The period now under consideration is marked by an extravagance of taste and fluctuation of fashions never before attained, which were primarily due to the sudden increase in wealth in the colonies and in England. The furniture was drawn exclusively from English models down to the introduction of the Empire style, and in their eagerness for something new the people, following the English fashions, rushed from the plain, stately pieces of the Queen Anne period to the rococo Erench designs of Chippendale; then, tiring of that, back to the classic for a brief time under Adam; then, in a revolt against the heavy pieces of Chippendale, to the over-light and perishable pieces of Hepplewhite and Shearer; then on to the gaudily painted pieces of Sheraton, who, under the stress of public taste, at last succumbed to the Empire style and sank into a mere copiest of the Erench school. Such is, in brief, the history of the chairs of this period.

This fickleness was, of course, felt more in the cities than in the country, where we often find two, or even three, of these styles existing side by side equally popular. In the cities, however, we find that the published books of design were offered for sale in the same year as they were in London, which shows the close touch kept with the London fashions.

Chippendale's designs remained popular longer than any of the others, for the reason that at the time the style changed in England the Revolutionary War was at its height and all intercourse between the two countries had practically ceased; consequently our cabinet-makers, not having the new models to work from, continued to work in the Chippendale style. By the time intercourse was resumed the Hepplewhite and Shearer styles were firmly established, and consequently we find few pieces here in the transition style, but there was a sudden change from the old to the new style. From the following coincidence we are able to determine fairly closely when the change took place.

In Wethersfield, Connecticut, were two men in good circumstances. One married in 1791 and the other in 1799, and each furnished his house in the prevailing fashion. The furniture of the one married in 1791 is Chippendale in character entirely, while that of 1799 had not a single example of that kind but was entirely Sheraton. This would seem to indicate that the Chippendale style gave way to the Sheraton somewhere between these two dates, although, of course, we find at much earlier dates Sheraton pieces, as in the Nichols house, at Salem, built and said to have been furnished in 1783 almost entirely in Sheraton style, with but little of the Chippendale; and the furniture used by General Washington, when President in 1789, and now preserved in the City Hall, New York, is pure Sheraton in style.

It is of the greatest service in placing the date of a chair to be able to tell with a degree of accuracy under the style of which cabinet-maker it falls, and we are of the opinion that the safest guide to follow is the general outline of the backs. There are, of course, a few instances where a piece will combine two styles, or perhaps be such that no single rule will enable one to determine; but these are the rare exceptions, and the following will be found to be the almost universally true characteristics of the various styles.

Figure 537 shows the backs of the four different styles.

A shows the Dutch back. It will be noted that the top curves down to the upright pieces forming the back, so that they appear to be one piece. This will universally be found true in the Dutch chairs, either in this form or in its modification shown in Figure 505.

B is Chippendale in its simplest form. It will be seen that it differs from the Dutch in that the top rail is bow shape and the ends of the top curve up instead of down, and the centre is a rising curve. This form has infinite variations, and occasionally the ends drop, but never to form an unbroken line with the sides, and there is usually a centre rise.

Types of Chair Backs.

C is Hepplewhite. These chairs are very easily distinguished, as the back is always either heart, shield, or oval in shape, and there are but few variations.

D is Sheraton, the general characteristic of the backs being that they are rectangular in shape, the upper edge often being raised in the centre and sometimes curved instead of straight. They never have a simple splat to form the back, which never joins the seat, but is supported by a cross-rail.

By bearing these figures in mind and allowing for the variations, one can readily tell at a glance under which of these influences a given piece falls.

When Chippendale's influence first began to be felt it is difficult to determine, for his name is not mentioned, so far as we have been able to find, until the time his published designs appeared in 1753; but judging from the spirit in which the "Director" was written, and the extremely well-made copper plates with which it was illustrated, and the price at which it sold, he must have before that time established his reputation He died in 1779, and consequently may have been born as early as 1709, so that he could have been working for himself as early as 1735. On the whole, however, we think the conservative date of 1750 is the safest to give .is the time when his influence had become somewhat general.

Chippendale excelled as a chair-maker in the designs he created for chair backs. As has previously been said, the development of the splat was distinctly English, and in Chippendale's masterful hands this became the principal beauty of the chairs. These designs were new and are his chief contribution to the cabinetmaker's art. His chairs were in Dutch, Gothic, French, and Chinese style, and more than one style was often combined in the same chair. In upholstered chairs he frankly copied the French, calling them French chairs, and some of his designs were exact copies of some already published fifteen years earlier in France.