Chippendale’s

Director
C H I PPE N DALE’S
Director 
09
A
Manifesto of Furniture
Design

Morrison H. Heckscher

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

new york
 repri nt of The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin  (spri ng 2018)

This Bulletin is made possible by the William Cullen Bryant Fellows of

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The Met’s quarterly Bulletin program is supported in part by
the Lila Acheson Wallace Fund for The Metropolitan Museum of Art, established
by the cofounder of Reader’s Digest.
copyright ©  2018 by th e m etropolitan m u s eu m of art, n ew york

Published by  th e m etropolitan m u s eu m of art, n ew york

mark polizzotti, Publisher & Editor in Chief
gwen rogi n sky, Associate Publisher & General Manager of Publications
dale tuc ker, Editor of the Bulletin
margaret aspi nwall, Editor
mark argetsi nger, Designer
pau l booth, Production Manager  
j essica pali nski, Image Acquisitions & Permissions
Typeset in Monotype Baskerville
Separations by Professional Graphics, Inc., Rockford, Illinois
Printed and bound in the United States of America

cover illustrations: details of the Foley Chippendale Albums (see fig. 2). Front and back:
China Case, black ink and gray wash, for pl. cxxxiii in the Director (1762), Rogers Fund, 1920
(20.40.2 [86]). Inside front: inside cover of vol. 1, showing bookplate of Thomas Henry, fourth
Baron Foley. Page 4: Dressing Chest and Bookcase, for pl. lxxxix in the Director (1754) (see fig. 21).
Page 46: China Sofa, black ink and gray wash, for pl. xxvi in the Director (1754), Rogers Fund,
1920 (20.40.1 [41]). Inside back: Fire Screens, black ink, gray wash, and gray and lavender washes,
for pl. cxxvii in the Director (1754), Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1 [27]).
Photographs of works in the Metropolitan Museum’s collection are by the Imaging Department,
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, unless otherwise noted. Additional photography credits appear
on p. 48.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art endeavors to respect copyright in a manner consistent with its
nonprofit educational mission. If you believe any material has been included in this publication
improperly, please contact the Editorial Department.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

catalogi ng-i n-pu blication data is

avai lable from the li brary of congress
isbn 978–1–58839–647–1

th e m etropolitan m u s eu m of art
1000 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10028
metmuseum.org
 President’s Note
This year marks the three hundredth anniversary of the birth of Thomas Chippen-­
dale, England’s most famous cabinetmaker, as well as the one hundredth anni-
versary of what may be called The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s infatuation
with him. In 1918, the December issue of the Bulletin celebrated the purchase of
the George S. Palmer collection of eighteenth-century American and English
furniture, which included a now famous Philadelphia high chest that incorpo-
rates exact quotations from printed designs by Chippendale. The same issue
published an article by print curator William M. Ivins Jr. elaborating on their
engraved sources, most notably Chippendale’s The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s
Director. Two years later, at a Manhattan auction, Ivins purchased a collection
of nearly two hundred of Chippendale’s original drawings for that great book,
the foundation for one of the world’s great collections of drawings and prints
related to eighteenth-century design.
For this issue of the Bulletin, we brought out of retirement Morrison H.
Heckscher, Curator Emeritus of the American Wing, to address the history of
Chippendale at The Met, a story that first fascinated him fifty years ago while
a Chester Dale Fellow in the Department of Prints. He recounts Chippendale’s
meteoric rise from rural obscurity to the heights of the London luxury trade and
credits that remarkable success to the Director, a brilliant example of what today
would be called branding. In doing so he analyzes the Museum’s rare collection
of drawings by Chippendale to see what they can tell us about him as a gifted
and highly imaginative designer.
Concurrent with this Bulletin, and on view through January 27, 2019, in the
American Wing’s Anthony W. and Lulu C. Wang Galleries of Eighteenth-Century
American Art, is the exhibition “Chippendale’s Director: The Designs and Leg-
acy of a Furniture Maker.” A collaboration between Femke Speelberg, Associate
Curator in the Department of Drawings and Prints, and Alyce Perry Englund,
Associate Curator in the American Wing, the exhibition puts on public view
for the first time a wide selection of the Director drawings, placing them within
the context of European and English ornament prints and in association with
furniture that was either inspired by the Director or actually made in Chippendale’s
shop. This groundbreaking display combining woodwork with works on paper
is drawn almost exclusively from the Museum’s collection.
We wish to express our sincere gratitude to The Met’s William Cullen Bryant
Fellows for their critical support in making this publication possible. The Met’s
quarterly Bulletin is also supported in part by the Lila Acheson Wallace Fund for
The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Dan i e l H. Wei ss
President & CEO
The Metropolitan Museum of Art

3
4
C H I P P E N DA L E , the most famous name
in all the annals of English furniture! As
a noun it refers to Thomas Chippendale, the
In the eighteenth century, the work of craftsmen,
as distinguished from artists, was rarely deemed
newsworthy, so the paucity of contemporary
eighteenth-century London cabinetmaker. As an comment about Chippendale is no surprise. But
adjective it is a synonym for carved mahogany such was his reputation that, from time to time,
furniture in that florid, uniquely English version this rather arbitrary distinction was overlooked,
of the French Rococo that flourished briefly during and a newspaper like the Gazetteer and New Daily
the 1750s and 1760s. Advertiser could refer to “that celebrated artist, Mr.
But why the special fame? Thomas Chippendale Chippendale, of St. Martin’s Lane.” 3 Succeeding
(1718–1779) was but one of a number of high- generations, starting with Thomas Sheraton in his
end London purveyors of household furnishings 1793 Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer’s Drawing-Book,
during the reigns of George II and George III. His praised Chippendale’s book as “a real original
was not the largest shop (that was to be George [and] extensive and masterly in its designs,” but
Seddon’s), nor did he have a monopoly on work with the caveat that the designs “are now wholly
of the highest quality (think of William Vile and antiquated and laid aside, though possessed of great
John Cobb, cabinetmakers to the Crown). In fact, merit, according to the times in which they were
it was commonplace for clients furnishing grand executed.” ⁴ This ambivalence—artistic ability but
houses to shop around—in 1768 John Spencer, suspect style—was a recurring theme, one expressed
a Yorkshire squire, wrote about going to “Cobbs, con brio in a special issue of the Art Journal in 1862:
Chippendales, & several others of the most eminent
It is impossible not to admire the artistic spirit
Cabinet Makers to consider of proper Furniture for evinced by every touch of Chippendale’s pencil;
my drawing Room” 1—and to end up employing but, as the longer a bowl on the wrong bias runs it
more than one firm. gets further from the “jack,” so, the more elaborate
No, what cemented Chippendale’s fame was his Chippendale becomes, he gets further from the
book. According to the antiquarian John Thomas truth in design. He was a strong man, overcome by
Smith, writing in 1828, Chippendale was “the most the Art-vices of his age. . . . He was a designer in the
famous Upholsterer and Cabinet-maker of his day, best sense, however perverted the style in which
to whose folio work on household-furniture the he clothed his thoughts. . . . His fantasies may now
trade formerly made constant reference.” 2 It was provoke laughter, but it cannot be denied that they
this publication, The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s were inspired by genius, and guided by method . . .
Director (first edition, 1754), that jump-started his which brought him great renown with his own and
the succeeding generation.⁵
career, made his name, and ensured his lasting
reputation. The book, with 160 large and elegantly The occasion for this commentary was the Lon-
engraved plates, printed on the best paper, and a don International Exhibition of 1862, to which
fine example of the art of making books, was a forty furniture designs attributed to Chippendale
brilliant exercise in branding, giving Chippendale and to the draftsman and carver Matthias Lock
broad name recognition long before he had won a were lent by the latter’s grandson George Lock.
single major furniture commission. Indeed, it was At the exhibition’s close, the South Kensington
the Director, which included in the subtitle Being a Museum, a museum founded principally to pro-
Large Collection of the Most Elegant and Useful Designs mote good design and British manufacturing
of Houshold Furniture, that caused “Chippendale” to that had opened in 1857, purchased from George
become a household name, even into our own time. Lock seventy-eight drawings, forty-six attributed

5
to Matthias Lock and thirty-two to Chippendale, of English eighteenth century furniture designs in
followed the next year by a large scrapbook of existence.” ⁶
Lock’s drawings. In 1906 the museum, renamed What the cataloguer for that sale at the Anderson
the Victoria and Albert in 1899, purchased another Galleries in New York City had not realized was
cache of 144 related drawings. Chippendale now that these were not just any old furniture drawings,
had an honored place in British design history, one but the originals for Chippendale’s book—catnip
memorialized in stone in a monumental full-length to a bookman like Ivins. The two volumes (fig. 2),
statue (purely imaginary) on the Exhibition Road each measuring 17⅛ by 11 inches and bound in
facade of the museum’s new building. Here, in a paper-covered boards with parchment spines, the
pantheon of ten British craftsmen, he is paired with latter inscribed Original drawings Chipp. Vol. 1 and
another ubiquitous eighteenth-century household Vol. 2, were part of a large collection of books and
name, that of the entrepreneurial potter Josiah manuscripts assembled by the noted New York
Wedgwood. dealer George D. Smith in London during the
The Metropolitan Museum of Art was founded winter of 1919–20, at a moment in postwar Brit-
in New York City in 1870, just thirteen years ain when many great country-house libraries were
after the South Kensington opened, and with a being sold off. Smith died aboard ship en route
similar mandate to improve the design quality of home, and his new stock, one thousand lots in all,
domestic manufactures. But it was to be another was consigned directly to auction.
fifty years before the Metropolitan began collecting Thus inspired, and armed with his annual appro-­
eighteenth-century English ornament and design. priation, Ivins went on to build a collection of
In January 1920, William M. Ivins Jr., curator eighteenth-century British architecture and orna-
of the four-year-old Department of Prints, first ment second only to that of the Victoria and Albert
requested an annual appropriation specifically for Museum. He acquired impressions of most of the
the purchase of “ornament.” At the end of the printed designs in the Rococo taste by Chippen-
year he reported to management on his expendi- dale’s contemporaries—the likes of Lock, Copland,
tures, including “A number of extremely rare and Johnson, and Ince and Mayhew, about all of whom
important items . . . at least one of which, bought more later—as well as a number of unique trea-
on an off day at auction, in the catalogue of which sures, all illustrative of this brief, exotic chapter
it was not properly described [fig. 1], is reasonably in the history of taste. Thus began this Museum’s
worth more than the entire appropriation. It is a century-long infatuation with drawings, prints,
collection of 228 of the original drawings made and books—and, of course, furniture—in the
in Chippendale’s shop, almost 200 of which were Chippendale style; and thus this year we celebrate
engraved in his Cabinet Maker’s Director. Not the three hundredth anniversary of the master’s
only is it unique, but it is the most important set birth.

