Articles About Wallpaper

 

PROFILES IN PAPERHANGING
James Arrowsmith: The Paperhanger at Mid-Century

The “Paper-Hangers Companion” of James Arrowsmith has always been a sort of mystery book. And yet, it contains a surprising amount of practical advice and decorative detail, so we keep coming back to it.

The book has a complicated history. To begin with, there are two books, essentially the same, with different titles. The original English title is “The Paper-Hanger’s and Upholsterer’s Guide”, and the American title is the “Paper-Hangers Companion”. From here on, the English book will be referred to as the “Guide” and the American reprint, as the “Companion”. The page numbers given here are keyed to the “Companion”, and all the italics in quotes belong to Arrowsmith.

James was not the only Arrowsmith writing about upholstery in the 19th century. In 1840 Henry William and A. Arrowsmith published their catalog “House Decorator and Painter’s Guide”. It was a lavish production, with color plates of various revival styles, including Elizabethan, Moorish, and Gothic. According to Charlotte Gere 1, the Arrowsmith firm began in the 1830’s, and according to the bookseller Charles Wood, “The firm of Arrowsmith of New Bond St., London, were decorators to Queen Victoria.” 2

There is apparently no connection between the family of upholsterers (H.W., A. and James) and the family of cartographers active at about this same time: Aaron (1750-1823), Aaron, Jr., Samuel, and John (1790-1873). Nor are we quite sure that H.W. and A. are related to James, although Peter Thornton suggests that James was their father. 3

The title page of the “Guide” notes that James Arrowsmith is also the “author of ‘An Analysis of Drapery’, etc.”,; the “etc.” suggests other works, though none have come to light. Incidentally, when it came time to re-install draperies in the bedrooms of the Dukes of Clarence and York at Brighton Pavilion a few years ago, a key resource was “An Analysis of Drapery”. 4 It had been published in 1818, which was the target date of the restoration, and the drawings and information on drapery were explicit and solved many problems for the restoration crew. The contents of the book were made available through the Winterthur Library, since there was not a copy to be found in England.

The age of the first edition of the “Guide” has been a matter of speculation, with some decorative art historians suggesting the 1840’s, others as early as the 1830’s. Dated copies are another matter. 1854 is often given for the first date of the “Guide”, for example, in the British Library Catalog, but this immediately raises questions, since American reprints are known from as early as 1852.

There is a copy of the “Guide” in the Kress Library, Harvard, published by T. Dean and Son in London, undated, but dated by the Kress Library as 1850 on the basis of an important paragraph which appears in the English version but not in any American reprint. It is apparently this same edition that is held by the V & A and assigned a date of 1851, again on the basis of a single paragraph.

The paragraph is appended to the body of the main text:

“Some very tasty and elegant adaptations of paper-hangings, - both as wall decorations, and also for panelling, may be seen at the Exhibition in Hyde Park; they are from France, and other continental nations, as well as from the best English Houses. A visit by any parties desirous of excelling in paper-hanging, would be well repaid.”

This topical reference was left out of the American reprint, for obvious reasons; it refers to the Great Exhibition which took place in London in 1851, and is perhaps the strongest evidence that the “Guide” can be safely dated to 1851 and not before. There are other proofs in the text, which we shall come to.

The “Companion” is probably best known in this country through the facsimile edition put out by the Victorian Life Foundation in 1978. This edition is based on the American reprint of 1856 published by Henry Carey Baird, “industrial publisher” of Philadelphia. The 1852 “Companion” was printed by T.K. and P.G. Collins, as part of the “Practical Series” of handbooks, probably through an arrangement with the English publisher. Dean, Baird and Collins had collaborated on other trade books as well.

Though certainly done with good intentions, there are problems with the 1978 version. The title (“How To Wallpaper Your Victorian Home”), the engaging group installation scene on the front cover and the equally engaging line-drawing of paper-hangings in rolls on the rear cover were all lifted from other sources and do not relate to Arrowsmith at all.

