Research, conducted as part of the British and Irish Furniture Makers Online (BIFMO) Digital Research Programme, provides a new way of looking at two spaces within Chatsworth House.
Two detailed watercolour views, capturing the Great Chamber (below) and the Library, have been studied and transformed into a digital resource.
These images provide rare visual evidence of how the rooms were arranged at specific moments in their history. They show furniture, porcelain and textiles in situ, capturing changing taste, use and display within the house. More than decorative views, the watercolours act as detailed historical records of Chatsworth’s interiors.
Introduction - The Great Chamber
Gentle rays of light filter through the South-facing windows at left, gleaming off the gilt curves of the room’s furnishings. This is the Great Chamber at Chatsworth House as it appeared circa 1929, here recorded in watercolour by the artist Frederick Beaumont.
In this tranquil scene bathed in golden light, only the two open doors in the far corners of the room suggest the bustle of movement that would alter this room’s furnishings many times in the following decades.
Looking closely at the decorations depicted by Beaumont, we discover the rich history of the Great Chamber at Chatsworth.
To explore the history of the Great Chamber and its furnishings, hover over the watercolour to identify the objects in the room, then scroll down to learn more about each object.
The room and its history
The Great Chamber is situated within the State Apartments, located in the upper story of the house. This series of ceremonial rooms was constructed under the direction of the 1st Duke of Devonshire in the hopes that King William III and Queen Mary II might pay a visit to Chatsworth. Although this hope remained unfulfilled, the splendour of the rooms he constructed is an enduring legacy of the 1st Duke.
Shortly after William Cavendish succeeded his father in 1684, he began planning reconstruction projects at Chatsworth. While he began with the aim of taking down just the South front of the house, his building ambitions quickly expanded. To complete these projects, the 1st Duke called on the architect William Talman. Reconstruction work on the house began in 1687.
Before long, the new State Apartments were under construction. Typically, State Apartments were built in pairs. This is not the case at Chatsworth, where the State Apartments replaced the Elizabethan High Gallery on the second floor. Though he made many changes to the structure of the house, the 1st Duke maintained the foundation of the earlier house begun by Sir William Cavendish in 1557 and completed by his widow, Bess of Hardwick. As befitted lodgings intended for the monarch, the new State Apartments were richly outfitted with ceiling paintings and oak wainscotting sent from London embellished on site with elaborate carvings, as discussed below in greater detail.
Although the Great Chamber is occasionally referred to in the 1st Duke’s building records as a ‘dineing room’, there is no record of this room being used as a dining space. In the 19th century, the 6th Duke of Devonshire renamed this space the State Dining Room, though he too acknowledged that it was never used for such a purpose. Today, the room is referred to as the Great Chamber, as is fitting for the first room in a suite of State Apartments.
Beyond renaming this room, the 6th Duke left the Great Chamber unaltered during his major works at Chatsworth. In his Handbook of Chatsworth and Hardwick, the 6th Duke wrote of the Great Chamber:
It was never dined in, that I know of - the first room of this great unappropriated apartment, which consumes in useless display the best habitable part of the house. What bed-rooms might have been made here, with the South sun, and beautiful views! I was much tempted, but finished conservatively by repairing the sinking floors and threatening ceilings; and, as a museum of old furniture, and a walk in bad weather, I am well contented to retain this dismal ponderous range of Hampton Court-like chambers
6th Duke of Devonshire, Handbook of Chatsworth and Hardwick (London: Privately Printed, 1845), 119.
The 6th Duke’s restraint happily preserved the wainscotting and carvings created for the 1st Duke. Today, these original components of the room’s decoration harmonise with marble sculpture, baroque silver, and ceramics in a creative reimagining of the space as it might have looked during the lifetime of the 1st Duke.
Wood panelling & carvings
The Great Chamber is the only room in the State Apartments that received floor to ceiling wainscotting. Extensive carvings enliven its surfaces. While these carvings have sometimes been attributed to the celebrated Grinling Gibbons, his name never appears in the extensive records related to the project. Instead, credit must be given to Joell Lobb, William Davis, and Samuel Watson.
