While he calls Chippendale the 'most famous cabinetmaker of his day,' Smith does him less than justice in attributing to him the mere imitation of French furniture, in a style, too, which we associate rather with Louis xv. than his predecessor. But the passage has a double prophetic value. Smith is twice right The value of Chippendale's folio is at least £12, and his furniture is being reproduced broadcast, whilst fantastic prices are paid for originals in his style, as to which there is no exact proof that they have come from his hand. We have to judge from the intrinsic merits of the objects, and when so many clever carvers in the trade probably made, as Smith puts it, 'constant reference' to his designs, we may be certain that some fine specimens are merely 'Chippendalean.'

In order then to learn what manner of man Chippendale was, we must use his book as our chief guide. From there we may learn whether he was educated and refined, as Sheraton was; whether the artist or tradesman was uppermost in his composition.

The first edition of Chippendale's book, The Gentleman and Cabinetmaker's Director, has on its title-page a description of the author as 'Of St. Martin's Lane, Cabinetmaker,' and is advertised at the bottom of the page as for sale at Edinburgh and Dublin. The 'ornaments' are 'Calculated to Improve and Refine the present Taste, and suited to the Fancy and Circumstances of Persons in all Degrees of Life.' Then come two Latin quotations from Ovid and Horace respectively, so that we may conclude that Chippendale, whilst not above the execution of modest commissions, intended to imply that he had claims to be a person of culture and worthy to be patronised by the nobility. In the enlarged edition of 1762 he goes further in both directions. The chief title is retained as it was, with the exception that the phrase 'in the most fashionable' takes the place of 'in the Gothic, Chinese, and Modern Taste.' The modest Latin quotations disappear, but their place is taken by 'a short explanation of the Five Orders of Architecture.' This is one of the almost inevitable accompaniments of a furniture design-book of the period.

It has no immediate connection with the matter in hand, but is inserted to give a tone to a subject which might otherwise be regarded as beneath the notice of a nobleman or gentleman. Perhaps there was a certain jealousy felt by the cabinetmakers towards the architect (especially the Adams, after 1760) who, when he condescended to design a pier-table was, by reason of the higher branch of art which he adorned, more certain of being noticed. In any case, the furniture designer having, according to custom, made his effort to cling to the skirts of a more acknowledged respectability by figuring the five orders, proceeds to eschew architectural inspiration, except to a very limited degree. What concessions he makes to it are chiefly in the direction of Chinese and Gothic, towards which such a thing as 'a rule for drawing of the spiral lines of the volute of the Ionic order, or 'a parallel of the Ancient Architecture with the Modern' are but of moderate usefulness. The rules of perspective are lugged in by other authors, such as Sheraton, for very much the same object.

We may say that the architectural influence of the five orders upon the furniture designers is rather less noticeable than the effect of the much-paraded Michael Angelo upon the practice of Sir Joshua Reynolds; and that the perspective of their chairs, screens, and tables is often inferior. Chippendale now calls himself an upholsterer, and includes a much greater variety in his list of articles. Besides regular furniture there appear ' Cisterns for Water, Lanthorns and Chandeliers . . . Chimneypieces . . . Stone Grates .."Boarders" and Brass-work for Furniture.' He has become more of an universal provider, and the change may perhaps be compared to that which transformed the artistic brass-chaser Thomire, of pre-revolutionary France, into the 'Thomire et Cie' of the Restoration. If Chippendale ever posed as an artist whose designs would suffer from the least alteration of a detail; if he was ever jealous of his conceptions, it must have been at some early period of his life. Certainly in 1762 he most naively shows the tradesman's soul.

He actually lays claim to a special ingenuity in the construction of his designs, 'which are so contrived, that if no one Drawing should singly answer the Gentlemen's Taste, there will yet be found a Variety of Hints sufficient to construct a new one.' Suppleness of attitude could scarcely further go. Though it seems a hard judgment, there is undoubtedly some truth in Mr. J. Aldam Heaton's summing-up to the effect that Chippendale was 'not a man of education or modesty, but a very commonplace hawker of his wares, prepared to make anything that will please his customers and fill his purse.'