The Heppelwhite Influence on Early American Colonial Furniture StyleHistory of Early American Colonial Furniture

We live in an age when the personal element occupies pre-eminently the place of importance. If we read a great book we would know the details of the life of the writer; if we see a great picture we must know something of the painter's life story in early American colonial furniture. And so it is with the men whose names have come down to ns as standing for great recognised styles in furniture. It is not enough that we speak of the Heppelwhite style--we would know ho was Heppelwhite, what manner of man was he, and how did he live and move and have his being. Whilst freely admitting the legitimacy of the demand, we regret the inability to meet it in anything like an adequate degree. Times have changed. When, in the latter part of the eighteenth century " Messrs. A. Heppelwhite Co., cabinetmakers and upholsterers," lived, traded and flourished, people cared more about what they could produce than who they were, and their singular heedlessness of the inquisitiveness that was to be born a hundred years later has robbed us of practically all the interesting and instructive personalia otherwise might have been ours to-day.

Yet of not quite all the facts are we deprived. We have already committed ourselves to the statement that was a firm of " A. Heppelwhite & Co.," and we have pinned our faith to the belief that they traded and flourished. That is not much, but it is something. And to it we may add a little that is not entirely groundless speculation. This Heppelwhite was a man of like passions as ourselves. His totally unjustifiable depreciation of Chippendale is evidence enough of that. In that matter, however, Hepplewhite does not stand alone, for who does not well remember the scornful terms used by Sheraton in his references to work of the same great designer? Yet Thomas Chippendale has successfully stood the test of time-the

most severe of all tests-and, together with his critics, lives to-day as a master of decorative -and furnishing art in early American colonial furniture.

Again, we know with tolerable certainty that " A. Heppelwhite & Co." flourished. Who but a flourishing firm could have produced the " Cabinetmaker and Upholsterer's Guide, or Repository of Designs for Every Article of Household Furniture in the Newest and Most Approved Taste," published in 1788, by Messrs. I. & J. Taylor, Holborn, W.C., "opposite Great Turnstile"? This work is a monument of exquisite designs, including, as the authors claim, "a great variety of patterns." We shall have occasion to refer more fully to this volume later. We only refer to it now as same evidence of the flourishing condition of the authors.

Beyond these bare indications we know practically nothing of Heppelwhite in early American colonial furniture " Co.," save that we may with confidence deduce a skilled and talented craftsman, well in touch with the needs and the tastes of his day, and if at times content to pander to popular demands to the degradation of his art and the obscuring of his own personality, yet displaying a genuine striving after the highest and the he saw. The result is a worthy one, and has come down to us in all that we all know and, understand as the "Heppelwhite style."

Turning to the work of Heppelwhite in early American colonial furniture, it is not easy to summarise its distinguishing characteristics. Much of work bears striking resemblance to that of Sheraton particularly some articles executed in painted satinwood, inlaid. That Heppelwhite should have emphasized the peculiarly English character of his work is not to be wondered at. In this he joins hands with pretty nearly all the designers of eighteenth century furniture. Nor need we pass unduly harsh judgment on him when we find, upon closely examining his book, that much of his work is distinctly inspired or influenced by the Louis Seize style. Could not the same be truly urged against Chippendale and against Sheraton? Nor should we even say " urged against" but for the fact that in stilted language, not free from suggestion of arrogance, these designers proclaim not only their English exclusiveness, but their undoubted superiority over all their competitors. Even so, two considerations induce us to temper our justice with a very generous allowance of mercy. The first is found in the reflection that the men of our own day are not above re-dressing continental inspirations in garments singularly British second is found in the fact that the books published by these men of the eighteenth century were to some extent catalogues for advertising purposes, and not academic or learned treatises on furniture generally. They therefore, often included lines only justified by their good selling capacity.

Having said so much, however, we must put aside the claim of Hepplewhite that his designs are entirely English, and chronicle the fact that some of his best results were achieved by a skilful and artistic blending of the later Louis XV. and Louis XVI in early American colonial furniture styles. His shield back chair for instance, is indisputably French, as also is much of thedetail of his decoration. The tapered legs of the Lo Seize style 'he used freely, whilst many of his beautiful panels in polished mahogany or satinwood are to be credited to Roentgen or Joan Francois Riesener rather than to any influence on this side of the channel.