A memorandum from 9 September 1692 lays out an agreement between the 1st Duke and the three men for work carving the ‘ornaments of Lime Wood worke for the greate Chamber’, to be completed by the following summer. It further specifies that this work should be done ‘in the Best manner’, as good or better than any similar work done previously.
Carving work in the Great Chamber continued beyond the timeframe laid out in the September 1692 memorandum, which stipulated that the work was to be completed by the following summer. The work took longer than anticipated, even though at times the men had up to eight assistants working with them. This is evident from a payment made to Lobb, Davis and Watson in March of 1694 ‘for finishing the Lime tree carving in the Upper Story’.
In the intervening centuries since the Great Chamber was completed, several writers have incorrectly ascribed the carving work to the celebrated Grinling Gibbons. There is, however, no evidence that Gibbons ever worked at Chatsworth. Much credit has often been given to Samuel Watson (1662–1715) for the work, yet the collaborative nature of the project makes it difficult to discern with certainty who was responsible for particular components of the decoration.
Watson certainly did rise in importance at Chatsworth in the course of his two decades of work there between 1691–1711. After William Talman left the project in 1696 and the 1st Duke subsequently dismissed many of the craftsmen who had worked on the project, Watson stayed on. By 1700, he was the most important carver working at Chatsworth.
After the death of the 1st Duke, in 1708 Watson was recalled from his retirement to complete carving work on the West staircase. The quality of his work was clearly admired by the 1st Duke and continued to be valued by the 2nd Duke. His final project at Chatsworth was completed in 1711, when he received payment for carving barrel-ends in the cellar. His memory was preserved by his descendants living in Derbyshire, some of whom also worked at Chatsworth.
In his Handbook, the 6th Duke of Devonshire expressed his admiration for the carvings in the Great Chamber. He considered the work a ‘triumph’, writing that ‘the game, fish, and fruit, over the chimneypiece, are perfection’. Perhaps his appreciation for these carvings was a factor in his decision to leave the Great Chamber untouched during his renovation projects. These exquisite carvings continue to inspire appreciation today.
William Kent table
This monumental table, measuring nine by six feet, was originally designed by William Kent for Wanstead House, where we find it listed in a 1795 inventory of the Great Hall.
Wanstead House was commissioned circa 1713 by Richard Child, Viscount Castlemaine. The architect Colen Campbell designed the house, which was completed by 1725. Kent began his work there around 1720, and it was one of his important early commissions. A man of many talents, Kent not only designed the furnishings but also painted the ceilings, though Horace Walpole judged these paintings to be of an inferior quality.
Just a few decades later, in 1822, the contents of Wanstead House were sold and dispersed. The house was sadly demolished shortly thereafter in 1823–1824. It was at the 1822 sale that the 6th Duke purchased the table for the sum of £92 8s.
In his Handbook, he describes this table among the important furnishings of the Painted Hall. He writes, ‘The table came from Wanstead—that is, its legs did; and its top is in the state dining-room, a huge slab from Ashford replacing it here, so that it has doubled itself in my possession’.
As the 6th Duke makes clear, the original form of the table was altered in the 19th century through the changing of its top. While we know that the carver and gilder William Cribb was responsible for this alteration, it remains uncertain whether he made any additional changes to the table. The cursory inventory and sale catalogue descriptions of the table, however, make it difficult to discern the scope of Cribb’s interventions. Nonetheless, this table retains Kent’s characteristic style and remains one of the jewels of the Devonshire furniture collection.
In the late 19th century, this table welcomed visitors to Chatsworth. Llewellyn Jewitt, in his book, The Stately Homes of England, recorded that this table was situated in the Painted Hall where it supported the visitor book that every guest was asked to sign before touring the house.
By 1910, the table had been relocated to the Great Chamber and reunited with its original leather top. Looking closely at Beaumont’s watercolour of c. 1929, we can make out the dark brown leather protected beneath a layer of glass. Beaumont has carefully captured the white, blue, and red reflections of the porcelain vessels stretching across the glass surface.
