seur's and collector's path many obstacles that would otherwise render the formation of a correct judgment extremely difficult.
There is also more freedom, a greater " flow/' if I may so describe it, and consequently more grace, about the chair backs as a whole of Heppelwhite than in those of Sheraton, whose determined, and almost unrelenting, cultivation of the straight line in preference to the curvilinear may perhaps reasonably be ascribed to the presence, in his mind, of a desire to escape, so far as it was avoidable, the charge of copying the lines originated by his popular contemporary.
Eight " shield-shape" chair backs, and one oval in form, are illustrated on Plate II., giving as complete an idea of Heppelwhite's preferences in this direction as can possibly be conveyed. To illustrate my assertion that these competitors for public favour—and, what was more important, patronage —did not by any means object occasionally to copy from one another's works, Figs. 8, 10, and n on the same plate, and Fig. 2 on the preceding one, are given. These examples were included in Heppelwhite's book, though they are not at all in his style. They were most probably included in order to indicate that the firm responsible for the publication of the work were quite able to satisfy the public demand for types created by Sheraton, as well as those on their own lines ; for notwithstanding the fact that they are taken direct from "The Cabinet Maker and Upholsterer's Guide/' they are in all respects foreign to the style whose principles are enunciated in its pages. In regard to such cases as this, perhaps it would be better to coin some such description as " Heppelwhite-cum-Sheraton," though it would be fairer and far more correct to describe them as "Sheraton" pure and simple, for it is evident that they partake far more of the latter style than of the former.
The overwhelming majority of " Heppelwhite " backs are open ; that is to say, composed solely of wood, shaped and
Was this article helpful?