1. Listing of Chippendale albums in Purchases in London and Paris of the Late George D.
Smith, Part 1, sale cat., Anderson Galleries, New York, May 24–25, 1920, lot 590

6
 2. The Foley Chippendale Albums: Original drawings Chipp., Vol. 1, Vol. 2. Black ink and gray wash
drawings mounted on blue paper, bound in paper-covered boards with parchment spines and
corners; each 17⅛ × 11 × 1⅛ in. (43.5 × 27.9 × 3 cm). Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1, .2)

Thomas Chippendale: Life and Work

Chippendale’s lasting fame may assuredly be laconic entry, dated October 13, in a private account
attributed to his great book, but the first half of his book of the Earl of Burlington: “to Chippendale in
life is, quite literally, a closed book. “Thomas Son full £6 16 0.” ⁸ By way of context, Chippendale’s
of John Chippindale of Otley joyner bap ye 5tʰ,” an earliest known furniture bill, from 1757, lists “A
entry in the Otley, Yorkshire, parish church register mahogany Cloaths-press wt sliding shelves” for
recording his baptism in June 1718,⁷ is the sole £6 6s.⁹
proof of Thomas’s existence prior to 1747, when Richard Boyle (1694–1753), third Earl of Burling-
he was twenty-nine years old. ton and fourth Earl of Cork, was the leading arbiter
Otley is a small market town in northern England, of taste during the reign of George II (1727–60). He
north of Leeds and west of York, along the river was a munificent patron of artists and architects, as
Wharfe in the Yorkshire Dales. It was there that well as an architect in his own right. His goal was
Thomas, the only child of Mary Drake and John to reestablish in England the principles of classical
Chippindale (1690–1768), was born into a family architecture as practiced by the sixteenth-century
of woodworkers. His grandfather John, his cousin Venetian Andrea Palladio (1508–1580) and the
William, and his nephews Joseph and Benjamin seventeenth-century Englishman Inigo Jones
were all carpenters or joiners. Thomas would, as (1573–1652). Palladio had codified his theory
a matter of course, have spent his formative years and practice in a richly illustrated book, I quattro
within this close-knit craft community, serving an libri dell’architettura (The Four Books of Architecture)
apprenticeship—traditionally seven years begin- of 1570. Burlington chose to spread the word
ning at age fourteen—learning joinery or basic through books as well. He encouraged the pub-
woodworking under his father, a joiner, or another lication of great folios for the nobility and the
family member. Thus we may surmise he came into gentry: for architecture, William Kent’s Designs
his own in about 1739. But then what? Regrettably, of Inigo Jones (1727); for interior decoration, Isaac
the next years, so critical to understanding his later Ware’s Plans, Elevations, and Sections . . . of Houghton
achievement, are a complete blank. in Norfolk (1735), the original drawings for which
It is only in 1747 that we pick up his trail, now were acquired for the Metropolitan Museum by
in the context of a London milord. This is in a Ivins in 1925;1⁰ and for furniture and accessories,

7
 a

3. Detail of area around St. Martin’s Lane in “A Mapp of the Parish of St. Martins in the Fields,”
1755. Engraving and drypoint; plate, 14⅛ × 12⅝ in. (36 × 32 cm). Pl. 74 in John Stow, A Survey of the
Cities of London and Westminster, and the Borough of Southwark, vol. 2 (6th ed., London, 1755). Rogers Fund,
1952 (52.519.193[2]). The locations where Chippendale lived and worked are: A, Conduit Court;
B, Somerset Court; C, St. Martin’s Lane.
 4. George Johann Scharf (Bavarian, 1788–1860). St. Martin’s Lane, 1825. Graphite, 8� × 5¼ in.
(22.7 × 13.3 cm). British Museum, London (1862, 0614.102). The portico of St. Martin-in-the-Fields
is visible at right.
5. Thomas Hosmer Shepherd (British, 1793–1864). View of St. Martin’s Lane from Long Acre, the Tower
of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields in the Background, 1846. Watercolor, 5⅞ × 4½ in. (14.8 × 11.3 cm). Crace
Collection, British Museum, London (1880,1113.3035)

John Vardy’s Some Designs of Mr. Inigo Jones and Mr. did engravings; in its dependence on subscriptions
William Kent (1744). In addition, Ware published from the nobility, gentry, and artisan classes; and
the first accurate English edition of the Quattro libri in the firm underpinning of classical architecture
(1738) and dedicated it to Burlington. These tomes, in many of its designs.
together with more modest handbooks for builders Beginning in 1748, church records and tax rolls
and craftsmen, led to a widespread basic literacy document that Chippendale had moved to Lon-
in the language of classical architecture: the five don and that, at thirty, his life was taking off both
orders of architecture, proper proportions, and personally and professionally. On May 19, at St.
molding profiles. George’s Chapel, Mayfair, he married Catherine
We do not know Chippendale’s precise relation- Redshaw of the nearby parish of St. Martin-in-the-
ship with Burlington, but we can be sure that he Fields. The first of their nine children, Thomas Jr.,
knew these sumptuous, magnificently illustrated baptized on April 23, 1749, was to work for and
volumes. Indeed, his own magnum opus was to be with his father, and ultimately to carry his cabinet
informed by them in its grand format and splen- business into the nineteenth century.

9
 Meanwhile, Chippendale had determined that
the area of St. Martin’s Lane was the place to be.
It was in the center of the City of Westminster
(fig. 3), which abutted the City of London to the
east, and to which it was connected, along the river
Thames, by the Strand. St. Martin’s Lane was the
principal paved thoroughfare leading north at
right angles from the Strand, near Charing Cross
(now Trafalgar Square), with the landmark church
of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, as well as numerous
culs-de-sac, or private courts, opening off it (fig. 4).
Hugh Phillips, modern-day chronicler of Georgian
London, has described it as “the arts-and-crafts
street of London.” 11 Representing the arts, on the
west side, looking south from the top of the lane
(fig. 5), was Old Slaughter’s Coffee House (nos.
74–75, after street numbers were introduced in
1765), home base for the set of young artists fed
up with the classical strictures of Burlington and
enthused with the playful ornament of the French
Rococo, together with the nearby St. Martin’s Lane
Academy (for life-drawing classes), established by
William Hogarth (1697–1764) in 1735. Represent-
ing the crafts, on the opposite side of the street and
facing Old Slaughter’s, were some recently arrived
cabinetmakers, including Messrs. Vile and Cobb
at number 72, at the corner of Long Acre, and
next door, Vile’s former master William Hallett. So
when, in due course, Chippendale leased numbers
60–62 (fig. 3, location C), he was within a few doors
of two of London’s leading cabinet shops. 6. Attributed to Matthias Lock (British, ca. 1710 –
Also nearby, between 1746 and 1750, at number 9 ca. 1765). Chimneypiece, ca. 1750. Black and red chalk
over traces of graphite; 11½ × 5⅜ in. (29.1 × 13.6 cm).
Nottingham Court, Castle Street, near Long Acre,
Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[65])
were the premises of Matthias Lock (ca. 1710 – 
ca. 1765), the carver who first introduced the French
Rococo to woodworkers in London. During the engraved, it was the forerunner of Chippendale’s
1740s, he published a half-dozen modest cahiers, great folio. The Lock collection at the Victoria and
or suites, of ornamental designs, including A Book of Albert contains many drawings by Chippendale,
Shields in 1746, all in the Rococo taste and executed and the Chippendale albums at the Metropolitan
in a loose, freehand etching manner (see fig. 16). a few drawings by Lock, suggesting a close work-
In 1752, together with the engraver Henry Cop- ing relationship between the cabinetmaker and
land (ca. 1706–1752), he coauthored A New Book of the older carver. The grace and delicacy of line
Ornaments, the largest and most ambitious such En- of Lock’s pencil renderings (see fig. 6) would seem
glish publication to date. With its chimneypieces, to justify cabinetmaker James Cullen’s 1768 judg-
pier glasses, and candlestands, all professionally ment of “the famous M Matt Lock . . . reputed the