The Wanstead table remained in the State Rooms for several decades, moving occasionally between the Sabine Room and the Great Chamber.
In 1985, it was noticed that the level of the floor in the Great Chamber had changed. Immediate repairs were required to address this structural problem. Due to its large size and weight, exceeding the room’s now restricted load capacity, the table can no longer be housed in the Great Chamber.
Pier table in the style of William Kent
With its central mask motif surmounted by a shell and carved scale extending along the sides of its legs, this table bears the hallmarks of William Kent’s style.
Kent’s designs were influential in the eighteenth century and beyond, inspiring numerous artists and craftsmen. The artist himself left limited records and, as a result, furniture attributions are often based on circumstantial evidence. Distinguishing true Kent pieces from those of his many followers continues to pose challenges for furniture historians.
This table matches entries in Chatsworth inventories of the Great Chamber from 1910 and 1953, where it is listed as being made by Kent. It can also be linked to Devonshire House, as it was lent to an exhibition of collections of furniture from Montagu House, Devonshire House, and Grosvenor House at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1917.
As discussed above, Kent did indeed work at Devonshire House, but whether or not he designed this particular table remains a delicate question. Although this table has not been firmly linked to the prolific Kent, his influence on its design is unequivocal.
Coronation chairs
These two high-backed, exuberantly carved chairs were created for the coronation of King George III and Queen Charlotte on 22 September 1761.
According to Hugh Roberts, after King George III was crowned, he was led to a raised ‘theatre’ upon which these coronation chairs were placed. As he took his seat, he officially took possession of the kingdom.
The distinguished history of these chairs has ensured that a remarkable amount of information about their creation is known today. From surviving bills, we learn of the many makers and merchants involved in this prestigious commission.
Katherine Naish charged £30 for the carving and gilding of each chair frame, as well as £6 for the two accompanying footstools, for a total of £72. The Spitalfields silk coverings, still preserved on the chairs today, are recorded in the bill of the silk mercer Thomas Hinchliff as ‘16 1/2 yds of rich Brocade, Gold, Silver and Colours at £6. 16. 6.’ The cabinetmakers and upholsterers, Vile and Cobb, charged £8 18s for their work, stuffing and upholstering the furniture. Originally, the chairs were also decorated with gold fringe provided by Francis Plummer.
Although her name is not well known today, Katherine (or Catherine) Naish was quite successful in her own time. She succeeded her father, Henry Williams, as ‘Royal Joyner and Chair maker’ in 1759, subsequently garnering important commissions.
In addition to these two chairs and their footstools, Naish provided eight walnut ‘State Chairs’ for the coronation at Westminster Abbey and mouldings for St Edward’s Chair. For George III’s first speech to the House of Lords on 6 November 1761, Naish provided a ‘Large State Chair’, a matching footstool, and two High Stools to flank the throne. These were placed beneath a grand canopy, for which Naish provided the ironwork and gilt rods. The quality of the craftsmanship in her workshop is evident in the carvings of the coronation chairs at Chatsworth.
For the Vile & Cobb firm, this too was an important commission. William Vile (1740–1767) was trained as a furniture maker, and John Cobb (1715–1778) is thought to have trained as an upholsterer. Their joint business appears in the London directories from 1750 to 1765, where they are noted as residing at 72 St Martin’s Lane. This upholstery project for the coronation chairs was an early commission during their years of royal service, which began in 1761. The firm’s satisfactory execution of the upholstery project may have helped it secure future commissions. Their royal service continued until 1764, when Vile appears to have retired.
These chairs came to Chatsworth shortly after the coronation. As Lord Chamberlain, the 4th Duke of Devonshire coordinated the provision of furnishings for the ceremony. This position also entitled him to old or redundant furniture from the royal household, including coronation furnishings, which were typically dispersed following the ceremony.
These chairs were already at Chatsworth as early as 1764, when they appear in an inventory of the State Drawing Room.
