Writing sets in Du Paquier porcelain are rare, precious and intimate objects which were the preserve of the elite in European society in the 18^th century. In her article on the subject “The Gallant Letter”, Claudia Lehner-Jobst[1] illustrates this with reference to two articles in the Wiennerisches Diarium in which desk sets, described in precise detail, were offered as prizes in Imperial shooting contests during the late Summer of 1731. The author discusses writing sets and accessories and writing desks as items used in a private context in which letters are written and exchanged in a personal rather than in an official capacity.

Relatively few desk sets appear in Du Paquier porcelain and most are of the same basic design as the present example. The form is reminiscent of metal ware prototypes and tin-glazed earthenware examples[2] but uses whimsical sculptural details in a marked departure from their main rivals at Meissen. Three examples are illustrated in Meredith Chilton (ed.), Fired by Passion Vienna Baroque Porcelain of Claudius Innocentius Du Paquier, Stuttgart, 2009, Vol. III, p. 1318, nos. 403-405, where the authors discuss related examples including the present writing set. The first example, no. 403 incorporates two seated stylised Fo dogs which are almost identical to the hounds on the present writing set and related to the ornament on a pair of desk candlestick[3] also in the Museo Civico d’Arte Antica, Turin. The crouching robed child which forms the figurative taper stick is typical of the type of chinoiserie modelling popular with contemporary German and French porcelain manufacturers. In contrast to the chinoiserie-influenced form and decoration, the frieze of seven dancing putti is distinctly European in influence and demonstrates the factory’s skill at pierced work.

[1] Meredith Chilton (ed.), Fired by Passion Vienna Baroque Porcelain of Claudius Innocentius Du Paquier, Stuttgart, 2009, Vol. II, pp. 650-653.

[2] See Jan Daniël van Dam, Delffse Porceleyne Dutch delftware 1620-1850, Amsterdam, 2004, p. 46, pl. 19.

[3] Meredith Chilton (ed.), op.cit., Vol. II, p. 652, no. 7:66.