10
best Draftsman in that way that had ever been in
England.” 12 And it was this ornamental style that
Chippendale would superimpose on a Palladian
architectural framework.
The local Poor Rates, or tax records, document
Chippendale’s rapid rise to prominence. At Christ-
mas 1749, he leased a modest house in Conduit
Court, a cul-de-sac off the south side of Long Acre,
a little east of the junction with St. Martin’s Lane
(fig. 3, location A). In the summer of 1752, he moved
to the bottom of the lane and across the Strand,
near Charing Cross, to another, but more upscale,
cul-de-sac, Somerset (later Northumberland) Court
(fig. 3, location B). He was to remain there, in a
handsome brick house, until the end of 1753. This
is where The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director,
the great book that was to make Chippendale’s
name and reputation, was created. He advertised
for subscribers from this address in the spring of
1753. He shared the premises for a time with the
drawing master Matthias Darly (fl. 1741–73), whom
he had engaged to engrave most of the copper plates
used to illustrate his book. An undated engraved
invitation card is signed T Chippendale Inv MDarly
Sculp Northumb Court Strand.13 One would like to 7. “Mr. Chippendale’s Premises / Upholsterer / 62,
credit Darly with having instructed Chippendale St Martin’s Lane / May 4ʰ 1803,” Sun Fire Insurance
in the art of drawing, but there is no evidence of Company survey plan. From Christopher Gilbert,
The Life and Work of  Thomas Chippendale (New York:
their prior acquaintance to support this argument.
Macmillan, 1978), vol. 1, p. 23, there redrawn from
According to a cryptic note in the Poor Rate Sun Fire Insurance Company plan
records for 1753, “Darly entered at Lady Day
[Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, a traditional
day on which yearlong contracts were renegoti- court (fig. 7), the properties were ideally suited
ated] Chippendale before lives opposite Slaughter’s to Chippendale’s grand ambitions. (Indeed, they
Coffee house.” 1⁴ In other words, apparently Darly would continue to house the firm, under Thomas
moved into Chippendale’s house in Northum- Chippendale Jr.’s leadership, until 1813.) On
berland Court, following the latter’s move to St. May 30, 1754, the General Evening Post announced,
Martin’s Lane—on the east side of the street across “This Day was published . . . The Gentleman and
from Slaughter’s, and just around the corner from Cabinet-Maker’s Director . . . by Thomas Chip-
his Conduit Court workshop (fig. 3, location C). pendale of St. Martin’s Lane, Cabinet-Maker.” 1⁵
Chippendale had seized the moment, when one Chippendale had literally arrived—in print and at
building was empty and the tenants in the other a good address.
two were hard-pressed to pay the rates, to lease But where was the capital to run this expansive
three properties (nos. 60, 61, and 62) owned by the business? In his newly published book, Chippen-
Earl of Salisbury. With a covered passage between dale coyly referred to “persons of distinction”
two of them giving access to an extensive inner and “of eminent Taste” who had promoted his

11
8. Thomas Chippendale (British, 1718–1779). A Bed, 1759. Black ink with gray wash,
graphite; sheet, 12⅛ × 8½ in. (30.8 × 21.5 cm). For pl. xxxix in the Director, 1762.
Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[32])
career.1⁶ Whoever they were, they did not now
step up to the plate. Instead he had to turn to an
investor, one James Rannie, a well-to-do Scot, a
cabinetmaker, and a subscriber to the Director. The
exact terms of the partnership are unknown, but
the results were clear enough. Chippendale got no
equity in the business, he was never able to reap
the financial rewards befitting his brilliant career,
and his son would ultimately be bankrupted by the
obligations entered into here. According to Robert
Campbell’s 1747 book The London Tradesman, “A
Master Cabinet-Maker is a very profitable Trade;
especially, if he works for and serves the Quality
himself; but if he must serve them through the
Chanel of the Upholder, his Profits are not very
considerable.” 1⁷ For Chippendale’s upholder, or
upholsterer, read Rannie.
In August 1754, Rannie and Chippendale signed
a new, joint lease on the St. Martin’s Lane prop-
erties and insured the various buildings with the
Sun Fire Insurance Company. And they issued an
engraved trade card reading Chippendale & Rannie,
Cabinet-Makers and Upholsterers, in St. Martin’s Lane,
Chairing [sic] Cross; London.1⁸
Then within a year, on April 5, 1755, a major 9. Chippendale & Rannie, invoice for bedstead to
setback: “On Saturday Night,” according to the “The Right Honble the Earl of Dumfries,” May 5, 1759.
Public Advertiser, “a dreadful Fire broke out in the From Dumfries House: A Chippendale Commission, sale cat.,
Christie’s, London, July 12–13, 2007 (sale canceled),
Workshop of Mr. Chippendale, in a Court in St.
vol. 1, p. 350
Martin’s Lane . . . and as there was a great Quan-
tity of Timber on the Premises and that inclosed
by Wooden Workshops and Sheds, it threaten’d house to the right of the passageway (no. 60) was
Destruction to the Neighbourhood. . . .” Fortunately the Chippendale family residence, that to the left
the fire was contained and the loss limited to two of (no. 61) the shop, presumably a storefront for dis-
the workshops in the complex. Out of total coverage playing furniture samples. The extensive array of
of £3,700, an insurance settlement of £847 12s. 6d. cabinet and upholstery workshops and of chair and
was paid in May and the structures were promptly glass and veneering and feather and drying rooms
rebuilt. For the “22 Chests of the Journeymens that lined the inner court denotes an establishment
Tools quite destroyed,” however, there was no such of considerable size and specialization, with per-
coverage. The Public Advertiser published appeals haps forty or fifty employees.
for private contributions to enable those hapless The partnership continued until Rannie’s death
craftsmen to replace the tools of their livelihood.1⁹ in January 1766. Thomas Haig, Rannie’s longtime
The Sun Fire Insurance policies for 1755, 1756, bookkeeper and confidant, was his principal execu-
and 1767, together with an 1803 insurance survey tor. The business being short of cash, he promptly
(see fig. 7), are all we have to document the scale auctioned off all its stock in trade. Later, by 1771,
and scope of the Chippendale enterprise.2⁰ The he became a partner in Chippendale, Haig & Co.,

13
 ing he wrote, “Agreed to cost between x 60 & 70
pound.” He billed Lord Dumfries £38, “To a large
mahogany double screw’d Bedstead wt. a Dometop
ornamented in the Inside the feetposts fluted & a
Palmbranch twisting round & carv’d Capitals a
carv’d headboard a strong burnish’d Rod a lath bot-
tom & strong triple wheel castors”; but with all the
upholstery, the bill totaled £90 16s. 1½d. (fig. 9).
The Dumfries commission, the only one in which
Chippendale consistently executed designs in the
manner of the first edition of the Director, survives
intact and in situ after nearly being dispersed at
auction in 2007.21
At Nostell Priory, Yorkshire, some three dozen
surviving letters and accounts, spanning the years
1766–71, paint a vivid picture of Chippendale’s
often fraught relationship with one of his most
10. Hugh Douglas Hamilton (Irish, 1739–1808). Sir important clients, Sir Rowland Winn. That very
Rowland and Lady Winn in the Library at Nostell Priory, ca. tension may have inspired him to create such splen-
1770. Oil on canvas, 39½ × 49½ in. (100.3 × 125.7 cm).
did pieces as the library table, at a cost of £72 10s.
Nostell Priory, West Yorkshire; National Trust
(NT 960061)
in June 1766, which soon had pride of place in a
family portrait (fig. 10). Though this table harked
back to a design in the 1754 Director (see fig. 11),
a relationship that was to continue with Thomas Nostell was the first of some dozen commissions in
Chippendale Jr. until Haig’s own death in 1803, which Chippendale designed and manufactured
at which time the firm was forced into bankruptcy. furniture for interiors conceived by architect
Chippendale’s career in St. Martin’s Lane Robert Adam in his signature Neoclassical style.
spanned some twenty-five years, from 1754 until But what about furniture the Chippendale firm
shortly before his death in 1779. His principal busi- made for stock, to be put in the showroom and sold
ness was furnishing the country houses of the nobil- off the shelf? The only evidence for this is the daily
ity and gentry. Based primarily on country-house notices in the Public Advertiser, March 3–15, 1766,
archives and bank records, Christopher Gilbert, for the auction of “The entire genuine and valuable
Chippendale’s authoritative biographer, has firmly Stock in Trade of Mr. Chippendale and his late
documented sixty-five clients, together with some Partner, Mr. Rennie [sic] . . . a great Variety of
seven hundred pieces of furniture, far more than fine Mahogany and Tulup Wood, Cabinets, Desks,
can be ascribed to any other maker of the time. and Book-Cases, Cloaths Presses, double Chests of
William Crichton-Dalrymple (ca. 1699–1768), Drawers, Commodes, Buroes, fine Library, Writ-
fifth Earl of Dumfries, Chippendale’s first major ing, Card, Dining, and other Tables . . . fine Pattern
patron, visited London in the winter of 1758–59 chairs, and sundry other Pieces of curious Cabinet
with the express purpose of furnishing his new Work . . . also all the large unwrought Stock . . .
house in Scotland. The most expensive of the fine Mahogany and other Woods, in Plank, Boards,
more than fifty individual pieces he ordered Vanier, and Wainscot.” 22 None of this furniture is
from Chippendale was a bed based on a design identifiable today.
Chippendale had just made in preparation for a Catherine Chippendale died in 1772, and Chip-
new edition of the Director (fig. 8). On the draw- pendale remarried and sired three more children

14
 11. Thomas Chippendale. Library Table. Black ink with gray wash, traces of graphite under-
drawing; 7⅞ × 13¾ in. (20.1 × 35 cm). For pl. lvii in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920
(20.40.2[17])

before his own death in November 1779. “Cons’p From it we learn that he died of consumption and
M. 62 yrs Thomas Chippendale St. Martin’s Lane was buried in the North Old Ground, now the
N.O.G. & prays £2.7.4,” an entry in the sexton’s site of the National Gallery. He died intestate, and
day book at the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields,23 when his estate was finally settled in 1781, his debts
mirrors the brevity of the Otley record of his birth. exceeded his assets.