In the 19th century, these coronation chairs were joined by the coronation thrones of William VI and Queen Adelaide as prerequisites of the 6th Duke when he served as Lord Chamberlain.
Fire screen
This fire screen is thought to come from a suite of at least eight armchairs, a pair of settees and a pair of fire screens upholstered in Gobelins tapestry, possibly supplied to Henry Bromley, 1st Baron Montfort (d. 1755) for Holt Castle, Worcestershire.
This object has journeyed widely, at one point furnishing the Speaker’s House at the Palace of Westminster. From there, the suite was acquired as perquisites by Charles Manners-Sutton (later 1st Viscount Canterbury in 1835), Speaker of the House of Commons. Lady Canterbury then sold the suite to the 6th Duke of Devonshire, as he indicates in his Handbook. He must therefore have acquired the suite sometime prior to 1844, when the handbook was written.
The 6th Duke lists items from this suite among the contents of the ‘First State Drawing-Room’, identifying their coverings as Beauvais tapestry. The fire screen shown here is inset with a panel of Fulham tapestry, and it remains uncertain when this replacement may have been made.
Hidden behind this fire screen is a remarkable survival: a cast iron fire-back dated 1698 and cast with the arms of the first Duke of Devonshire. According to Duchess Deborah in her guide to Chatsworth, this is the only remaining original fireback in the State rooms. The rest were replaced with reproductions in 1912. This fireback can still be seen in the Great Chamber today.
Chair from a suite of parcel-gilt seat furniture
How many armchairs upholstered in green velvet can you spot in this room? These make up only a fraction of the twenty-nine armchairs, as well as two settees, that make up this suite of furnishings.
The design of this suite is attributed to William Kent, perhaps as part of his work at Devonshire House from 1733–1740 for the 3rd Duke of Devonshire.
According to the 6th Duke, this suite was taken from Devonshire House to Hardwick Hall, another of the family properties, at the time of the French Revolution, when objects associated with France or French style fell out of fashion. These chairs can be seen in various photographic and watercolour views of Hardwick Hall, such as David Cox, The Long Gallery, Hardwick Hall, (1811) and Hunt, The Long Gallery and Library, Hardwick.
Later, Duchess Evelyn, wife of the 9th Duke, identified the suite as coming from Londesborough House. Given these divergent accounts, the present-day suite may combine furnishings from two separate suites.
Today, these armchairs are covered in two different colours of nineteenth-century upholstery, some in green and some in a now-worn blue.
Chinese lacquer tri-pod table
While Beaumont’s loose watercolour brushstrokes beautifully capture the lustre and smooth contours of this tripod table, the details of its surface decoration are more clearly captured in this photograph (above).
Curling clouds and a carpet of vegetal motifs surround a central medallion filled with miniaturised buildings.
This delicate decorative effect was achieved through the application of multiple layers of gold dust and sap from the Rhus Verniciflua tree. After priming the wooden surface and filling any cracks, coats of sap were brushed on one at a time. Patterns made of gold dust were then added to the sap while it was still wet. Each coat was allowed to dry and polished before the next was applied. A 19th-century description of a Chinese lacquer workshop indicates that anywhere between three and fifteen coats might be applied to a single object.
The top of this table can be tilted to be either horizontal with the floor, as shown in the Beaumont watercolour, or perpendicular, displaying the details of the lacquer decoration for inspection, almost like a painting or screen.
Tripod tables, like this one, were a popular furniture form imported to Europe in the first half of the 18th century, and they continued to be produced in China for the export market well into the 19th century.
Makers of export furniture in China often catered to consumers, creating pieces based on models or designs found in European books and catalogues.
In Beaumont’s watercolour, we can see an array of East Asian objects in addition to this table, especially porcelain. A taste for luxuries from afar was clearly an important part of the decorative scheme within this space circa 1929.
Boulle table clock
Created in the first decades of the 18th century, the case of this table clock is decorated with ‘Boulle’ or ‘Buhl’ marquetry. Boulle work gets its name from André Charles Boulle (1642–1732), royal cabinetmaker to King Louis XIV of France (1638–1715).
