September 
ig2 3 
53 
THE STORY OF REGENCY FURNITURE 
‘‘The Rise^ Decime and Renaissance of This Style Constitutes an 
Interesting Chapter in English Furniture History 
A. T. WOLFE 
T he thirty years odd, during which the 
First Empire style was fashionable in 
England, is a short span in the history of 
furniture; yet it ranks now as a period which 
is more aptly called “Regency” than Eng¬ 
lish Empire. H.R.H. Prince George of 
Wales was, at twenty-one, already a vir¬ 
tuoso, deeply interested in the arrangement 
of his new residence, Carlton Palace, and of 
what Thackeray calls “his hideous house at 
Brighton”. Later, as Regent, he was spend¬ 
ing fortunes in fresh splendors which were 
designed and made for him in the new fash¬ 
ion inaugurated in France by Napoleon. 
The vogue spread rapidly; without the 
royal patronage it may be doubted whether 
the old style would have been ousted to the 
same extent, established as it was on beauty 
and tradition; in that respect the English 
interior stood in no need of change. It was 
otherwise in France; Napoleon wanted 
glorious surroundings, but 
he wanted them to be com¬ 
memorative of his own glor¬ 
ies in Egypt and Syria, 
blottingout the hatedmemo- 
ries of Louis Quinze and 
Louis Seize, with a grandeur 
at once startling and new. 
He succeeded, for although 
there is a trace of Louis 
Quatorze in the military 
pomp and stateliness of 
Empire, still the change 
was wonderful enough to be 
imitated by half Europe, 
let alone England. 
George Smith, “ Upholder 
extraordinary to His Royal 
Highness the Prince of 
Wales,” exults over “the 
great and propitious change 
in our national taste,” and 
extols quite fulsomely “the 
true knowledge and su¬ 
perior virtu” of his royal 
patron. This natural en¬ 
thusiasm for what was a 
mighty source of revenue 
to the “upholder” and 
cabinet-maker of the period, 
has not been precisely shared 
by posterity; the furniture 
has, on the whole, been 
passed over negligently, 
even a little unjustly. 
“Pure Regency” (if the 
term may be allowed), has 
a certain well-defined limit 
that cannot be stretched 
much beyond 1830 , when 
the royal connoisseur, 
George the Fourth, died, 
though it includes some few 
years before his Regency in 1810 . From 1830 
taste declined, and presently all but van¬ 
ished; unerringly the early Victorians chose 
the worst features of Regency furniture to 
embody and perpetuate in theirs. This con¬ 
fusion went on till the eighteen-eighties, 
when England began to wake up from her 
forty-years’-long nightmare of ugliness. At 
once too near and too far from the preced¬ 
ing epoch to discriminate, the cultured set 
about obliterating its every trace; early and 
late, good and bad—whatever recalled their 
unregenerate days—alike was condemned 
and banished from the aesthetic home. 
Much water has gone under the bridge 
since then, and time has wrought the 
miracle that never fails to act upon what 
was originally sound and conscientious in 
workmanship—it acquires the new charm 
of antiquity. Neo-Georgians are now 
discovering in these once neglected pieces 
quality and character that goes far to 
condone the faults. Bit by bit. Regency 
is coming in again. 
The period covers the third and latest 
classic revival. The familiar Graeco-Roman 
details all reappear—the lion’s paw and 
mask; Ionic column and Corinthian capital; 
egg-and-tongue moldings and headings; 
sacrificial head of beasts, chimerae; acanthus 
scrolls, reeding, and so on. Formerly, these 
devices had been applied to furniture as dec¬ 
orations, the new development went further 
and copied the structural outlines as well. 
Seat, and altar, throne, chariot, tripod, and 
dais of the Pharoahs and Caesars were 
adapted to the “sophas” and suites, the 
card-tables, the armchairs and side-boards 
of British domesticity. Whether the result 
was good, interesting, or something quite 
other depended on the adaptor. Some pieces 
have the restraint and dignity of Napoleonic 
work; some have a kind of 
home-like charm; in others 
the style and proportions 
are lost in meaningless con¬ 
volutions and ill-considered 
ornament. 
Thomas Hope was one of 
the apostles of the move¬ 
ment; “Hope’s Empire” is 
often cited as though he 
w'ere the originator, he was, 
at all events, a pioneer. 
Clever, wealthy, and much 
traveled, he was already 
famous for the Egyptian 
and Moorish decorations of 
his house in Portland Place, 
when his book on Household 
Furniture was published, in 
a kind of rage of protest 
against “the extravagant 
caricatures [of his style] 
most wretchedly distorted 
and most inconsistently 
united.” His own designs 
were almost too consistent, 
in their cold, close copying 
of ancient bas-reliefs and 
paintings, but no one had a 
higher standard. English 
workmen could not satisfy 
him; “there is no one,” he 
cries, “in all this vast 
teeming metropolis to whom 
I can entrust the more en¬ 
riched parts of my design.” 
{Continued on page 120) 
This Regency interior has 
blue walls and chocolate 
moldings. The chiffonier 
and .stand are of mahogany, 
the chairs black and gilt. 