The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director: The First Edition

Chippendale first announced his plan to publish and black letterpress (fig. 12), is followed by an
The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director in the elaborate engraved dedication to Chippendale’s
London Daily Advertiser for March 19, 1753.2⁴ He former neighbor the Earl of Northumberland; a
was seeking four hundred subscribers up front, at preface, dated March 23, 1754; a list of subscribers;
a prepublication price of £1 10s. in sheets or £1 and twenty-seven pages of captions for the 160
14s. bound in calf. Publication, originally planned plates (actually 161, two plates being numbered
for July 1754, was rescheduled to August. In the xxv) that follow. Each engraving, measuring 14 by
event, the book appeared at the end of May 1754, 9 inches, is inscribed at bottom left, T. Chippendale,
two months ahead of schedule, with a list of 308 inv et delin (abbreviations of the Latin inventor and
subscribers and orders for 333 copies. delineator); at bottom right, M. Darly sculp (engraver)
A typical copy of the Director, printed on or another engraver; and at bottom center, Pub-
paper with the watermarks of James Whatman lished according to Act of Parliament, sometimes with
(1702–1759) and bound in the original reverse the date 1753 (see fig. 19). In 1735 Hogarth had
calf, measures 18½ by 12 inches and weighs 8 successfully championed parliamentary passage
pounds 8 ounces. Its handsome title page, in red of “An Act for the encouragement of the arts of

15
 12. Thomas Chippendale. Title page of The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director (1st ed.,
London, 1754). Letterpress, red and black ink; 18⅞ × 12¼ in. (48 × 31 cm). Thomas J. Watson
Library (161.1 C44 Q )
13. Thomas Chippendale. Title page of The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director (3rd ed.,
London, 1762). Letterpress, black ink; 18 × 11 in. (45.6 × 27.8 cm). The Elisha Whittelsey
Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1982 (1982.1133)

designing, engraving, and etching historical and original subscribers, a handful of plates were later
other prints,” also known as “Hogarth’s Act,” allow- numbered manually in brown ink. In some such
ing artists to copyright their engraved designs for copies, the titles for the desk and bookcase engrav-
fourteen years. ings were placed at right angles to the images.2⁵
While no expense had been spared in produc- Once Chippendale saw how awkward those printed
tion of the Director, errors and inconsistencies in pages looked, he took one of his original drawings
the numbering of the plates and the placement by way of instruction to the engraver, crossed out
of inscriptions abounded, doubtless the result the title, and relocated it (see fig. 48). While these
of Chippendale’s having rushed publication to anomalies were corrected in subsequent printings,
coincide with the opening of his St. Martin’s Lane others, like having two different plates numbered
shop. In copies known to have been ordered by the xxv, never were.

16
 The Third Edition of the Director
Chippendale’s 1754 Director sold well, and in 1755 declared a brief hiatus in the scheduled distribu-
he issued a second edition, unchanged except that, tion of the remaining twenty-five numbers, instead
instead of being printed for the author and sold promising nearly a hundred new designs. 2⁹ This was
at his house, he farmed it out to the printer John all too much for Ince and Mayhew, who stopped
Haberkorn so that he could focus on growing his issuing designs with their twenty-first number, or
business. Four years later, however, in October installment, and published their Universal System
1759, not long after he had landed that first major of Houshold Furniture with fewer than half of the
country-house commission for Lord Dumfries, he 160 contemplated plates. The Museum’s copy of
suddenly advertised a third edition. He claimed to
have been “encouraged . . . to revise and improve
several of the Plates first published, and to add
Fifty New ones.” 2⁶ In fact, he was responding to
a looming commercial challenge by the recently
formed partnership of two up-and-coming crafts-
men, William Ince (1737–1804) and John Mayhew
(1736–1811). Back in July, they had published the
first “Of a New Book of Original Designs, Enti-
tled, A General System of Useful and Ornamental
Furniture: . . . in One Hundred and sixty large
Folio Copper Plates . . . in weekly Numbers, each
containing Four Plates . . . at One Shilling” (see
fig. 14).2⁷ So read their broadside, or advertisement,
which also contained a none-too-veiled reference to
the Director: “And as a Work of this Kind was deliv-
ered to the Public some few Years since, by a very
ingenious Artificer, and met its deserved Applause;
they being instigated by so good an Example, hope
the Candid and Ingenious will be kind enough to
receive this their Attempt.”
Chippendale must have been outraged at their
arrogant appropriation of everything about his
book—the size and number of plates, even the
style of the designs—not to mention the threat to
his business. That is why, on October 6, 1759, he
responded in kind, announcing that “This Day
were published No. 1. of the Third Edition (being
14. William Ince (British, 1737–1804) and John Mayhew
Four Folio Copperplates, printed on Royal Paper,
(British, 1736–1811). Number V. Of a New Book of Original
Price 1s.), The Gentleman’s and Cabinet Maker’s
Designs, Entitled, A General System of Useful and Ornamental
Director. To be continued Weekly, and the whole Furniture, 1759. Letterpress on blue paper, 17⅛ × 10⅝ in.
completed in Fifty Numbers.” 2⁸ The new edition (43.6 × 27 cm). An original prospectus for Ince and
would include improvements to some plates as well Mayhew, The Universal System of Houshold Furniture, 1762.
as fifty altogether new designs. In March 1760, he Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1934 (34.100)

17
 15. Thomas Johnson (British, 1723–1799). Proposals for Publishing by Subscription, A New Book
of Ornaments, ca. 1756–57. Etching by James Kirk, etching and drypoint by William Austin,
and letterpress; 11⅛ × 14⅞ in. (28.4 × 37.8 cm). Bound in the back of Johnson, A New Book of
Ornaments (London, 1758 or 1761). Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1932 (32.61)

this rare book, purchased by Ivins in 1934, retains thirty-three in 1761, and eight in 1762. During the
the blue paper wrappers for each of the individual winter of 1761–62, however, he made twelve more
numbers, upon many of which the broadside is new designs to replace ones from 1759 and 1760
printed (see fig. 14). Though their designs were that, made in haste to thwart Ince and Mayhew and
derived from, and often inferior to, Chippendale’s, printed and included in the weekly installments of
Ince and Mayhew were first-class cabinetmakers the prior year, he must later have found unsatisfac-
and became serious competitors. tory. No wonder the third edition is found today in
The third edition of the Director (see fig. 13) so many variants!
was available, depending upon when ordered, The installment plan as a way of underwriting a
as fifty weekly numbers at a shilling each; as the book—the selling in parts rather than as a finished
first twenty-five numbers altogether; as the 106 whole—had been introduced into Chippendale’s
new plates separately in sheets, for £1 10s.; or as circle in 1758 with the publication of A New Book
the complete 200 plates in sheets, for £2 12s. 6d. of Ornaments by Thomas Johnson (1723–1799), a
Most of the new plates are dated, so one can follow carver who had first been associated with Matthias
Chippendale’s progress in preparing the promised Lock in 1744 when they were together in the
new designs: fifteen in 1759, thirty-nine in 1760, workshop of James Whittle. Late in life, Johnson

18
 16. Gideon Saint (British, 1729–1799). Scrapbook, ca. 1763–68. Open to Shields & Odd Ornaments,
pp. 96–97. Etchings and engravings by Matthias Lock (nos. 437, 438, 448–51, 470, 471), Henry
Copland (no. 446), and Lock and Copland (no. 469). Each page, 13½ × 8½ in. (34.3 × 21.6 cm).
Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1934 (34.90.1)

recalled having taken “great delight in copying porary and neighbor of Johnson in the Leicester
Lock’s drawings.” 3⁰ Not surprisingly, the designs Square area west of St. Martin’s Lane, established
of the fifty-two plates in his book, midway in size himself on Princes Street in 1763. Shortly there-
between Lock’s booklets and Chippendale’s folios, after, he purchased a large blank book, cut out
owe their primary inspiration to the former. Bound finger tabs for easy access to sections devoted to
in the back of the Museum’s copy, acquired by Ivins different furniture forms, and proceeded to fill it
in 1932, is the only known impression of Johnson’s with a vast assemblage of mostly English Rococo
charmingly illustrated proposal for publishing ornament prints, including many by Lock and Cop-
his book by subscription (fig. 15). It instructs the land (fig. 16), and drawings (some of these being his
would-be purchaser on how to go about ordering own), each design numbered for easy reference.31
the thirteen numbers, each with four prints mea- (Chippendale’s were noticeable by their absence,
suring 10 by 7 inches, which were to be available presumably because they were too large to fit and
the first of every month, beginning  January 1, 1756, were also readily available.) This visual cornuco-
until finished, at 1s. 6d. each. pia, acquired by Ivins in 1934, is evidence that the
Not every carver, however, got to publish his own Director was never the only source of inspiration for
designs. Gideon Saint (1729–1799), a near contem- carvers’ designs in the Rococo taste.