More seriously, there is no table of contents. Had one been included, it would have shown that about 45 pages are missing. The missing sections include the preface, a chapter on hanging apartments with printed cotton, another chapter on coloring walls in distemper, and the appendix. While there is no shortage of complete editions in decorative arts libraries, still, access to the full edition is difficult. 5 It is for these reasons that Arrowsmith’s work seems due for a retrospective review. The title page of the American editions is long but full of information and sets the tone:

“The Paper-Hanger’s Companion: a treatise on paper-hanging; in which the practical operations of the trade are systematically laid down; with copious directions preparatory to papering; preventions against the effect of damp on walls; the various cements and pastes adapted to the several purposes of the trade; observations and directions for the panelling and ornamenting of rooms, and etc.”

Preface

In the preface we first encounter Arrowsmith’s distinctive tone, which ranges from cranky to courtly. There are some clues to dating the “Guide” in the preface and elsewhere. On pg. 44 he quotes from a book written in 1838. If the “Guide” of 1851 is not a reprint, then it could not have been written any sooner than 1838. But if it were written about 1838, or shortly thereafter, the half-dozen references to the effects of the “reduction on paper-hangings”, which took place in 1836, and the three references to his “50 years experience” make little sense.

If he is writing in 1851, as I suspect, then this would place the start of his journeyman status at the turn of the century. Indeed, he says elsewhere that “…my experience extending to the latter end of the last century....”. The additional few years into the 1790’s may be explained by a period of apprenticeship (referred to on pg. 54), which usually lasted 5 to 7 years.

Another way to look at it is to compare the “Guide” to the “Analysis”. If his work on the “Analysis of Drapery” took place in 1818 after a seasoning of about 15 years of experience, this would place the beginning of his practice about 1800, and his apprenticeship starting about 1795. Either way, it’s likely that his age in 1850 was close to 70 years.

He states his main reason for writing a guide: “Since the reduction on paper-hangings [the heavy tax on stained paper had been removed in 1836 after it’s “temporary” institution in 1712], the putting up of them in too many cases has been intrusted to persons of various callings, and entire strangers to the business.....the professed paper-hanger is aware of many difficulties which present themselves from various causes, and which have to be surmounted before the walls or grounds are in a state to receive the paper; this is frequently too little attended to”.

He has no use for such “would-be paper-hangers” and dismisses them as “Tom, Dick and Jack”, and “slap-bang innovators” who work by the day rather than by the piece.

 

Practical Operations

 

His tool kit is simple but the inclusion of a straight-edge suggests that he is table-trimming, either dry-trimming his paper before pasting, or wet-trimming afterwards. This is a refinement from the earlier practice of using only shears to trim the paper.

He stresses “...the proper adaptation of the kinds of paste for the several purposes to which they have to be applied.” He suggests an arsenal of 4 pastes of which No. 3 and No. 4 are to be used for overlapping, which was standard practice.

“No. 1...a paste for general purpose...beat up four pounds of flour with cold water...add more cold water to bring it to the consistence of pudding batter...add from one to two ounces of well-pounded alum...pour [the boiling water] gently and rather quickly over the batter, stirring it at the same time...”.

No. 2...this paste must be made exactly in the same way as No. 1, with the exception that no particle of alum must come into the composition...

No. 3...mix flour with cold water in the same manner as No. 1...and to two quarts of this, add half an ounce each of pounded alum and loaf sugar, and one ounce of resin...set the pan...over a moderate fire, constantly stirring it till it boils and thickens...

No. 4...this paste must be made exactly in the same way as the foregoing No. 3, with the exception that no particle of alum must come into the composition...”

 

His reasoning for the exclusion of alum is explained on pg. 38; “...if paste in which there is alum or any other acid, was used, it would affect the colour of the stained ground of the paper”; and, on page 63, in the section on flock paper; “These crimson stained grounds are subject, from even trifling mismanagement, to be discoloured, such as using paste in which alum is an ingredient; it changes the crimson to a dingy purple.” Apparently this was due to the chemical composition of the red pigments as well as the thinness of the stained grounds.

The discoloration referred to is similar to the discoloration of paper-hangings resulting from being pasted to a plaster that contained free or “hot” lime, which he explains on pg. 22. His method of defeating lime is to simply exclude it from the patching plaster, of which he says “...there is no occasion for lime, except to save a little trouble”. In other words, the only purpose of the lime was to speed up the setting time. As to general discoloration of stained grounds, he recommends the use of lining paper and pasting very carefully, using only as much paste as needed.

