Catalogue of a collection of early drawings and pictures of London: With some contemporary furniture — A Closer Reading

Attribution and Uncertainty

The catalogue repeatedly signals doubts about authorship. Entry 79, an oil painting of Old Blackfriars Bridge, is noted as “wrongly called on the frame ‘Southwark Bridge,’” a bridge not built until 1815. The same entry questions the date 1808 for work by R. Burford, who was born in 1792 and would have been only sixteen. Plate XLI (No. 94) is attributed to Canaletto in the index and to Samuel Scott in the text and caption; Plate XLII (No. 95) shifts from Samuel Scott to Nattes. The transcriber’s note flags “notoriety as forger” as a possible misprint. These details show the catalogue as a working document, not a definitive statement.

Topographical Precision

Entries consistently anchor each view in specific locations and historical changes. The Mansion House (No. 75) is described as built on the site of Stocks Market, with its top story, “familiarly known to cockneys as ‘the Mare’s Nest,’” removed in 1842. The East India House (No. 77) is traced through its architects Richard Jupp and H. Holland, and its pediment sculpture by John Bacon. The water pageant (No. 78) is identified as the Lord Mayor’s procession to Westminster, with landmarks like old Somerset House, St. Mary-le-Strand, St. Paul’s, the Monument, and old London Bridge before the removal of houses. Such detail makes the catalogue a resource for reconstructing lost urban fabric.

The Furniture Component

Although the title includes “some contemporary furniture,” the excerpts provided focus almost entirely on the drawings and pictures. The committee list includes Oliver Brackett, a noted furniture historian, and the catalogue’s full text likely contains furniture entries that parallel the art entries in descriptive rigor. The inclusion of furniture alongside topographical views suggests the exhibition aimed to present a holistic material culture of early modern London, though the surviving excerpts offer only hints of this dimension. Readers seeking the furniture content will need to consult the complete catalogue.

This catalogue rewards readers interested in the history of London’s built environment and the practices of early twentieth-century connoisseurship. The entries are dense with architectural and topographical detail, while the editorial notes offer a candid view of the limits of attribution. For full benefit, read the introduction by Philip Norman and compare entries with the plates, where available.

Leafing through this 1920 catalogue, I’m struck by how much care went into noting what might vanish—the very streets and chairs the curators loved enough to question. It makes me think of The preservation of antiquities — Text and Context, that quieter plea for tenderness toward old things. We’re still holding on, aren’t we? Just differently now.