19
 The Foley Chippendale Albums
The two albums the Museum acquired in 1920 (see dealer near Witley Court.32 In sum, eleven album
fig. 2) contain the principal collection of drawings pages remain missing together with fourteen of the
associated with Chippendale and the Director. Unlike 161 drawings employed for the first edition.
the drawings at the Victoria and Albert Museum The drawings are somewhat the worse for wear.
that have an unbroken Lock family provenance, the Surface grime and occasional tears and losses in-
early history of these volumes is uncertain. While dicate extended exposure to a workshop environ-
they likely descended to Thomas Chippendale Jr. ment; and whoever then put them in the albums,
(1749–1822), the demonstrable provenance only presumably Lord Foley’s librarian, aggressively
begins with Thomas Henry, fourth Baron Foley trimmed their edges before pasting them down with
(1808–1869), formerly of Witley Court, Worcester- what became a disfiguring glue. They are arranged
shire, whose bookplate (datable to 1849 or later) is according to form: volume one with the seating
pasted in both of them (see inside front cover of this furniture and beds, the looking-glass frames, and
Bulletin); thence in a direct line to Gerald Henry, other carvers’ work; volume two with cabinet or
seventh Baron Foley (1898–1927), of Ruxley Lodge, case furniture. Drawings for the third edition are
Claygate, Surrey. The Ruxley Lodge library was interspersed throughout.
auctioned off in situ, October 23–25, 1919, and the The Director drawings are not sketches or studies;
albums were subsequently acquired by George D. they are the final, finished images from which the
Smith and brought to New York. engravings were made, identical in every detail,
The bound volumes contain 207 drawings though the printed images are very slightly smaller
mounted individually on coarse blue paper sheets and, of course, in reverse (see figs. 19, 20). Yet in
numbered 1–226 (see fig. 8): 144 drawings (for 141 another way, the two could hardly be less alike.
plates—three have been cut in half and mounted Whereas the engravings are technically perfect,
on six sheets) for the first edition of the Director; stylized, and anonymous (one is hard-pressed to
thirty-five for the third; and a miscellany of distinguish the work of engravers Matthias Darly,
twenty-eight by Chippendale, Lock, and uniden- Johann Sebastien Müller, and Tobias Müller), the
tified others. On the drawings for the first edition, drawings are vibrant and expressive. The drawings
the plate number for the engraving is inscribed at also show that Chippendale was editing and reor-
top left (see fig. 11); on those for the third edition, dering his designs even as they were being engraved.
at top right (see fig. 29). (Chippendale used arabic For example, having consecutively numbered the
numerals, which were engraved on the plates as first seventy-eight designs, he deleted numbers 33
roman numerals.) There are also the stubs of nine- and 34 and inserted in their place numbers 49 and
teen missing pages, the drawings for eight of which 50, his only designs for breakfast and china tables,
(six being for the first edition) appeared at auction which necessitated crossing out and renumbering
in the 1970s, consigned by the son of an antiques plates 49–78 (see fig. 11).

The Designs for the Director

Chippendale prefaced his belief in the primacy “the very soul and basis of [the cabinetmaker’s]
of cabinetwork based on classical architectural art.” 33 His first eight plates illustrate the “General
practice by beginning the Director with “a short Proportions” of the five orders, copied from Rules
explanation of the five Orders [of Architecture] . . . for Drawing the Several Parts of Architecture (1732), by
and rules of Perspective,” what he claimed to be James Gibbs (1682–1754), architect of the church

20
17. Thomas Chippendale, after James Gibbs. Ionick Order. Black ink with gray wash, traces of
graphite; 13� × 8� in. (35.4 × 22.4 cm). For pl. iii in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund,
1920 (20.40.1[3])
 18. Thomas Chippendale. A Dressing Table in Perspective. Engraving by Matthias Darly;
plate, 8⅞ × 13¾ in. (22.5 × 35 cm). Pl. x in the Director, 1754. Thomas J. Watson Library
(161.1 C44 Q )

of St. Martin-in-the-Fields (see fig. 4), where, inci- 5 feet 6 inches above the groundline, that is, at eye
dentally, Chippendale was a parishioner. “Of all level. He was to use the same image again when
the arts which are either improved or ornamented illustrating bureau tables (fig. 19). The source for
by architecture,” Chippendale opined, “that of that engraving was a drawing (fig. 20) to which
Cabinet-Making is . . . the most useful and orna- Chippendale added all the information necessary
mental.” 3⁴ These plates illustrate the compo- for a craftsman to make the piece: the dimensions,
nents—pedestal, shaft, capital, and entablature— in feet and inches, and the molding profiles “at
that make up each of the classical orders—Tuscan, large” (full size). The moldings for the bracket
Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Composite—together feet of the plainer bureau table, at upper left, con-
with profiles of their moldings and the modular form to those of Gibbs’s Doric order; those for the
system for keeping the various elements in proper fancier one, to his Ionic (see fig. 17). The visually
proportion (see fig. 17). They are the authority arresting, sometimes exaggerated, representations
for so many features that appear in Chippendale’s of furniture so characteristic of the first edition
patterns. are clearly the product of Chippendale’s rules for
His next three plates illustrate chairs and perspective.
cabinetwork according to his written “Rules to Sometimes large cabinet pieces like bookcases
Draw [Furniture] in Perspective,” that is from were shown both frontally and in profile (fig. 21),
the perspective of a standing person, either at while depictions of smaller objects allowed space
a three-quarter angle—usually viewed, in the to show complex construction details (fig. 22). This
drawings, from the left with light coming from combination of the structural and mechanical with
the right foreground—or straight on. Plate x (fig. the ornamental is a recurring feature in the designs
18), for example, shows a dressing, or bureau, table of the first edition.
drawn at the groundline (e), with the point of sight After the perspective plates, Chippendale
(o) and point of distance (v) on a horizontal line arranged the designs by form: chairs and beds,

22
19. Thomas Chippendale. Buroe Tables. Engraving by Tobias Müller; plate, 8⅞ × 13¾ in. (22.4 ×
35 cm). Pl. xli in the Director, 1754. Thomas J. Watson Library (161.1 C44 Q )
20. Thomas Chippendale. Buroes Tables. Black ink with gray wash, traces of ruling in graphite; 8⅛ ×
14 in. (20.6 × 35.5 cm). For pl. xli in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[68])
21. Thomas Chippendale. Dressing Chest and Bookcase. Black ink with gray wash, traces of ruling in graphite;
8⅝ × 13⅛ in. (21.8 × 33.3 cm). For pl. lxxxix in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[66])
22. Thomas Chippendale. Writing Table. Black ink with gray wash, traces of graphite; 8⅝ × 12¾ in. (21.8 ×
32.5 cm). For pl. xlix in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[37])
23. Thomas Chippendale. Cloths Chest, Cloths Press. Black ink with gray wash, graphite; 6⅞ × 12� in.
(17.5 × 31.9 cm). For pl. xcvii in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[76])
24. Thomas Chippendale. Two Designs of Cloths Chests. Black ink with gray wash, 8⅝ × 13⅜ in. (22 × 34 cm).
For pl. ci in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[73])
 25. Thomas Chippendale. Hanging Shelves. Black ink with gray wash, traces of graphite on the left side;
8⅝ × 7� in. (22 × 19.8 cm), 7⅜ × 4½ in. (18.7 × 11.5 cm). For pl. cxiv in the Director, 1754. Rogers
Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[97, 96]). The drawing is now in two pieces.

tables and cabinet pieces, and, last, stands, frames, fad for all things Chinese. On March 22, 1753,
and other carvers’ work. For the first edition that the World published a letter to the editor on the
meant multiple variations on a limited number subject of current fashion: “A few years ago every
of furniture forms. “Cloths Chests” and “Cloths thing was Gothic; our houses, our beds, our book-
Presses,” for example, are illustrated in ten indi- cases, and our couches. . . . According to the pres-
vidual designs on six plates (xcvi–ci), ranging in ent prevailing whim, every thing is Chinese.” 3⁵
form from simple to complex, in ornament from Accordingly, Chippendale offered side chairs, beds,
plain to fancy (see figs. 23, 24). cabinets, shelves, and pier glasses in either Gothic
The first edition’s title page (fig. 12) proclaimed or Chinese dress, the only differences being in the
its designs as being in the “Gothic, Chinese and ornament: Gothic crockets and pointed arches or
Modern Taste.” This reflected Chippendale’s keen pagoda-like canopies and latticework railings. He
awareness of the fashions of the moment. In 1753 described plate cxiv as “Two Designs of hanging
Horace Walpole had just completed the first phase shelves, the one Gothic, the other in the Chinese
of Strawberry Hill, his villa at Twickenham and manner” (see fig. 25).3⁶ But some forms were best
the preeminent statement of the Gothic Revival; suited to a specific taste: for writing tables, library
meanwhile, nearby at Kew, in 1749, Frederick, tables, and library bookcases, it was the Gothic;
Prince of Wales, had built his Chinese summer- for china cases, cabinets, shelves, and railings, it
house (the House of Confucius), introducing the was the Chinese.