May it not, moreover, be truly said that Heppelwhite, in common with all men, was indebted to those who had gone before, and with whose work he was more or less familiar? It is no reproach to him to point out, for instance, where his work has been coloured by that of the brothers Adam. It is a natural evolution, and with a true artist the latest expression will include the best of that of his predecessors. He will profit by their successes, take warning by their failures. And it was with Heppelwhite. He was simply no exception to the rule. It has been said that in the result Heppelwhite " was the link between the somewhat outrageous rococo of Chippenadale and the severe lines of Sheraton," and perhaps that is as accurate an estimate of his precise work as it is possible to get in a few words about early American colonial furniture..

Concerning the distinctive features of Heppelwhite' work, these may be briefly indicated. Chief among them and of enduring popularity, stands the well-known easy chair with projecting "ears." The constant repetition of the Prince of Wales feathers on his chair backs is another point, and this, as well as the carved wheat ears and graceful backs shaped like hearts, will be noticed in his designs These are, perhaps, the most prominent of the distinctively Heppelwhite features, though mention must be made of his practice of lacquering furniture as a foundation for decorative panels in early American colonial furniture.

There is one striking difference between the work of Heppelwhite and that of Adamin early American colonial furniture. In our chapter on the latter style we have commented upon the fact that the brothers Adam designed complete furnished rooms, and few of their productions are suitable for use in other surroundings. That is not true of Heppelwhite, whose furniture is harmonious in almost any environment.

It has been said that the inspiration of Heppelwhite is to be found in the classic revival which was gaining ground at the time of the publication of the " Cabinetmaker and Upholsterer's Guide," and that the movement to introduce the art of Italy into the manufactures of this country explained the peculiar features of his furniture. That is only partially true, however; no man can escape altogether from the current influences of his day, and the Italian is easily traceable-indeed, is often particularly prominent Heppelwhite decoration. But beyond that, and beyond the French influence, is an originality attributable justly no borrowed source of origin, but to be credited to the craftsman himself. That adaptation should recognizable is no reproach. The merit is in the adaptation and in the combination of the best that the past has to yield with the truly artistic in the inspiration of the designer's own period. It is thus that the "Heppelwhite style" in early American colonial furniture is a style at all.

We have yet to discuss the book published by "A, Heppelwhite & Co.," to which reference has been made in the foregoing.

The " Cabinetmaker and Upholsterer's Guide " was published in 1788, and though copies of the original are scarce, a capital reproduction was issued a few years ago by Messrs. Bats ford, of High Holborn This book is monument of design and fit to rank with any such volume published. It contains twenty-four pages of "preface and 124 sheets of designs, on which sheets are presented upwards of 300 separate designs. The beauty of these designs may be illustrated by saying that there are hardly any designs in the whole book which could not with profit be made up in the present day. Perhaps the most useless sheet in the volume is one of which the compilers were most proud-we mean the " Plan of a Room, showing the proper distribution of the furniture.” This room is set out in a manner most unlikely to commend itself today. There is a geometrical correctness about it quite opposed to our modern notions of a drawing-room. We do not measure the length of the room and then place the chairs exactly equidistant from each other in early American colonial furniture.

Apart from this the book is rich in beautiful designs, and the articles depicted cover the widest variety and include chairs, stools, sofas, sideboards, pedestals and vases, knife boxes, desks and bookcases, secretaires, tables of every description, trays, dressing glasses and tables, chests of drawers, commodes, wardrobes, brackets, fire screens, beds, lamps, cornices, etc. Each plate is referred to in some descriptive matter in the first part of the book. Of the designs in detail we can say nothing. They are far too numerous for our space. The illustrations accompanying this chapter (and which need little comment), will be sufficient for our purpose now, which is to illustrate every phase of Heppelwhite design. In one or another of the designs we give will be found pretty nearly every expression of the great designer's work used in early American colonial furniture .

