elaborate fret-work and small carved detail. They have no backs and are made to hang on the wall. Hanging cup-boards of similar character are sometimes to be met with having glazed fronts and wooden backs. The shelves are sometimes ornamented with carved edging and a cresting of perforated work surrounds the
Beds. These had beautifully carved posts, sometimes made up of cluster columns, decorated with twisted ribbon work. The cresting above the cornice was a feature, being elaborately carved and perforated, the Louis XV. interpretation of acanthus and endive ornaments being used on many examples. Lions-paw feet are seen, but more commonly the posts are plinth-like at the bottom with terminal ends.
From the writings of Horace Walpole, whose voluminous letters might, one would have thought, have contained some gossipy reference to Chippendale, we get little to assist us in forming an idea of an interior of the eighteenth century with furniture from the fashionable cabinet-maker. But in a letter dated March 27th, 1760, to George Montagu, he gives an entertaining description of a house which might easily have been furnished with articles made from recipes culled from the ” Director ” published six years before.
” I breakfasted the day before yesterday at Elia Loelia Chudleigh’s. The house is not fine nor in good taste, but loaded with finery. Execrable varnished pictures, chests, cabinets, commodes, tables, stands, boxes, riding on one another’s backs and loaded with terreens, figures, and everything upon earth. Every favour she has bestowed is registered by a bit of Dresden china. There is a glass case full of enamels, eggs, ambers, lapislazuli, carneos, toothpick cases, and all kinds of trinkets, things that she told me were her playthings ; another cupboard fu 11 of the finest japan, and candlesticks and vases of rock crystal ready to be thrown down in every corner.”
Although the house was not. according to Horace Walpole, in good taste, it would scarcely be fuller of incongruous articles than Strawberry Hill, where he went to live in 1747. The published catalogue of the contents of this house makes it one vast museum of curiosities, and the references to furniture there are comparatively few. Yet he must have been furnishing when Chippendale was at the zenith of his fame. But Walpole had apparently no love for the new and fashionable, and was even critical of Adam’s work at Osterley. His letter to the Rev. William Mason, dated July 10th, 1778, refers to :
” the new apartments at Osterley Park. The first chamber a drawing room, not a large one, is the most superb and beautiful that can be conceived, and hung with Gobelin tapestry, and enriched by Adam in his best taste, except that he has stuck diminutive heads in bronze no bigger than a half-crown, into the chimney pieces of hair.’ The next is a light plain green velvet bedchamber. The bed is of green satn richly embroidered with colours, and with eight columns; too theatric and too like a modern head-dress, for round the outside of the dome are festoons of artificial flowers. What would Vitruvius think of a dome decorated by a milliner ! The last chamber, after these two proud rooms, chills you! It is called the Etruscan, and is painted all over like Wedgwood’s ware, with black and yellow small grotesques. Even the chairs are of painted wood. It would be a pretty waiting room in a garden. I never saw such a profound tumble into the Bathos. It is going out of a palace into a potter’s field. Tapestry, carpets, glass, velvet, satin, are ail attributes of winter. There could be no excuse for such a cold termination, but its containing a cold bath next to the bed chamber and it is called taste to join these incongruities ! I hope I have put you in a passion.”
These chairs Mr. Macquoid states were made by Chippendale, though in design they are Adam. Like the chairs in the possession of the Drapers’ Company, already alluded to, they illustrate the way in which Chippendale was employed to make furniture quite different in character from that which is usually associated with his name. There is an arm-chair in the Victoria and Albert Museum given by Mr. R. Berens, made of beech veneered with walnut and sycamore and having a cane seat which is notwithstanding its marquetry.
After the death of the great Thomas Chippendale the firm became more and more the executera of designs by other people, and in the early nineteenth century nothing to distinguish it from other makers all furniture. It by quite possible that some all the debased Empire work which characterised Engiish furniture after 1800 was made in the workshops of the last Chippendale.