Boulle was not the first to employ complex marquetry, a term that refers to the technique of using small pieces of wood, metal, shell, or other precious materials to create a decorative veneer. Yet Boulle’s masterful craftsmanship made his name synonymous with elaborate marquetry combining tortoiseshell, brass, and pewter in delicate arabesques.
In many cases, the denomination ‘Boulle’ or ‘Buhl’ must be seen as a description of decoration rather than an attribution to the maker himself. Such is the case with this table clock signed Étienne le Noir à Paris. This signature was used by the workshop of Étienne Le Noir II and his son, Pierre-Étienne Le Noir. They came from a long line of Parisian clockmakers, and their workshop gained great distinction in the eighteenth century.
During the lifetime of the 6th Duke, Boulle furniture fell in and out of fashion. The Duke himself was an avid collector, although within a few decades his taste had changed. We learn from his Handbook that he placed an important number of his ‘Buhl’ pieces in the Great Chamber. The 6th Duke recounts how he had collected these pieces but soon grew tired of them. He writes:
After the peace in 1814 there came a rage for collecting and repairing the old furniture called Buhl: cabinets, tables, and pedestals were sold at enormous prices, and some fortunate people found their garrets full of the commodity, rejected by the changes of fashion in decoration. One of these tables was found here, another in a lumber-room at Chiswick, and another was bought for me by a lady as a wonderful bargain at £140. They are, after all, a disagreeable possession; beautiful when newly furbished up, but apt to soil, and to get broken, from parts of the inlaid work that will start, however discreetly rubbed. I have done with collecting Buhl goods.
6th Duke of Devonshire, Handbook of Chatsworth and Hardwick (London: Privately Printed, 1845), 123.
Inventories of the Great Chamber show that his collection of ‘Buhl’ work remained there until sometime between 1908–1910. By the time Beaumont painted his watercolour of the Great Chamber, only this clock remained of the former profusion of Boulle work.
Porphyry vases mounted as candelabra
Flanking the chimney are two candelabra standing atop wooden pedestals. These objects have a long history, not all of which is known today.
The vases that form the bases for these candelabra are Roman Egyptian porphyry. Mining this material was an imperial monopoly during Roman rule in Egypt, and its red-purple colour was a symbol of imperial power.
Long after they were created, we know that these vases were purchased in Italy by Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington. The 5th Duke of Devonshire probably inherited them from his grandfather and had them mounted as candelabra in the early 19th century for Chiswick Villa.
Two porphyry vases are listed among the contents of the Gallery at Chiswick Villa by R. & J. Dodsley in Volume II of London Environs Described, published in 1761. They are included in a list of ‘Pictures & c. in the new house at Chiswick’, which otherwise exclusively includes paintings and sculptures. Though only briefly mentioned, the inclusion of these vases within such a list suggests that they were important pieces within the collection.
Meissen ‘pagoda’ and two Guanyin figures
At the far end of the Great Chamber, we can make out a group of three objects displayed on top of the pier table discussed above. Though placed together, these three figures were produced in very distinct contexts.
On the right and left are two white porcelain figures, each depicting a standing woman with a child in her arms. They were made in Dehua, on the coast of the Fujian province in China, probably in the 17th century. Both represent Guanyin, the Bodhisattva of Compassion or ‘Goddess of Mercy’, a deity thought to aid parents struggling with infertility.
This pair was probably acquired new in the 17th century. From as early as the mid-17th century, Dehua porcelain was already recorded in British collections. A 1641 inventory of Tart Hall lists white figures of lions and women, undoubtedly white Dehua porcelain. By the late 17th century, Dehua porcelain figures could be found in many British collections.
Two Dehua Guanyin figures in the collection of Burghley House have been traced back to an entry in the 1690 Devonshire Schedule, an inventory itemising a bequest from Elizabeth, Countess of Devonshire (1619–1689), to her daughter Anne, Countess of Exeter (1649–1700). They are listed as: ‘two large white Ffigures with children in their lapps’.