It is interesting that when planning for scraping multiple coats of paint from a room, he recommends taking off all of the concave woodwork at the extremities of the wall. “Observe particularly, that the shell round the top, bottom, and angles of the apartment, is taken off to the plaster; and the same round the windows, doors and fireplace”.(pg. 19) He prefers buffalo hide glue to other types for sizing the plaster prior to papering.

His section on “the damp” is quite extensive; he considers damp “...one of the worst adversaries the paper-hanger has to contend with, and various are the means resorted to for overcoming this formidable enemy.” Battening for Lath and Plaster leads the list of 9 possible solutions, and he calls it the only sure cure for rising damp in a wall. “...but being attended with much trouble and expense, comparatively with other means, it is seldom resorted to...”

The term “grounds” as in the phrase “Preparation of Walls or Grounds for Paper-Hanging” is distinct from “walls”. 6 He explains exactly how to carry out a “battened and canvassed” wall by the use of grounds. This results in the creation of a new wall surface at a fraction of the cost of plastering.

His No. 2 solution for damp (Battening and Canvassing) lays out in detail the methods for installing battens; they should be “...three inches in width, and five-eighths of an inch in thickness: deal-wood [usually pine or fir] is the most proper for the purpose”. Battens are placed at the edge of all surfaces, and doubled in the corners. Intermediate battens are put up every two feet, but these are not for nailing the canvas; they are used only to support it. The strainering canvas common to upholstery shops is back-stitched, warmed by a fire to relax it, and put up with tinned tacks. The threads must be “...kept warp and woof at right angles, a matter of more consequences towards proper stretching than is generally attended to.” Afterwards, the canvas is sized with wheat paste.

This method resulted in creation of an airspace; the canvas was a perfect “ground” because it isolated wallpaper from the dangers of direct contact with outside walls - but despite all of the reprints of the “Companion”, the use of airspaces apparently never caught on in America; such an elaborate method was far from the norm after 1850, although it had been practiced in colonial times.

Instead, the method was modified. In the late 19th century and early 20 th century, many canvas ceilings were created just before the final woodwork trim was installed. For sidewalls, especially in frontier areas, it was common to tack a scrim/cheesecloth fabric over plank walls prior to installing the paper. The sidewalls were then installed, with overlapped edges.

The concept of centering, or balancing, the pattern is given a full airing in the book.

“...many striped or other formal patterns require uniformity in the several compartments of a room, especially in the part immediately over the chimney-piece; and although such like patterns may be unsuitable where pictures are to be hung, yet there is no accounting for taste in such cases, and therefore it is the business of the workman to make it his constant practice to follow the rule of uniformity”.(pg. 50)

If the rule of uniformity is one of the hallmarks of a good paperhanger, another is deference. Elsewhere, he says that “...it is not my intention to enter into a dissertation on taste; for however correct may be that of the paper-hanger, it must give way, and that very properly, to that of his employer”.

 

Trimming and Lining

 

Methods of trimming the paper had been undergoing refinement, and Arrowsmith notes that by mid-century “....the slovenly practice of cutting one edge only is now laid aside....”. He prefers to trim “...both edges before commencement, as that which has to be undermost can be cut exactly to what I wish, viz: - leaving on only a very little for the other to lap over, and which in thin delicate papers is indispensable...”.

He doesn’t say if the pre-trimming is done with shears or straight-edge. He is at pains to point out that a paperhanger must always hang away from the light, in order that the overlapping edge not cast a shadow. In a few years butt seaming was the norm for installing the better papers, but this was clearly not the case in 1850.

A special type of overlapping was required for flock papers. After hanging the lining paper and pre-trimming, “...the next thing to attend to is to take off with a sharp knife the little pips, or marks of flock occasioned by the setting on of the printing blocks, as also any small inequalities of flock projecting beyond the pattern, which is sometimes the case. These imperfections appear small, but if not removed, they repel the edge which has to be laid over them, and give much trouble in the hanging.” Undoubtedly, this method of overlapping the edge served another purpose, that of providing a background color in case the seam should contract.