The preface to Heppelwhite's book is interesting in the same sense that we are interested by the stilted phrases used by other eighteenth century designers in early American colonial furniture. They amuse us more than they instruct. But we do not forget that it expected of them to write in this strain. Some good illustrations of this method are to be found in the book under notice. The opening sentence runs: " To unite elegance and utility, and blend the useful with the agreeable has ever been considered a difficult but an honourable task. How far we have succeeded in the following work it becomes us not to say, but rather to leave it, with all due deference, to the determination of the public at large

The preface then proceeds to hope that the book will be found "useful to the mechanic and serviceable to the gentleman." The customary depreciation of the artist who had gone before is not lacking, and in grandiose language Heppelwhite goes on to say: “ The mutability of all things but more especially of fashions, has rend the labours of our predecessors in this line of little use: nay, at this day, they can only tend to mislead those foreigners who seek a knowledge of English taste in the various articles of household furniture." This criticism, of course, has been totally discredited by time. There is a suggestion of modesty in the concluding words: "Though we lay no claim to extraordinary merit in our designs, we flatter ourselves they will be found serviceable to young workmen in general and occasionally to more experienced ones." This tone of humility is not always preserved. Describing Plate 79, it is said of a reflecting dressing table: "This is the most complete dressing table made, possessing every convenience which can be wanted, or mechanism and ingenuity supply." We naturally turn to this prodigy, and find that it hardly justifies the praise bestowed upon it. Indeed, many people would now term it a singularly awkward and inelegant structure in early American colonial furniture has Sictransit gloria mundi !

We cannot refrain from quoting Heppelwhite's estimate of his work in the production of this volume. To residents in London and new colony’s of early American colonial furniture, though our drawings are all new, yet, as we designedly followed the latest or most prevailing fashion only, purposely omitting such articles whose recommendation was mere novelty, and perhaps a violation of all established rule, the production of whim at the instance of caprice, whose appetite must ever suffer disappointment if any similar thing had been previously thought of ; we say, having regularly avoided those fancies, and steadily adhered to such articles only as are of general use and service, one principal hope for favour and encouragement will be in having combined near 300 different patterns for furniture in so small a space, and at so small a price. In this instance we hope for reward.” So far as we know, that hope was not in vain.

Several of our illustrations are Heppelwhite designs. In his book Heppelwhite did not think it necessary to give much description of his drawings to aid the craftsman in making them up. For instance, of the sideboard we reproduce on page 86, all that he says is that it is a design for a " sideboard without drawers, the ornaments to the front of which may be carved, painted or inlaid with various coloured woods." Of the hanging book-shelves (on page 85) Heppelwhite says they are " designs for fretwork. These are often wanted as book-shelves in closets or ladies' rooms; they also are adapted to place china on ; should be made of mahogany." Of the window seat of early American colonial furniture design (on page 84) he says it is "of mahogany, carved; with furniture of an elegant pattern festooned in front. Will produce a very pleasing effect." These examples will serve to show that Heppelwhite assumed much practical knowledge on the part of his readers.

Heppelwhite says in this volume, "The general dimension and proportion of chairs are as follows:-Width in front 20 inches, depth of the seat 17 inches, height of the seat frame 17 inches; total height about 3 feet 1 inch," and naively adds, " other dimensions are frequently adopted, according to the size of the room or pleasure of the purchaser." He recommends that his designs of chairs should be made up in mahogany "with seats of horse hair, plain, striped, chequered, etc., at pleasure, or cane bottoms with cushions." It reads strangely to us to find Heppe lwhite justifying the sideboard. The universal popularity won by this article causes us at times to forget that it was not always regarded as an essential in the furnishing of a dining-room. "The great utility of this piece of furniture," writes Heppelwhite, "has procured it a very general reception, and the conveniences it affords render a dining-room incomplete without a sideboard .” We conclude our review by quoting Heppelwhite's estimate of two important rooms. "The proper furniture for a drawing-room and for a dining-room or parlour being thus pointed out, it remains only to observe that the general appearance of the latter should be plain and neat while the former, being considered as a state room, should possess all the elegance embellishments can give."

There is a beauty in the Heppelwhite in early American colonial furniture that time does not destroy, because it contains the elements of permanence found in all true art. It is a style combining simplicity with great constructive skill, and though in point of mere popularity it is unlikely to prove a formidable rival to Chippendale or Sheraton designs, it probably continue to find sufficient support to modern reproductions.

We can make and design all the furniture mentioned on this page and we will ship it anywhere in the world.

Related Sites

History Links