.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The story of Thomas Whitty's founding of the carpet manufactory at Axminster in 1755 is well-known from his own account written in 1790, published in full in Bertram Jacobs, Axminster Carpets, pp.21-26. His story swells with pride through the successful competition for the medals given by the Royal Society for the manufacture of carpets in 1756 and 1757, each jointly, and then as the sole winner in 1758. As well as the details noted in his account, it is significant that at this formative stage he retained the very powerful London company of Crompton and Spinnage as his agent, which resulted in the commissioning of two large carpets for Dumfries House in 1759, only four years after he had started up (Christie's sale catalogue Dumfries House, 12 July 2007, lots 43 and 44; the sale was cancelled as the entire contents were negotiated to the nation just before the sale date).
Dumfries House is the earliest known instance of Whitty working with the architect Robert Adam, at a time when Adam was only just beginning to acquire a following in fashionable London. Shortly thereafter he was again retained by Adam to make a carpet for Kedleston Hall, the home of Sir Nathaniel Curzon. Adam supplied a very complex design influenced by Piranesi (Damie Stillman, The Decorative Work of Robert Adam, London 1973, pl.151), but the carpet that Whitty supplied was substantially different (Eileen Harris, The Genius of Robert Adam, His Interiors, New Haven and London, 2001, pl.27). It retained the cornucopia of the original design, but these were already a feature of the Dumfries carpets. In all he basically copied the same cartoon for the new commission.
For the vast majority of his commissions in London Adam used Thomas Moore of Moorfields to supply the carpets, particularly for the Duke of Northumberland at Syon, and for Robert Child at Osterley Park. When working outside the metropolis however he reverted back to Whitty at Axminster for almost all his other commissions. The best known surviving examples are those at Harewood House in Yorkshire, and Saltram House in Devon, which is relatively close to the small town of Axminster. Each house today retains two original carpets in their original settings (Sherrill, op.cit, pls.195-197 and 200-201). These designs that Adam created for Whitty were simpler than that suggested for Kedleston, and, unlike that one, they were then replicated fairly closely at Axminster. Almost all in one way or another echo the ceiling design, with similar elements appearing in both.
The present carpet is identical to that now in the Dining Room at Saltram, with the exception of the size; that at Saltram is slightly larger. Contrary to the information in its previous publications, even the colours are the same throughout. The present tonality in the room at Saltram reflects the remodelling in 1780 when it was converted from a library to the Dining Room. This recycling of his most successful designs is a feature of Thomas Whitty's working practice, and probably one of the reasons why his workshop was commercially more successful than those of his rivals. Looking at the costs of the pair of carpets made for Dumfries House one can see that the first one was charged at 24 shillings/sq.yd while the second, of identical dimensions, was charged at only 13½ shillings/sq.yd. When discussing the present carpet in his 1973 article Bertram Jacobs even suggested that this was in fact the first carpet woven for the room, while that now found there was the replacement woven as a result of the second phase of renovations by Adam in 1780. The account books at Saltram do not indicate a carpet having been purchased for the Library, but entries in January 1782 almost certainly relate to the carpet now in the (then newly converted) Dining Room. On 31 January 1782 are two entries:
To Mr Drake of Axminster £ 1.17/-
To Kent for a Carpet £15d
"Kent" was one of Thomas Whitty's London agents. This figure, assuming that the carpet now at Saltram is the original, works out at around 6½ shillings/sq.yd. That is half of the unit price of the Dumfries carpet for which the cartoon had already been made, and a quarter of that for the carpet which needed the cartoon designing. It contrasts strongly with the £126 which was paid in 1770 for the carpet woven for the Saloon at Saltram, which was double the size but many multiples of the cost. Could that indicate that the design had already been woven previously? Might our carpet be the first weaving from the cartoon?
Dumfries House is the earliest known instance of Whitty working with the architect Robert Adam, at a time when Adam was only just beginning to acquire a following in fashionable London. Shortly thereafter he was again retained by Adam to make a carpet for Kedleston Hall, the home of Sir Nathaniel Curzon. Adam supplied a very complex design influenced by Piranesi (Damie Stillman, The Decorative Work of Robert Adam, London 1973, pl.151), but the carpet that Whitty supplied was substantially different (Eileen Harris, The Genius of Robert Adam, His Interiors, New Haven and London, 2001, pl.27). It retained the cornucopia of the original design, but these were already a feature of the Dumfries carpets. In all he basically copied the same cartoon for the new commission.
For the vast majority of his commissions in London Adam used Thomas Moore of Moorfields to supply the carpets, particularly for the Duke of Northumberland at Syon, and for Robert Child at Osterley Park. When working outside the metropolis however he reverted back to Whitty at Axminster for almost all his other commissions. The best known surviving examples are those at Harewood House in Yorkshire, and Saltram House in Devon, which is relatively close to the small town of Axminster. Each house today retains two original carpets in their original settings (Sherrill, op.cit, pls.195-197 and 200-201). These designs that Adam created for Whitty were simpler than that suggested for Kedleston, and, unlike that one, they were then replicated fairly closely at Axminster. Almost all in one way or another echo the ceiling design, with similar elements appearing in both.
The present carpet is identical to that now in the Dining Room at Saltram, with the exception of the size; that at Saltram is slightly larger. Contrary to the information in its previous publications, even the colours are the same throughout. The present tonality in the room at Saltram reflects the remodelling in 1780 when it was converted from a library to the Dining Room. This recycling of his most successful designs is a feature of Thomas Whitty's working practice, and probably one of the reasons why his workshop was commercially more successful than those of his rivals. Looking at the costs of the pair of carpets made for Dumfries House one can see that the first one was charged at 24 shillings/sq.yd while the second, of identical dimensions, was charged at only 13½ shillings/sq.yd. When discussing the present carpet in his 1973 article Bertram Jacobs even suggested that this was in fact the first carpet woven for the room, while that now found there was the replacement woven as a result of the second phase of renovations by Adam in 1780. The account books at Saltram do not indicate a carpet having been purchased for the Library, but entries in January 1782 almost certainly relate to the carpet now in the (then newly converted) Dining Room. On 31 January 1782 are two entries:
To Mr Drake of Axminster £ 1.17/-
To Kent for a Carpet £15d
"Kent" was one of Thomas Whitty's London agents. This figure, assuming that the carpet now at Saltram is the original, works out at around 6½ shillings/sq.yd. That is half of the unit price of the Dumfries carpet for which the cartoon had already been made, and a quarter of that for the carpet which needed the cartoon designing. It contrasts strongly with the £126 which was paid in 1770 for the carpet woven for the Saloon at Saltram, which was double the size but many multiples of the cost. Could that indicate that the design had already been woven previously? Might our carpet be the first weaving from the cartoon?