In the chapter on lining paper he argues: “...it adds much to a soft effect, as also causing an evenness on the wall, and a quicker absorption of the paste, the want of which is frequently injurious to the finer colours; to stained grounds it is inadmissible”. Here he seems to be distinguishing between a light wash of color (stained) and a more substantial ground coat containing glue size and whiting.

The introduction of continuous paper was still noteworthy (it occurred in the early 30’s). He comments: “As this kind of paper is now made in webs of considerable length at the mill, it is found to afford more advantages both in neatness and expedition than formerly, when it was only procurable in sheets.” When the lining paper is up and dry, “...any small knots or inequalities may be taken off by slightly rubbing them with a flat piece of pumice-stone....”

The practice of rubbing down lining paper before painting or papering was common. Thomas Willement, heraldic artist by appointment to George IV, was known for his “Elizabethan” patterns of strapwork in paper-hangings. He sent George Lucy of Charlecote Park a bill of over £600 with a letter in 1832: “I suppose your Paper Hanger is accustomed to the hanging of Flock and metal papers which require very great care; they should have very smooth and stout lining papers under them and the joints well rubbed down before the printed paper is applied; I trust that if well hung the effect of all three patterns will be very handsome and very well suited to the style of your house.” 7

A U.S. reference to this practice is found in the early 19th century bill of Baltimore paperhanger Robert Elliot. He charges Judith Riddell for “1 Rimm Paper for lining walls - 3.50; Lining walls & rubbing down w Pumice - 8”. 8

 

Cross-Joining

 

There is another interesting comment in the section on Lining Paper: “...such breadths of lining paper, as also all cross joinings, must invariably be put on close, without the least overlapping”. In the section on flock papers he repeats the advice: “All cross-joints must be very cleanly cut with a straight edge and a sharp knife; the edges of the paper to jump against each other, without the least over-lapping”. The comments on cross-joining confirm that for reasons of economy large remnants of the roll were sometimes used up by patching them on the wall. This practice is explained by J.W. Parker, in his book “The Useful Arts”, first published in 1844.

“In the case which we have supposed [where the height of the room is 12 feet], the height of the room is just one-third the length of the piece of paper [12 yards], so that there need be no joints at any intermediate part of the height. But if the height were any other amount, - say ten feet - three pieces of that length would leave a fourth only six feet long; and as such a piece is not likely to be wasted, it follows that there must be a joint at some intermediate point between the floor and the ceiling. Such a joint requires especial care, as the pattern has to be attended to both in a vertical and a horizontal direction”. 9

Parker appears to be a generalist writer and his words must be taken with caution, at least until some documented examples of the practice come to light. But, in view of Arrowsmith’s comments, it seems likely that cross-joining was used, at least in the more economical households.

 

Borders

 

Arrowsmith’s comments on the suitability of borders are quite interesting because in order to justify his opinion that “...borders ought to be used invariably...”, he reaches back from his vantage point of mid-century and presents a historical overview. “I first beg to refer to a practice, which has long been general, that of fitting the paper close...without adding any kind of border, leaving an unfinished appearance; and this system has continued for such a great length of time, that the younger part of the present generation seldom know the effect of a border, it being a stranger to their eye-sight, they are incompetent to judge by comparison”.

An advice book of 1841 states the trend. “Borders are seldom used now; they make a room look low, without being particularly ornamental”. 10

Arrowsmith admits that borders had been badly overdone. He comments about “...the old mode of putting on borders of preposterous breadth about every part where they could with any propriety apply it. I admit that a change was required, and likely to take place, as better taste advanced; but why should borders be entirely discarded? thus passing to a contrary extreme.”

It is likely that the “borders of preposterous breadth” are swags, festoons and other armaments of French decoration that dominated the early 19th century. Deep borders were still common in the 1830’s in America, as the installations at Prestwould and Andrew Jackson’s Hermitage show. It is interesting that when the stylish Martin Van Buren was forced from the presidency in 1841, he used borders at Lindenwald which were practically skimpy in comparison. The largest border in the house was less than 3 inches high.

