Early types—The Adam style and its promulgation to the Continent—The candelabrum—The varieties of the spiral form—The tri-form candelabrum—The chamber candlestick—The evolution of the table candlestick.

In commenting upon early types of Sheffield plated candlesticks a good deal of past history has to go by the board. One does not need to discuss pricket candlesticks of ecclesiastical form. Unfortunately the exquisite Stuart examples, the symmetrically ideal forms of the Charles I period, so rarely found, and the finely balanced types of the Charles II, James II and the William period pass—as they were never duplicated by Sheffield.

Sheffield commences with George II and Sheffield ended with George III. Happily the banalities of the early-Victoria era never encompassed her craftsmen. Therefore, the early types of candlestick belong to the days of George II. They belong to the days when Boulsover looked to Joseph Hancock, the master cutler, for inspiration, and Joseph Hancock the cutler of Sheffield set out on a true path. A certain modernity was in the air. The year 1751 had only 282 days, and the year 1752 only 355. The calendar was in process of reform. Joseph Hancock's types of the early days (we are speaking of 1750 to 1765) must have been the ordinary types made by the great silversmiths, though it may be imagined, as though in leading strings, Sheffield gently pursued her way with experimental copying.

To come to technique there were the edges of the silver and copper plate, an ugly witness of inferiority. These must be hidden somehow by godrooned edges, of solid silver maybe, rather than show the poverty of the rolled plate. If they were cast then there were the seams to screen from common observation. To this day the seams denote the genuineness of the old plate. Dies came into being. Portions were cast, ornaments were soldered together and attached to the article. At first there was always the factor determinable enough by close inspection that the silver was only on one side of the copper. The interior of vessels was copper, which was tinned. In candlesticks this was not a very formidable obstacle to successful imitation, as the nozzles could be French plated and otherwise concealed. The bottom could be plugged with a mahogany post and filled with solder, could be covered with shellac at the base and have a fine baize screen from all obtrusive gazers. But Sheffield soon got above and beyond any of these artifices.

It is curious how collectors have come to love the candlestick, possibly it is because it represents something that vanished during the horrible era of the gas chandelier and the paraffin lamp, and has been resuscitated in later days in the form of an electric chandelier or in electric standards. Electricity has galvanized the old candlestick and the antique candelabrum into life. The Dutch hanging brass pendants are now one of the stock lines of the electric fitter who furnishes the villa in pseudo-Jacobean or pseudo-Georgian style. The shopwalker or his satellites will pronounce empirically upon styles with the surety of an encyclopÆdia. In consequence all electric lights are hall-marked with "periods": they are "Adams" (sic), or "Chippendale," or "Sheraton." Possibly collectors of another age may find shoddy written over a lengthy period of our modern fitments for illumination.

The Adam Style and its Promulgation.—That Sheffield did great things in candlesticks is shown by a visit to the Victoria and Albert Museum. One of the finest examples of the classic style with urn shaped nozzle with classic pilaster column, both urn and base decorated with festoons in classic style, of the period of 1782, is a Sheffield silver candlestick. Sheffield was undoubtedly making fine silver candlesticks and candelabra at this period, and this is not unimportant in regard to the consideration of what she did as an echo of such work. During the last twenty years of the eighteenth century her output was of the highest character. Since 1773, as we have shown, Sheffield had stood on her dignity as the proud possessor of an assay office with all the newly acquired rights of silversmiths jealous of infringements on so close a corporation. This had, without doubt, an enormous influence on the quality of the work perpetrated by the silver platers. Sheffield made a bid to become a silversmiths' centre and she has not lost her ancient ambitions to-day.

In the illustration given (p. 65) of a candlestick from a copper-plate engraving of pure Adam style, in date about 1775, it is seen how far Sheffield had advanced to be able to send such pattern books with designs broadcast to buyers of her ware on the Continent of Europe. This and another illustration (p. 69) indicate the class of candlestick Sheffield was prepared to export. Sheffield had not snatched at renown, she had won it. A series of Design Books of the period, from which we reproduce illustrations, establish the fact that Sheffield plated wares were as acceptable on the Continent as being something especially English, as were the equally original products of Wedgwood in pottery, and at a later date the Ironstone Ware of Mason, where it is said that he inflicted more injury upon the French potters than did the English fleet under Nelson.

These are trade matters, but interesting withal, as they show the rapid rise under careful and patient intuition of skilled craftsmen whose resplendent models tempted the Continent to buy our replicas where perhaps the original work was either not proffered for sale or was too expensive for the continental market.