26
26. Thomas Chippendale. Pier Glass Frame. Black ink with gray wash, 12⅛ ×
6� in. (30.8 × 17.3 cm). For pl. cxliii in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920
(20.40.1[62])
 27. Thomas Chippendale. Candle Stands. Black ink with gray wash, 8� × 13⅜ in. (21.7 × 34 cm).
For pl. cxxi in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[83])

Then there was the “Modern” taste, synonymous in the air, and Chippendale welcomed it. Gothic
with the French, or what today we call the Rococo. and Chinese were out, “Modern” (French) and
Chippendale identified his upholstered armchairs Neoclassical in. To create room, he made deletions
(see fig. 28) and his commode tables (see fig. 32) wherever he had multiple examples. And the reper-
as “French.” On a design for clothes chests (see toire of forms was now much expanded to include
fig. 24), he deemed the right side, with its pierced hall and garden chairs; writing, dressing, and toilet
feet with pointed arches, Gothic; the left side, with tables specifically for ladies; even chimneypieces,
its applied Rococo, C-scroll, and foliate carving, fire grates, and lighting fixtures. Whereas the first
French. Significantly, he had nothing to say about edition exhibited a consistent, if highly idiosyn-
the exuberantly Rococo pieces exclusively the work cratic, design ethos, the third, with half its designs
of carvers—pier glass frames (fig. 26) and candle- old and half new, was a mixed bag.
stands (fig. 27) and screens—relegated to the back The new designs for the third edition also exhibit
of the book. They are entirely in the manner of a change in the conventions governing represen-
Lock and Copland. tation. The crisp and lively outlines, exaggerated
The third edition’s title page, issued in 1762 perspectives, and deep shadows found in the first
(fig. 13), was less specific, describing its designs edition gave way to calmer, more static forms;
simply as “In the Most Fashionable Taste.” Chip- to paler, sometimes tinted, washes. For chairs,
pendale had begun the process of pruning back the three-quarter perspective and angular, spiky
the ranks of original plates and adding new ones ornament were superseded by frontal views and
in 1759, the year after Robert Adam returned from typically French-style scrollwork; for their seat cov-
Rome intent upon infusing the English interior ers, the exquisitely rendered chinoiserie vignettes
with the art of classical antiquity. Neoclassicism was were replaced by sketchy suggestions of fables and

28
28. Thomas Chippendale. French Chairs. Black ink with gray wash, traces of red chalk; 8¼ × 13� in.
(21 × 33.5 cm). For pl. xix in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[14])

29. Thomas Chippendale. French Chairs, 1759. Black ink with gray wash, 8¾ × 13¾ in. (22.3 × 34.8 cm).
For pl. xxii in the Director, 1762. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[13])
30. Thomas Chippendale. Sideboard Table. Black ink with gray wash, graphite; 8⅝ × 13⅝ in. (21.8 ×
34.6 cm). For pl. xl in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[39])

31. Thomas Chippendale. Sideboard Tables, 1760. Black ink with gray wash, faint traces of graphite;
8½ × 13� in. (21.7 × 34.4 cm). For pl. lxi in the Director, 1762. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[40])
32. Thomas Chippendale. French Commode Table. Black ink with gray wash, 8¼ × 12⅜ in. (20.9 ×
31.5 cm). For pl. xlvi in the Director, 1754. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[56])

33. Thomas Chippendale. Commode Tables, 1760. Black ink with gray wash, stylus ruling; 8� × 13⅛ in.
(21.1 × 33.3 cm). For pl. lxx in the Director, 1762. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[59])
 34. Thomas Chippendale. A Design for a Commode Table with Two Different Designs for Candle Stands, 1761.
Black ink with gray and brown wash, traces of graphite; 9 × 14 in. (22.8 × 35.5 cm). For pl. lxxi in
the Director, 1762. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.1[47])

flowers (figs. 28, 29). For tables and case pieces, studies in the first edition are missing from the
single large-scale images shown in perspective (figs. third. On the other hand, a handful of the drawings
30, 32) were domesticated, made safe and tasteful, dating from 1760–62 are distinctive for a more
and replaced with pairs of smaller, less aggressive, sculptural, more richly modeled, and less linear
sometimes overtly Neoclassical designs (figs. 31, manner of rendering (fig. 34). And this raises the
33). It is no coincidence that the three perspective question of authorship.

A Question of Attribution
More than thirty of the Director drawings, and all but hedged regarding the drawings, concluding that
of the engravings, bear Thomas Chippendale’s “there is no reason to think that Chippendale may
signature as inventor (artist) and delineator (drafts- not have made them himself.” 3⁷
man), yet their authorship has long been subject to In “The Creators of the Chippendale Style,”
debate. Ivins, in 1921, thought that the signatures their 1929 landmark study of the Museum’s draw-
had been added by someone in Chippendale’s shop, ings, Fiske Kimball and Edna Donnell proved that

32
Lock and Copland introduced Rococo ornament bling and ordering the images for engraving and
to England a full decade before publication of the publication. It was common practice, particularly
Director. They also convincingly demonstrated, by with engravings asserting the Hogarth Act, to give
comparison with autographs on his correspon- separate credit to artist, draftsman, and engraver;
dence, that the signatures and inscriptions on the and it seems inconceivable that Chippendale would
Director drawings were in Chippendale’s own hand. have grossly misrepresented his role and claimed
But then, on the basis of perceived stylistic affin- credit for both their design and their delineation
ities, they gave almost exclusive artistic credit for if others were involved.
the first edition’s designs to Copland, relegating Third, of course, are the drawings themselves.
to Chippendale the role of “the modern man of We have seen the dramatic changes from those
business” who capitalized on the artistic genius of for the edition of 1754 to those of 1762, but, with
others.3⁸ This was the fashion of early Chippen- possible exceptions (see fig. 34), they look as though
dale scholarship from the turn of the twentieth they have a common origin (see figs. 20–33). Most
century taken to its logical conclusion. In 1958
Peter Ward-Jackson, writing about the Victoria
and Albert’s drawings, offered a long-overdue
corrective—since confirmed by the discovery that
Copland died in January 1752, before work on the
Director had begun—reasserting Chippendale’s rep-
utation as an important artist.3⁹
But the nagging question of who actually drew
the Director designs, Chippendale or someone in
his employ, remains. It is rooted in our ignorance
about Chippendale’s early training, as well as in
the dearth of surviving drawings intended for exe-
cution rather than publication. It is time to review
the evidence.
First, we have Chippendale’s word that he was
master of his own drawings: in the preface to the
Director, he “confess[ed], that in executing many
of the drawings, my pencil has but faintly copied
out those images that my fancy suggested.” ⁴⁰ In the
London Chronicle of March 28, 1760, he claimed
that ill health and the need “to allow him Time for
the executing some New Designs” had delayed the
publication of the new plates for the third edition.⁴1
And in a letter to Sir Rowland Winn at Nostell in
July 1767, he mentioned going to Harewood, seat of
Edwin Lascelles and destined to be Chippendale’s
costliest commission, where, having “look’d over
the whole of ye house I found that [I] Shou’d want
35. Isaac Ware (British, before 1704–1766). Hall Chimney-
a Many designs & knowing that I had time Enough Piece. Black ink with gray wash, 14� × 9� in. (37 ×
I went to York to do them.” ⁴2 25 cm). For pl. 26 in Plans, Elevations, and Sections . . . of
Second, we have those authenticated signatures, Houghton in Norfolk, 1735. Harris Brisbane Dick Fund,
presumably added by Chippendale when assem- 1925 (25.62.51r[a])

33
demonstrate a lively assurance and easy elegance, offer a unique window on his design process. On a
a sense of immediacy, and the ability to instill number of them, the ruled pencil lines with which
ornament with nervous energy that are the mark they were laid out can still be discerned, confirming
of an accomplished artist. Compare the Director that they were composed according to Chippen-
drawings to those for the engravings in Isaac Ware’s dale’s rules of architecture and perspective. A good
Plans, Elevations, and Sections . . . of Houghton, in which example is number 97 (fig. 23), where one can see
the interior illustrations were conceived by Wil- the pencil lines used to locate the clothes chest and
liam Kent, notorious for his sketchy and informal the clothes press on the page, the perspective lines
graphic style, but then drawn by Ware (fig. 35) to construct the outlines of the individual pieces,
preparatory to engraving by Paul Fourdrinier and the precise measurements of the different parts
(1698–1758). These delineations are the bland but (see back cover of this Bulletin). Then the drawing
proficient product of the copyist. The engravings was finished in black or gray ink and wash, and the
are unambiguously inscribed W. Kent inv. I. Ware dimensions neatly transcribed. And only after that
del. P. Fourdrinier sc. were the plate numbers, titles, signatures, and other
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the inscriptions added—in brown ink, the handwriting
designs are in Chippendale’s own hand is offered more or less freehand—in striking contrast to the
by those for cabinetwork for the first edition, which gray-toned, engraver-ready designs themselves.

Chippendale Furniture

Furniture that can legitimately be called “Chippen- Two letters from a principal of the Gillow firm of
dale” falls into two categories. The first is pieces Lancaster, a leading provincial cabinet shop, offer
indebted to the Director for their design, regard- a window on the way the book worked in practice.
less of who made them. This category is central On July 5, 1760, nearly a year after Chippendale
to Chippendale’s stated purpose. In the first edi- had begun issuing his new designs, Richard Gillow
tion he declared that only four of its designs had wrote to his cousin James in London, requesting
already been executed—two china cases by himself “Chippendale’s additional Number as soon as pos-
(pls. cvi, cviii) and a ribbon-back chair and Gothic sible.” And on April 26, 1765, he sent a client “2
writing table by others unnamed (pls. xvi, lii). But Sketches of Library Book Cases,” adding that “if
he hastened to claim to “have given no design but any of Chippindales designs be more agreeable I
what may be executed with advantage by the hands have his Book and can execute ’em & adapt them
of a skillful workman.” ⁴3 In the commentary on to the places they are for if you’ll be so obliging to
the individual plates, he repeatedly said that a par- Point out the Number.” ⁴⁵ In other words, the trade
ticular design would look extremely or exceedingly looked forward to Chippendale’s latest offerings
well, or give a good or the desired effect, or great and had no compunction about customizing them.
satisfaction—but only if well or skillfully or neatly The Museum has, from the collection of Judge
executed, by a good or fine or ingenious workman. Irwin Untermyer of New York City, two textbook
To that end he provided “Proper Directions for examples of such “Director-style” Chippendale
executing the most difficult Pieces, the Mouldings furniture.46 The first, a pair of side chairs (fig. 36),
being exhibited at large, and the Dimension of each is based on a design for “Ribband back Chairs”
Design specified.” ⁴⁴ In sum, the Director is a book (fig. 37). In the first edition, Chippendale claimed
whose designs were intended to be mixed, matched, them to be “the best I have ever seen. . . . The Chair
and mined; whose designs were only as good as the on the left hand [the right in the drawing] has been
craftsmen who executed them. executed from this Design, which had an excellent