For European consumers, part of the appeal of Guanyin figures may have been their reminiscence depictions of the Virgin and Child. A rare group of figures, possibly commissioned by Jesuits and other Catholic missionaries, explicitly adapted the Guanyin model into an image of the Virgin and Child. These figures are distinguishable by their European features and curly hair.
Both Guanyin and Marian figures produced in Dehua were imported to Europe together. A 1699 London inventory of the cargo of the Nassau includes Sancta Marias alongside women with children. ‘Sancta Marias’ are also listed in cargo loaded by English East Indiaman Dashwood at Amoy in 1701 and later sold at auction in London in 1703.
From around the 1720s, these figures were no longer exported from China. Though they fell out of fashion for much of the 18th century, in the late 19th century they experienced a revival in popularity among collectors. French collectors and international dealers began to refer to undecorated Dehua porcelain as blanc-de-Chine, a term in widespread use today.
Placed between the two Guanyin figures is a seated ‘pagoda’ figure made of porcelain with polychrome enamel decoration, produced at the Meissen Porcelain Manufactory.
Constructed from several different parts, its head and hands have internal weights that make them move up and down. Seated ‘pagoda’ figures were produced at Meissen beginning in the early 18th century based on Chinese import porcelain.
European-made porcelain closely modelled on imported East Asian products soon gave way to fantastical forms and decorative schemes. These objects are often categorised today as examples of ‘chinoiserie’, a decorative idiom that gained widespread popularity in Europe during the first half of the 18th century. Drawing loosely on East Asian objects as a source of inspiration, such objects could veer into the realm of exoticism and caricature.
The precise model for this ‘pagoda’ figure can be traced back to 1762, when King Frederick II of Prussia ordered that the Meissen manufactory produce ‘10 pagodas with nodding head each 1 foot high’. Of the ten original pieces, six survive and are displayed in the Chinesisches Haus at Sanssouci in Potsdam. These models were produced throughout the 19th century, and the example at Chatsworth was likely purchased during this period.
Objects like these, caricatural and exoticising evocations of East Asia, were especially popular in England during the 1820s and 1830s
Pair of Imari octagonal jars and covers
The earliest reference to porcelain at Chatsworth appears in 1697 . In his study of English Homes, H. Avray Tipping publishes a transcribed record of payment for ‘2 Bills of Cases for y Japan chests, China, Dutch ware, Pictures, Tables, Stands, Glasses, Carved worke, Statues, Beddes, &c. Sent to Chatsworth’.
Although we do not know which pieces of ‘China’ came to Chatsworth at this date, the pair of jars shown here are beautiful examples of early East Asian import porcelain.
Today, these pieces are known as ‘Imari’ porcelain, named after a port near the potteries at Arita on the island of Kyushu. Imari porcelain is characterised by lively decorative patterns in underglaze cobalt blue, iron-red enamel, and gold. In the 18th century, Imari porcelain was among the highly esteemed porcelain referred to as ‘Japan China’, a term also used to describe Kakiemon-style porcelain.
This pair of jars dates from the late 17th or early 18th century, before importation of this form ceased circa 1730–1740. Typically, these jars are part of a set of five, though pairs are not uncommon.
During this period, Western merchants had limited access to Japanese products. English merchants could acquire Japanese exports either through agents of the Dutch East India Company or Chinese merchants, who had greater access than the Dutch. The relative rarity and high cost of Japanese porcelain contributed to its prestige among collectors in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The presence of these jars in the Great Chamber echoes a long-lost interior within the State Apartments, the Japan Closet. This room was removed in 1700 when the old West front of the house was destroyed. The Japan Closet became the State Dressing Room, and the lacquer panels that had ornamented its walls may have been transformed into several Coromandel lacquer chests still in the Devonshire Collection.
The display of these jars and other porcelain vessels on Kent’s monumental table suggests pride in these objects. By the early 20th century, these pieces of porcelain had become both beautiful decoration and a testament to the Devonshire family’s long legacy of collecting.