We give another illustration (p. 75) of two table candlesticks, 1797 in date, sent out, as the catalogue states, by R. C. & Co. (Robert Cadman and Company). In one example we have the favourite design of the ostrich feathers beloved of Hepplewhite and others in the chair backs of the same period. The classic influence of Adam is waning. There is nothing purely Grecian in the column. The Ionic pillar has long since disappeared. We have something as a substitute in design. The Maltese cross as a novelty finds itself as a feature in the design. It is composite, it is in a measure feeble in comparison with previous designs. It marks the oncoming period. It is just the sign of something confused in the design. We shall soon see something not only confused but extremely mixed and utterly banal with false and meretricious ornament, with little meaning except that here it stands, as ornament or as attempt at ornament, but as to balance or symmetry—that has been irretrievably lost. The age of decadence no one can explain. One marvels as much at ineptitude as at beauty in design.

Happily the Sheffield designers went backwards for some of their designs in a period that threatened decadence. The smaller of the candlesticks (illustrated, p. 75) suggests the reticence and simplicity of a brass candlestick of the Stuart period. As such it must be regarded. It stands quietly unassailable in its English dignity.

A fine clean-cut example, in date 1785, of pure design, with facets sharply cut and decorated with acanthus leaf design in due subjection, is illustrated (p. 83). The urn stem and the urn nozzle determine the period, and the candlestick stands on a fine round base. Its clear defined reticence is almost like cut steel work on a minor plane of the same period, such as frames to cameos and later adapted to purses and chatelaines. Cut steel mounts to clock faces belonged to the coming Empire days. Here, in this candlestick illustrated, is an indication of facetted work as clean cut as glass, which in its working and in its technique is a metal too.

The Candelabrum.—Whatever may have been the varieties of the hanging candelabrum in Dutch interiors, finely wrought brass and copper with a variety of designs always pleasing and so attractive as to find a ready duplication as a modern electric light candelabrum, we do not find the table candelabrum at an early date in England. As days went on it became massive, and had seven or eight lights. Old engravings depict Jewish and other candelabra as standing on the ground, sometimes of great height and with many lights, but for domestic use their acceptance as table or sideboard lights came in [91]
[93]
[95]the middle eighteenth century, in Georgian days with great spread of mahogany and massive furniture. They seem almost related to the Adam resuscitation of classic candelabra on tripod feet. But most of the massive Sheffield plated examples bear relationship to Hogarthian pre-Chippendale mahogany, and solid sideboards groaning with silver, engirt with monteiths and punch bowls and all the equipments of a period when members of Parliament hiccupped their speeches in the House, and when fox-hunting and port-drinking squires drank each other under the table. The evolution of the candelabrum from its simple form with two lights to its conclave of twelve is as interesting as the evolution of the gate-leg table during a somewhat longer period. In regard to practicability, as has been pointed out to the writer, some of the later replicas overdo the number in the attempt to be ornate, and if filled with candles and lighted they would burn each other. This is an interesting fact as indicating that sometimes in his attempt to be original the modern fabricator invents something that could never have been used. For, after all, our ancestors, however handicapped they were by want of illuminative mechanism, were never so foolish as to employ candelabra that would cause guttering by one candle firing another on account of its close proximity.

In considering candelabra, the ordinary branched three-light candelabrum is interesting, and many forms follow each other indicating the steady progress onwards. The example illustrated (p. 87) is capable of being used as a single candle or as two lights. It is in the usual nomenclature of the trade termed a three-light candelabrum, though only two lights are capable of being used at the same time. The nozzles are removable. Now the removable nozzle was not introduced into silver plate until about 1758, when the tall Corinthian column types first had this invention. But the example under notice has other indications to place it about 1800. It has the slight suggestions of oncoming Empire style, the commencement of a return to austerity, a poverty of design, and the urns and nozzles betray the newer forms of ornament. The oval bases and the touch of floriate ornament under the nozzle urns have their indicative note. It will be observed that the camera, with more penetration than the human eye, has brought out the thinness of the plate, and it is here represented in the illustration. It denotes perhaps less of a delinquency on the part of the plater or a flaw in his technique than a grave indictment against generations of housemaids who have used metal polish which contained mercury or some other noxious compound inimical to the longevity of the superimposed silver. So here it is indicating a last stage of its simulation and the base copper peeps forth triumphantly.

A glorious candelabrum of massive form branched with seven lights on square base with ball feet is in date about 1820 (illustrated, p. 91). The grease cups indicate its late date, and underneath is the same bud-like floriate ornament we noticed in the last example. But in addition to give it yet a later date is the broken branch with ball-like ornament. It is a fine example, especially noteworthy as being representative of a period just before a decadence of design set in which thrusts the collector out and freezes any interest he may take in perfect technique by reason of a fearfulness he has of banal design.