Arrowsmith advocates a moderate use of borders, namely, to “...apply borders, in all cases, to the tops and bottoms of apartments that are papered [leaving out the windows, doors and mantels]...I shall mention one for the purpose...that one in imitation of gimp, about an inch broad, which is to be had at most paper-hanging establishments...”.

Arrowsmith and Upholstery

 

At the conclusion of his text he explains that he had planned writing only about paperhanging, but that others suggested he broaden his scope and “...add some observations which might be acceptable in upholstery, with which I was equally conversant”. The additional comments became his appendix. There, he again states that his experience began in the 1790’s, and that he means to include a “retrospective glance at the various styles in use at the several periods since that time....showing the progress and cause of improvement, to the present day.” (pg. 82)

The retrospective glance is charming and probably the most valuable part of the book for students of style, but he seems to have fallen under the spell of the Great Exhibition, that well-spring of commercial nationalism: “…The paper-hangings of the present day...prove what can be done when the manufacturers are untrammelled; whether we look to the elegance of design, the chasteness of color, or the richness of those embossed and illuminated by gold and bronze; all these combine to call forth due admiration of English taste and enterprise…” (pg. 86)

His statement that ”...at the beginning and up to the middle of the last century, papered rooms were only to be found in the houses of the opulent...” is not quite true, but his description of the papers he stripped during his apprenticeship is of interest. He says he found them “....printed upon a ground unprepared in distemper; the patterns, large bold scrolls, plain and embossed, generally in blue, upon a self-drab ground.”

It is in the appendix that we are treated to the full force of his prose as he attempts to describe the furnishing guidelines of his time. All the restraints shown earlier are laid aside. He can be colorful:

 

“In those state rooms set apart for visitors, there is much scope for the display of taste; silk damask, or rich chintz, are most suitable; the former lined with fine light stuff; the latter with pink, light blue, green, or morone highly-glazed calico; morone silk quality binding harmonizes with any of them; as does also drab plumetted fringe or worsted with varied silk hangers”. (pg. 97)

 

and precise:

 

“For windows which are wide, instead of being semicircular, it may be advisable to make the valances pointed in the centre; in either case, the worsted platt should be rather firm, about the thickness of a small finger, and in depth at the narrowest part nine to ten inches, and at the sides, eighteen to twenty inches: a wadded valance of the same shape, at the back to intercept the light, is required: the cornices gold, or gold and japan”. (pg. 91)

 

and opinionated; listen to him as he sets the record straight about moreens:

 

“Articles in upholstery were also very plain; moreens were in general use; and I may remark that they were really moreens, and not the common watered, narrow, flimsy stuff that is now passed off falsely under that name. The beds were made up with plain valances, with scrolls of lace; and the window-curtains drawn up to laths, with cord, forming festoons. In the best apartments, beautiful chintzes were frequently used; the furniture, mostly of mahogany, was plain, with little claim to elegance, and the mode of stuffing the seats of chairs and etc., was equally simple.

“The period of the French revolution opened a new era in the style of furnishing. To Morell [sic] was owing the introduction of a complete change in every department of it: that of the French paper-hangings were not quite accordant to English taste, yet the English manufacturers availed themselves of the example, as regarded the superior chasteness of their grounds; and the taste of the paper-hanger was brought into exercise, for the first time, by the panelling of rooms”. (pg. 82)

 

As he wrote, the industry was beginning to provide substitutes for all manner of woven goods, and even encroaching on gilding, burnishing and other painterly techniques. “...but the improvement in paper-hangings, of late years, has caused little occasion for silk in panelling, as every richness and effect are accomplished in a manner equally pleasing, and in such variety as to satisfy the most fastidious taste; and what has been recommended in silk may be substituted by paper, with the like effect, as every appropriate ornament, pilasters, and etc., are to be procured, of the richest description”. (pg. 89)

His familiarity with State Rooms shows a connection with noble, if not Royal, patronage, and there are scattered statements like “....this style has been much approved by persons of acknowledged taste....”, which may point to persons of prominence that Arrowsmith had either worked for or come into contact with, perhaps even Morel, who had worked for George IV in 1795 at Carlton House and Brighton Pavilion, and much later, at Windsor Castle.

