52nd Annual Delaware Show

spacious, handsome, and luxurious, with lofty passages, good staircases, large rooms, and costly and gorgeous furniture.” 7 Such homes were ideal for entertaining and typically followed a double-parlor floor plan. Frequently called drawing rooms, the parlors were often separated by pocket doors that, when opened, created a large room ideal for social functions. Hosts could also adapt the space by closing the doors and removing or inserting furniture in various configurations. With heavily abraded backs, Winterthur’s chairs appear to have been moved frequently and were likely placed against walls when not in use. As purchased by Henry Francis du Pont, these two chairs were part of a set of six, and one can only hypothesize as to how the set may have functioned in its original context. Six chairs would likely be too few for use at a dining table, though one cannot be certain that the six purchased by du Pont were not once part of a larger set. It seems probable that the Winterthur chairs were intended for a parlor setting, where they would be well-suited for tea and socializing. Whether constructed in Europe or America, these two chairs are particularly striking examples of nineteenth-century domestic furniture representing a preference for fashion and novelty in interior design. Their Biedermeier design illustrates the austere refinement and worldly taste of their owners and highlights the diverse decorative tastes of an American consumer market. 1. These chairs were part of a matched set that was likely purchased in 1933 from C. K. Johnson of Greenwich, Connecticut. In March 1990, four of the chairs were deaccessioned and sold at auction. 2. At some point the backs of both chairs were broken from the stiles, and the effects of the graceful veneering were destroyed by unsympathetic repairs. On the tripartite design, see Angus Wilkie, Biedermeier (New York: Abbeville, 2006). Wilkie suggests that the tripartite detail may be an interpretation of the feathers on the Prince of Wales badge. The design on these chairs does not seem to align with that observation, however, and the subtle decoration may simply be a Biedermeier design motif that has been inadvertently ascribed to a specific printed source. 3. Wiklie, Biedermeier, 17. For the arrangement of Beidermeier rooms, see Vienne 1815–1848: Un Nouvel Art de Vivre à l’Époque Biedermeier (Paris: Atelier Philippe Gentil, 1990), 54, 31. 4. Charles L. Venable, “Philadelphia Biedermeier: Germanic Craftsmen and Design in Philadelphia, 1820 ‒ 1850” (Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1986), 80. 5. Venable, “Philadelphia Biedermeier,” 27. Because microscopic analysis cannot distinguish between European and American cherries or ashes (the secondary woods) and because of the uncertainty that surrounds the originality of the corner blocks, scientific investigation cannot shed light on the origin of these chairs. 6. Sara Mascia, Stage 1A Archaeological Assessment: 32–40 Bond Street, Manhattan, New York (Westport, Conn.: Historical Perspectives, Inc., 2003), 13. One wonders whether it is coincidence that Henry Francis du Pont purchased the chairs in Connecticut, where Schermerhorn died and was buried in 1855. One must wonder why the chairs left New York. Were their shapes considered too passé or were they simply family favorites taken to Connecticut? 7. Catherine Voorsanger and John K. Howat, Art and the Empire City: New York, 1825–1861 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000), 431. For more on Buckingham’s trip, see Alan Nevins, American Social History as Recorded by British Travellers (New York: Henry Holt, 1923), 310. Willie Granston is a Lois F. McNeil Fellow in the Winterthur Program in American Material Culture. Weekend lectures sponsored by — 106 —