A splendid example of a candelabrum with five lights, one of a pair is illustrated (p. 93). The late classic influence from Pompeii derivative through French sources is here evident. The tripod stand terminates on claw feet embellished by a floriated winged design. The column has a richness almost akin to the worker in ormulu. The base is decorated with acanthus leaf ornament, followed by ordinary fluting which breaks off in the centre of the pillar. The upper portion is decorated in a diaper pattern and the capital is a fluted urn, from which spring the branches. The grease pans are richly godrooned, and here the feature underneath is noticeable, the little circular boss beneath the pans. At a later date the grease pan disappeared, but the little rosette was left. This is especially noticeable in the example in date 1800 (illustrated, p. 87). The grease pans have become too diminutive to be of use, but there is sufficient suggestion of their presence left to disturb the fine proportions of the urn above. The fluted branches have an added ornament which it is charitable to believe was placed there for practical reasons to give added strength to the branches, but denotes a wavering in design from exquisite, unbroken curves. Ornate as this great candelabrum is, possessing design carried out with cunning technique, there are restless elements in its conception, which mark it as belonging to a transition period.

The Varieties of the Spiral Form.—There is something peculiarly interesting in following the variation of spiral forms in the branched candelabra from the early days until at the last they sank into mediocrity and became in the last stages little better than what was afterwards the standard pattern of the mid-Victorian gas bracket or gas chandelier, with its meaningless branched arms and its fulsomeness of meretricious ornament, a form, be it said, actually copied by the early electricians till they learned better and walked serenely in the paths of old design.

It would appear that at first the spiral curl of the branched candelabrum was in due subjection, that is to say, it was a well considered part of a complete design. It fell within the four corners of a set harmonious whole. It did not detract from the whole by any eccentricity, nor did it attract especial attention except as [101]
[103]
[105]a factor in an ensemble. For instance, take three examples and examine them minutely. The first is on one of a pair, in date 1790 (illustrated, p. 97). The convolutions of the spirals are apparently intricate till one more closely realizes that they approximate to the Gothic designs then being promulgated by Chippendale. The top loop forming a circle, the side loops forming similar circles, the intersections of these and the lower arcs forming an angle over the urn-ornamented nozzle are little other than the loops and angles forming the tracery of a Gothic design which might with little addition be the leadwork of a window. These same designs may, with an observant eye, be traced in fanlights and doorways in the suburbs of London where the middle and late eighteenth century styles still linger in the faÇades and in the railings.

Take another example still in date about 1790 (illustrated, p. 101); here the base is an urn and the single-candle standard form nothing very especially removed from a design very beloved by the brass turners of a slightly later date. But it is the branched form which commands respect as a piece of decorative ornament. Its C-shape spirals interlace at centre and form a pleasing ornament. Its simplicity and grace are at once apparent. It has the practicability that it is not readily injured by ill-usage. Its wearing parts are confined to a narrow space. Among all the spiral forms there is nothing, however elaborate, that excels this in grace. It is almost honeysuckle like in conventional ornament. We have seen the ironworker spin such reticent spirals, but in the silversmiths' work it is rare to find this form.

Another 1790 design (illustrated, p. 101) carries the loops out in such a manner as to suggest an elongated urn. The oviform intersection of the loops, plain and formal though they appear at first glance, do not come into such a severe classic position by mere accident. The low dropping loops afford just that contrast and upward spring which make the intersection, and give it its maximum ornament as two bands enclosing a space, which space is in itself a component part of the ornament to the candelabrum.

Two fine examples illustrated (pp. 103, 107) exhibit respectively the fine use of the twisted form in the arms. They are both two-light candelabra with central vase ornament. In the former with single loops the vase is very properly left nearly level with the apex of the arms. This would have been a blemish in the other example illustrated (p. 107), where the vase ornament is larger and carries off the strong double twisted design in the arms. This example is original in its treatment of curves and carries the idea to the utmost limit. Beyond this the ornament became disastrous and added a note of eccentricity to otherwise well-balanced designs.

When the loop went awry, as it did, it became [107]
[109]an excrescence. In two examples this is shown in varying stages of decadence. It is obvious that the designer had lost sight of the fact that the curved loops could so be manipulated as to become an integral part of the design and contribute to its harmony. The same thing happens in regard to chair-backs. It was here that Chippendale proved himself a prince of designers. It was not so much what he put in as what he left out. In other words, take a great design of one of his superlative chair-backs and let the eye trace the spaces, that is the space form, trying if possible to eliminate the concrete solid design. The silhouette of the outlines of the spaces are really the key to the justness and beauty of the design. If one could remove the mahogany portions of an intricate carved back and placing it against a black sheet retain the beautiful outline of the spaces, the result, example after example, would be a design book in itself as fascinating as a book of Japanese stencil plates.