34
36. Side chair, England,
ca. 1755–60. Mahogany, wool tent-
stitch embroidery on canvas; 39½ ×
23 × 19½ in. (100.3 × 58.5 × 49.5 cm).
Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1964
(64.101.983)

37. Thomas Chippendale. Ribband

Back Chairs. Black ink with gray wash,
traces of graphite; 7½ × 13⅜ in.
(19.1 × 34 cm). For pl. xvi in the
Director, 1754; pl. xv in 1762.
Rogers Fund, 1972 (1972.581)
38. China table, England, ca. 1755–60. Mahogany, 28¼ × 37¾ × 26½ in. (71.8 × 95.9 ×
67.3 cm). Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1964 (64.101.1099)
39. Thomas Chippendale. China Tables. Black ink with gray wash, graphite; 8⅛ × 13⅛ in.
(20.7 × 33.4 cm). For pl. xxxiv in the Director, 1754; pl. li in 1762. Rogers Fund, 1920
(20.40.2[92])
 40. Pier glass mirror, made for Shillinglee Park, Sussex, ca. 1760. Carved and gilded linden wood,
glass; 114 × 55 in. (289.6 × 139.7 cm). Purchase, Morris Loeb Bequest, 1955 (55.43.1)
41. William Ince. Pier Glasses. Engraving by Matthias Darly; plate, 14 × 8⅞ in. (35.5 × 22.5 cm).
Pl. cxli in Ince and Mayhew, A General System of Useful and Ornamental Furniture, ca. 1760. Harris
Brisbane Dick Fund, 1934 (34.100)

effect, and gave satisfaction to all who saw it”; in and cross stretchers of the other (fig. 39). While
the third, that “Several Sets have been made.” ⁴⁷ we do not know from which set the judge’s chairs
The second example, an exceptionally graceful might have come, his unique table has a colorful
rectangular tea or breakfast table (fig. 38), combines history of having turned up at a country auction in
the serpentine-shaped tray top of one of his two Wales before passing through a succession of lead-
designs for “China Tables” with the cabriole legs ing British and American dealers and collectors.

37
42. Thomas Chippendale. China Shelf. Black ink with gray wash, some ruling in
graphite; 8⅝ × 12� in. (21.8 × 31.9 cm). For pl. cxv in the Director, 1754. Rogers
Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[89])
 For that most characteristic of “Chippendale
style” furniture forms, the carved and gilded pier
glass intended for placement between windows,
the Museum has a pair (fig. 40) from Shillinglee
Park, Sussex, former seat of the Earls Winterton.
Here, however, the source is not the Director but a
plate in Ince and Mayhew’s Universal System (fig. 41).
Where their engraved design peters out at the top,
the carver has added an oriental figure in a gar-
den seat. Also at the Museum is a pair of stand-
ing shelves (fig. 43) made for the fourth Duke of
Beaufort’s Chinese bedroom at Badminton House,
Gloucester­shire, by the firm of William and John
Linnell, in the manner of designs in the Director for
latticework shelves intended to be decorated with
“japanning,” or imitation lacquer work (fig. 42).
The second category of Chippendale furni-
ture consists of all the documented products of
Chippendale’s shop. The earliest pieces are those
ordered by Lord Dumfries in 1759, many being
free adaptations of designs in the 1754 edition:
solid mahogany chairs and tables with cabriole legs,
carved and gilded Rococo looking-glass frames,
and girandoles. Ironically, the one piece copied
directly from a Director design—the bed for which
Dumfries paid £90 16s. 1½d.—was from a 1759
design for the third edition (fig. 8).
Thereafter, other than Chippendale’s japanned
bedroom suite for David Garrick’s Thames-side
villa, it is hard to see the influence of the first edition
in the firm’s own work. Neoclassicism à la Robert
Adam was his forte. The set of side chairs displayed
in the Museum’s Adam-designed dining room from
Lansdowne House, London, was made by Chip-
pendale, Haig & Co. for Golds­borough Hall, the
Yorkshire seat of Daniel Lascelles, younger brother
of Edwin Lascelles at Harewood. With their rec-
tilinear form, pierced splats with carved Neoclas-
sical accents, and tapered front legs, the chairs
are iconic examples of a favorite Chippendale
43. William Linnell (British, ca. 1703–1763) and
form (fig. 44).
John Linnell (British, 1729–1796). One of a pair of
About the same time, for William Weddell of standing shelves, 1753–54. Lacquered and painted pine,
nearby Newby Hall, the firm made an almost iden- mahogany, and walnut; 59 × 23 × 10½ in. (149.9 ×
tical set of dining chairs. It also supplied carved and 58.4 × 26.7 cm). Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1964
gilded armchairs and sofas for Weddell’s Tapestry (64.101.1124)

39
 44. Chippendale, Haig & Co. Side chair, made for Goldsborough Hall, Yorkshire,
1771–76. Mahogany, modern red morocco leather; 38¼ × 22 × 22½ in. (97.2 ×
55.9 × 57.2 cm). Purchase, Lila Acheson Wallace and The Annenberg Foundation
Gifts, Gift of Irwin Untermyer and Fletcher Fund, by exchange, Bruce Dayton
Gift, and funds from various donors, 1996 (1996.426.10)

Room, one of six such Adam interiors with walls top, Gilt in the Best Burnish’d Gold, Stuff ’d with
and seating furniture covered in tapestry woven at Besthair,” for which Ince and Mayhew billed
the Gobelins Manufactory in Paris. The earliest the Earl of Coventry £77 8s. on October 5, 1769
of these rooms, at Croome Court, Worcestershire, (fig. 45).⁴⁸ The chairs are finely made and with their
and now installed in the Metropolitan, also has its superb original gilding, but perhaps lack some of
original, very similar furnishings. These include the grace and elegance with which Chippendale,
“6 Large Antique Elbow Chairs, with oval Backs, Haig & Co. executed the same overall design five
Carv’d with Double husks & ribbon, knot on years later for Newby (fig. 46).

40
 45. William Ince and John Mayhew. Armchair, made for the Tapestry Room, Croome Court,
Worcestershire, 1769. Gilded wood, wool and silk Gobelins tapestry; 42⅝ × 28 × 26 in. (108.3 ×
71.1 × 66 cm). Gift of Samuel H. Kress Foundation, 1958 (58.75.16)
46. Chippendale, Haig & Co. Armchair, made for the Tapestry Drawing Room, Newby Hall,
Yorkshire, ca. 1775. Gilded wood, wool and silk Gobelins tapestry. Newby Hall Chippendale
Collection

Influence Abroad
The Director’s reach was international; there was between 1764 and 1769. Philadelphia, then the
even a French translation of the third edition fourth-largest city in the English-speaking world—
in 1762. But this influence is nowhere more evi- after London, Edinburgh, and Dublin—looked
dent than in colonial Philadelphia in the years to London for the latest fashions, but a series of
following the publication of the third edition.⁴⁹ nonimportation agreements aimed at stymieing
London-trained cabinetmaker Thomas Affleck British imports led the local gentry to welcome
probably brought his own copy with him when London-trained cabinetmakers and carvers who
he arrived in 1763; and the Library Company of could incorporate the latest London fads into the
Philadelphia, which counted numerous craftsmen regional idiom. Thus, readily recognizable design
among its members, acquired a copy sometime motifs from the third edition appear proudly

41
47. High chest of drawers, Philadelphia, ca. 1765. Mahogany; 91¾ × 44⅝ ×
24⅝ (233 × 113.3 × 62.5 cm). John Stewart Kennedy Fund, 1918 (18.110.4)
48. Thomas Chippendale. Desk & Bookcase.
Black ink with gray wash, traces of graphite;
13� × 8⅛ in. (33.8 × 20.7 cm). For pl.
lxxviii in the Director, 1754; pl. cviii in
1762. Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2[30])

49. Thomas Chippendale. A Desk & Bookcase.

Engraving; plate, 8⅞ × 13� in. (22.6 ×
35.4 cm). Pl. cvii in the Director, 1762. The
Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha
Whittelsey Fund, 1982 (1982.1133)
 50. Detail of figure 47, showing carved lower drawer

51. Thomas Johnson. Design for a Chimneypiece Tablet. Pl. 5 from Johnson, A New Book of
Ornaments (London, 1762 ed.). Etching, crayon technique; 8 × 13� in. (20.3 × 33.2 cm),
cropped within plate. Gift of Harvey Smith, 1985 (1985.1099)
integrated into some of the best bespoke local fur-
niture, including chairs, tables, and chests now in
the Metropolitan’s American Wing.
Perhaps the perfect example of this amalga-
mation of Director motifs and regional style is a
splendid scroll-top high chest (fig. 47), part of a
large collection of American and English furniture
in the Chippendale style that was purchased by the
Museum just one hundred years ago. Here the
unidentified maker borrowed the broken scroll ped-
iment, particularly its scroll terminals metamor-
phosing into acanthus leafage and its bust finial,
from a first-edition desk and bookcase design
(fig. 48); he exactly traced the dentil cornice from
the full-size molding profile of a third-edition desk
and bookcase design, as well as adapting its draped-
urn central finial for the Philadelphia piece’s side
finials (fig. 49). For the carved lower drawer, where
two swans converse within a large C-scroll (fig. 50),
however, he turned to the design for a chimney-
piece tablet (fig. 51), part of a suite of six prints
published by Thomas Johnson in 1762. The likely
carver was Hercules Courtenay, who had been
apprenticed to Johnson before emigrating from
London to Phila­delphia by 1765.
There is no more telling expression of the per-
vasive influence of Chippendale’s great book than
Philadelphia cabinetmaker John Folwell’s unre-
alized attempt, in 1775, after the start of war, to
publish an American “Chippendale.” His printed
proposal for The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s 52. John Folwell (act. Philadelphia, 1775 – d. 1780).
Assistant (fig. 52), consciously aping the text and Proposals, for Printing by Subscription, The Gentleman and
Cabinet-Maker’s Assistant, Philadelphia, June 20, 1775.
typography of the title page of the 1754 Director
Letterpress, 16⅜ × 9½ in. (41.6 × 24.1 cm). Bound
(fig. 12), is bound into some copies of the Philadel- into Abraham Swan, The British Architect: or, The Builder’s
phia edition of Abraham Swan’s British Architect, Treasury of Stair-Cases (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1775).
the first architectural book to be printed in colonial Courtesy the Printed Book and Periodical Collection,
America. Oh, to know what Folwell’s drawings Winterthur Library, Delaware
would have looked like!