In his closing statement, Arrowsmith says that he has “.....studiously abstained from the ideal…”. He means that he has not created the section on upholstery from whole cloth, as it were, but only enlarged on what he knew from his long practice of furnishing for the “first families”.

 

Conclusion

 

The question may be asked: if it is so clear from the text what the date of the first printing must be, how is it that no one seems to agree? Neither paperhanging nor wallpaper have received the same note-for-note analysis as other fields in the decorative arts; it may have simply slipped through the cracks. The 1818 date of “An Analysis of Drapery” leaves a 32 year gap between writings, which may have seemed improbable to some. The confusion with H.W. and A., who published in 1840, probably didn’t help.

And many of the processes James Arrowsmith talks about seem primitive. Whether straining earth colors for distemper through flannel, sizing with buffalo hide glue, or cooking wheat paste, Arrowsmith is clearly from a far distant past. The book may also seem “older” because of his unique perspective. He was not a trend setter, or a person with something to sell, but a working upholsterer who recorded what he knew, which was conservative high style. Arrowsmith was a man who, by temperament, training and age, belonged to an earlier time.

In 1851, machine printing, though making steady progress, was just beginning to challenge blockprinting in England. 11 The great increase in wallpaper use, which inspired the writing of the book, was probably due as much to cheap machine prints as it was to the lifting of the tax on paper-hangings, though the reduction is what sticks in Arrowsmith’s memory. The expansion of the market created more room for papers of all qualities, even the quality of cheapness.

Why was the book reprinted so often in America? Paper-hangings went through a period of explosive growth here, as in England, but the continuing popularity of the book may have been due to the advice in the upholstery sections.

Even if paper-hangings were becoming more predictable and standardized, furnishing decorations were still largely “made up” by hand. The custom-made upholstery decorations were most effectively described by those who made them and put them in place, like Arrowsmith. Authoritative advice was increasingly in demand as large areas of the country were settled and as more consumers confronted a more varied market than ever before.

James Arrowsmith was one of the old school, reared in upholstery traditions and solid patronage, whose age was passing; but ‘paper-hangings’ were not. They were becoming ‘wallpaper’.

© Robert M. Kelly

________________________

Notes:

1. Gere, Charlotte, “19th Century Decoration”, Abrams, N.Y., 1989, pg. 396.

2. Charles Wood III, Catalog # 419, Boston.

3. Thornton, Peter, “Authentic Decor”, 1984, Viking Penguin, N.Y., pg. 222.

4. “An Analysis of Drapery” was recently reprinted by the Winterthur Library with a foreword by Gail Caskey Winkler.

5. American reprint versions of “The Paperhangers Companion”, which include the preface and appendix, are at: the Winterthur Library (1852); MESDA (1867) and the Cooper Hewitt Library (1869, 1887). The writer is indebted to MESDA (Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts), the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum, and especially, the Winterthur Library, for their assistance in writing this essay.

6. OED: Ground, 6.b. “any material surface, natural or prepared, which is taken as a basis for working upon”. 6,e. (carpentry) 1847 Smeaton, Builder’s Manual, 248., grounds- “those pieces of wood imbedded in the plastering of walls, to which skirting and other joiners finishings are attached”.

7. Fairfax-Lucy, Alice, “Charlecote & the Lucys”, 1958, Oxford University Press, pg. 262. The patterns were well hung indeed, for this writer observed several of the Willement papers to be in good repair during a visit to the house in July of 1993.

8. bill dated July 13, 1811, reference appears in Winterthur Portfolio 28:2/3, pg. 128.

9. Parker, John W., “Useful Arts”, London, 2nd edition, 1851. (pg. 156)

10. “House and House Furnishings”, 1841, London.

11. “It is well known that it is at least some dozen years since the cotton and calico printers of Manchester first began to print from cylinders, and it was not until the last 4 or 5 years that the paper-stainers applied the same principle to printing paper, of a simple character, in one or two colours. At the outset their success was very moderate, being unaccustomed to the use of body colours, and unacquainted with their peculiarities and the best methods of applying them. Consequently the papers produced were of a very inferior character and quality, and did not enter into competition with the block-printed papers”. Journal of Design and Manufactures, February, 1851, pg. 174.

Back to top of page