In the example 1795, with the three lights (illustrated, p. 111) there is little to quarrel with the design except that the long stem and wanton simplicity and lack of grace suggest the cast iron standard which effect is carried out by the common place spiral leading to the central light, which, by reason of its curves, attracts an attention to itself which is unwarranted by any special beauty it possesses. It is a blemish. It has no meaning as a curve and it detracts from a simplicity which otherwise the candelabrum might possess.

The other example illustrated (p. 111) has unmeaning spiral design utterly vitiating an otherwise harmless candelabrum. Its spirals run riot and offer nothing pleasing. They stand as an attempt undoubtedly original on the part of the designer to produce something effective as a novel design. The style otherwise of the candlestick does not suggest that the craftsman had a hold upon sound design, but we might pass that. We are extremely thankful to know that nobody seems to have continued this style. In all possibility, by the laws of practical usage, the housemaid placed her vengeance on the offending spiral arms with no support and they broke in halves. The same servitor teaches the offending potter a lesson when, in vessels intended for everyday use, he adds ornament that is unduly projecting in handle or in spout. They pass into the heap of shards because common utility abhors useless ornament.

As a comparison with other forms of branched candelabra and as exemplifying the completed mastery the artist craftsman had over his design and its execution, two examples of rare form and character are illustrated (p. 113). The two-light candelabrum is of unusual shape, the standard being a full-bodied urn on which stands another urn. Branches issue from the lower urn [111]
[113]
[115]and in their intersections form beautiful curves of pleasing form.

The single candlestick (illustrated, p. 113), has another adaptation of curves in ornament. The standard springs from a circular base and is in the form of a lyre which supports an urn-shaped nozzle. This form undoubtedly is derivative from French sources. We find it in ornaments to metal clock cases, and it bespeaks the Sheraton period in possessing a grace and finesse associated with the designs of Louis Seize that he acclimatized in this country.

The Tri-Form Candelabrum.—The candelabrum with three branches has been found capable of much variation in character. These branches have had the advantage of being able to conform to conventional usages in regard to a triangular conformation and a trifid ornament. It is a favourite device in art from the lotus leaf of the Buddhist emblems to the fleur-de-lys. The love of a threefold ornament appealed to the wood-carver, and it is found on sprigs decorating porcelain. The use of three balancing adjuncts in ornament is universal, apart from the deeper or symbolical meaning of such forms.

In the example illustrated (p. 117), in date 1805, the three curved branches spring upwards and the lights are all level. This form is typical of some of the best three-branched candelabra then made. It is solid and massive, and has no false or overloaded ornament. It is dignified and imposing. The other example, in date 1810, illustrated on the same page, betrays at once classic influence. The old models of Herculaneum and Pompeii had been eagerly refashioned as something new in the First French Empire. The portrait of Madame RÈcamier by David shows her sitting on an empire settee with a tall standing candelabrum at its foot. The couch is a replica of old Roman stone forms and the candelabrum is a duplicate of a Pompeian style on tripod feet. The candelabrum illustrated has a stand consisting of three tapering legs reeded, and ending in claw feet. This supports an urn which in its turn supports another, which latter can be used as a light. From the lower urn proceed three branches, spread out in triangular manner.

A later candelabrum with two arms and centre light, illustrated (p. 121) betrays every sign of bad design. The floral scroll work is hard and offensive. The leaf and shell ornament at base is equally unsatisfactory. It was this form that survived as it came on the threshold of the era of illumination by coal-gas. It was about this date that Sir Walter Scott lit Abbotsford by gas. "His application of gaslight to the interior of a dwelling house was in fact attended by so many inconveniences," says Lockhart his biographer, "that ere long all his family heartily wished it had never been thought of. The effect of the apparatus was at first superb. In sitting down to table in autumn no one observed that in each of three [117]
[119]chandeliers there lurked a tiny bead of red light. Dinner passed off, and the sun went down, and suddenly at the turning of a screw, the room was filled with a gush of splendour worthy of the palace of Aladdin; but as in the case of Aladdin, the old lamp would have been better in the upshot. Jewelry sparkled, but cheeks and lips looked cold and wan in this fierce illumination; and the eye was wearied and the brow ached if the sitting was at all protracted. I confess, however, that my chief enmity to the whole affair," continues Lockhart, "arises from my conviction that Sir Walter's own health was damaged in his latter years in consequence of his habitually working at night under the intense and burning glare of a broad star of gas."