45
 Bibliographic Note
The Chippendale bibliography is extensive. The essential reference is Christopher Gilbert,
The Life and Work of Thomas Chippendale (New York: Macmillan, 1978), a two-volume mono-
graph published in celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of Chippendale’s death. It
incorporates virtually every fact about the man and his work that a century of antiquarian and
scholarly research had uncovered, and those facts are the underpinnings of this essay. Little
new has been unearthed in the subsequent forty years. Other sources are given in the notes.
Thomas Chippendale’s The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director was published in three
editions: 1st ed., London: The author, 1754; 2nd ed., London: J. Haberkorn, 1755; 3rd ed.,
London: The author, 1762. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has two copies each of the
first edition (Rogers Fund, 1952 [52.519.94]; Watson Library, 161.1 C44 Q ) and the third
edition (The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1982 [1982.1133];
Watson Library, 161.1 C441 Q ), and one of the second edition (Harris Brisbane Dick Fund,
1924 [24.61]). The third edition is readily available in a 1966 Dover reprint.

Notes
1. John Spencer, diary entry April 25, 1768, Spencer- and Social Survey of Central and Western London about 1750
Stanhope MS 60633-19/JS (3), Sheffield City Library; (London: Collins, 1964), p. 107.
quoted in Christopher Gilbert, The Life and Work of 12. Morrison Heckscher, “Lock and Copland: The
Thomas Chippendale (New York: Macmillan, 1978), vol. 1, Engraved Works,” Furniture History 15 (1979), p. 1; quoted
p. 236. from Anthony Coleridge, Chippendale Furniture: The Work of
2. John Thomas Smith, Nollekens and His Times: Compre- Thomas Chippendale and His Contemporaries in the Rococo Taste
hending a Life of that Celebrated Sculptor and Memoirs of Several (New York: Faber and Faber, 1968), p. 164.
Contemporary Artists (London: H. Colburn, 1828), vol. 2, 13. The card is in the Chippendale Society, Leeds;
p. 240. illustrated in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 2, fig. 12.
3. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, November 28, 1767; 14. Poor Rate Books, Westminster City Library, Lon-
quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 17. don; quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 8.
4. Thomas Sheraton, Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer’s 15. Quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 67.
Drawing-Book (1793; reprint, New York: Dover Publica- 16. Thomas Chippendale, The Gentleman and Cabinet-
tions, 1972), pp. 9, 7. Maker’s Director (1st ed., London: The author, 1754), p.
5. John Stewart, “The International Exhibition—Its iv.
Influence and Results,” Art Journal: Illustrated Catalogue of 17. Robert Campbell, The London Tradesman (London,
the International Exhibition 1862, 1862, pp. 184–85. 1747), p. 171.
6. Memo from William M. Ivins Jr. to the Director 18. The card is in the Westminster City Libraries, Lon-
and to the Committee on Purchases, December 13, 1920, don; illustrated in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 2, fig. 13.
Metropolitan Museum Archives, P 9378 Appropriations. 19. Public Advertiser, April 7 and 12, 1755; quoted in
7. Illustrated in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 2, fig. 2. Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 10.
8. “Private A/Cs of 3rd Earl of Burlington 1747–51,” 20. The insurance policies, in the Guildhall Library,
Chatsworth muniments; quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, London (MS 11936), are transcribed in Gilbert, Chippen-
vol. 1, p. 127. dale, vol. 1, Appendix D, pp. 295–96.
9. Bill to James Buller, dated January 29, 1757, Cornwall 21. For a full account of the Dumfries commission, see
Record Office, Truro, Buller Papers, bundle 337; quoted Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, pp. 130–39. The contents of
in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 128. the house were catalogued for sale by Christie’s, London
10. See fig. 35. (Dumfries House: A Chippendale Commission, 2 vols.), sched-
11. Hugh Phillips, Mid-Georgian London: A Topographical uled for July 12–13, 2007, but the auction was canceled.

47
 22. Quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 13. 36. Chippendale, Director (1754), p. 22.
23. Ibid., p. 16. 37. W[illiam] M. I[vins] Jr., “Eighteenth-Century Fur-
24. A nearly identical notice appeared in other news- niture Drawings,” Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art
papers, including the Public Advertiser for June 7, 10, 12, 16, no. 1 ( January 1921), p. 8.
and 27, 1753; that is transcribed in Gilbert, Chippendale, 38. Fiske Kimball and Edna Donnell, “The Creators
vol. 1, p. 66. of the Chippendale Style,” Metropolitan Museum Studies 1,
25. See, for example, pls. 78, 80, 82–84, in a first-edition no. 2 (May 1929), p. 154.
copy of the Director at the Metropolitan Museum, acc. no. 39. Peter W. Ward-Jackson, English Furniture Designs of
52.519.94. the Eighteenth Century (London: H. M. Stationery Office,
26. Advertisement in the London Chronicle, Octo- 1958), 41–47.
ber 6, 1759; transcribed in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, 40. Chippendale, Director (1754), p. iv.
p. 78. 41. Quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 79.
27. See Morrison Heckscher, “Ince and Mayhew: Bib- 42. Letter from Chippendale to Sir Rowland Winn,
liographical Notes from New York,” Furniture History 10 July 19, 1767, Nostell Priory muniments room; quoted in
(1974), pp. 61–67. Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 175.
28. See note 26 above. 43. Chippendale, Director (1754), p. vi.
29. Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1, p. 79. 44. Ibid., title page.
30. Jacob Simon, “Thomas Johnson’s The Life of the 45. Gillow and Co. records are in the Westminster City
Author,” Furniture History 39 (2003), p. 37. See also Helena Libraries, London; quoted in Gilbert, Chippendale, vol. 1,
Hayward, Thomas Johnson and the English Rococo (London: p. 79.
A. Tiranti, 1964). 46. For Chippendale furniture at the Metropolitan
31. Morrison H. Heckscher, “Gideon Saint: An Museum, see Daniëlle O. Kisluk-Grosheide, Wolfram
Eighteenth-Century Carver and His Scrapbook,” The Koeppe, and William Rieder, European Furniture in The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, n.s. 27, no. 6 (February Metropolitan Museum of Art: Highlights of the Collection (New
1969), pp. 299–311. York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven:
32. Catalogue of Fine Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century English Yale University Press, 2006).
Drawings and Watercolours, sale cat., Sotheby’s, London, 47. Chippendale, Director (1754), p. 8; Director (1762),
April 20, 1972, lots 33–40, property of John L. Marks, Esq. p. 3.
33. Chippendale, Director (1754), p. iii. 48. Quoted in Kisluk-Grosheide et al., European Furniture
34. Ibid. in the MMA, p. 159.
35. H.S., “To Mr. Fitz-Adam,” The World, no. 12 (March 49. See Morrison Heckscher, “Philadelphia Chippen-
22, 1753); new edition, The World by Adam Fitz-Adam (Lon- dale: The Influence of the Director in America,” Furniture
don, 1772), vol. 1, pp. 68, 69. History 21 (1985), pp. 283–95.

Additional Photography Credits

© Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved: Skopitz). National Trust Photo Library/Art Resource,
figs. 4, 5. © 2007 Christie’s Images Limited: fig. 9. Cour- NY: fig. 10. Newby Hall, Ripon, North Yorkshire: fig.
tesy the Grolier Club of New York: fig. 1. Image © The 46. Courtesy the Winterthur Library, Printed Book and
Metropolitan Museum of Art: figs. 7, 12, 18, 19 (photos by Periodical Collection: fig. 52.
Heather Johnson); figs. 3, 14–16, 41, 49 (photos by Hyla

Acknowledgments
This Bulletin is a long-overdue tribute to the late Chris- Alyce Perry Englund, Elizabeth Zanis, and, especially,
topher Gilbert, for whose friendship and scholarship I Femke Speelberg, all at the Metropolitan Museum; to
am deeply indebted. For their shared enthusiasm and Leela Meinertas and Olivia Horsfall Turner at the Victoria
assistance in celebrating the three hundredth anniversary and Albert Museum, London; and to James Lomax at
of Chippendale’s birth, I am grateful to Barbara Bridgers, Temple Newsam House, Leeds.
Chippendale’s
Director