The Chamber Candlestick.—This form has had a long survival and up to quite a recent date, before the adoption of electricity, a row of earthenware candlesticks formed part of the appurtenances of the hall or corridor of any provincial hotel. The illustration (p. 123) entitled Serena, from an engraving by J. R. Smith after Romney's picture, shows a fair reader, entranced in some old world romance, illuminated by the light of a single candle, as injurious in its faint glimmer as was the glare of the gas to Sir Walter Scott. Romney painted Miss Sneyd as Serena at a date between 1770 and 1790. The form of the candlestick in the print, it will be seen, differs somewhat from the Sheffield plate examples illustrated on the same page. The example with the circular nozzle and circular base is in date about 1810, and the two others with square nozzles and square bases are in date respectively 1815 and 1825. They are ornate in their ornament, and have silver filled mounts and edges. The example of the latest date is silver gilt.

The Evolution of the Table Candlestick.—The table candlestick is of long lineage. The Sheffield plated examples cover the last hundred years of the existence of the candlestick as a means of domestic lighting. During this period, especially during that portion from 1765 to 1790 a brilliant procession of fine designs in silver, made under the direction of highly inspired artist-craftsmen, exhibits a flexibility of ornament and a diversity of character rarely equalled in English metal work covering so short a period of time. It embraces the traditions of the Queen Anne period still retained in the types carried on in the reign of George II as robust as were the designs in mahogany in Chippendale's early manner following the broader splats and swelling lines of the Hogarthian period. With the Adam influence reticent decoration eminently fitted to grace and embellish table ornament made its permanent impression on the period, tinctured with inclinations towards flowing lines—the ribbon decorations of the carved wood chair-back, or later the subtle graces of boudoir art reflected in the designs of Thomas Sheraton. And with the steady [121]
[123]
[125]flow of models of table candlesticks reflecting the exuberance and native originality of a crowded art-period the creations of the potters were running concurrently in emulation of silver. Chelsea and Bow produced candlesticks environed with peasant maids and shepherdesses, in the technique appertaining to the clay, rich in colours and pleasing in effect. Wedgwood produced table candlesticks in black and blue jasper ware with cameo decorations in white, or finely modelled classic figures in basalt in which candelabra were embodied, and running through the period are the competitive creations of table candlesticks as an echo of silver forms by the glass-worker.

The series of illustrations of the various types of Sheffield plated table candlesticks do little more than approximately indicate the rapidly changing styles in a period so richly inventive in decorative ornament. In the group illustrated (p. 127) the example on the left, in date 1765, is on a square base with cluster columns and leaf capitals. The example on the right is in date 1770. The base is round. It is here that the plater has exercised his ingenuity in fine reticent die work, and the edging is delicately beaded. The candlestick in the centre has a square base, with fine batswing fluting, and square-shaped columns ornamented with classic medallions. The nozzle has a character of its own in having a rim which is pierced.

The illustrations (p. 129) show other forms in process of evolution. The tall Corinthian column made a handsome table ornament. The example on left is one of a set of four, twelve and a half inches high. The bases are square and are decorated in clever die work with rosettes and festoons carried around the pyramidal base. This type has cluster columns terminating in capitals decorated with formal leaf design. The adjacent candlestick is a form found about 1790. The base is square and fluted, and the column is in classic style terminating in a capital in Ionic style, with volutes springing out of twisted leaves and husks. The third example in the upper row is about 1795 in date. The base is square and follows the same classic suggestions of previous types. The capital is square and fluted, and is decorated with conventional floral ornament. The nozzle is urn shaped.

The three lower examples of the period from 1810 to 1830 show signs of debasement in form. The bases have now become circular. Each candlestick has certain beauties in it, little touches which invite respect and regard, but each also contains blemishes detracting from the exact symmetry which was the character of the earlier types. The floriate decoration as an ornament to the lower half of the column in the first example may be passed. In the second it has grown into an unpleasing excrescence, and the base is decorated in a florid manner disturbing to the eye. The last example has lost that fine feeling dependent [127]
[129]
[131]on the easy flow of simple line. It is composite in character, it betrays a lack of inspiration. It is a very poor relation to the fine table candlesticks of the earlier period, where the beauty wins and fascinates. There is no such grace and distinction in these late examples, but they doubtless reflected the silver fashions then prevalent, which were in the main execrable in taste.