Tapestries in this particular genre with mixed Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Turkish elements have become known as ‘in the Indian Manner’ after contemporary references, the earliest of which is in a bill from John Vanderbank, Yeoman Arrasworker to the Great Wardrobe. Dated August 1690, it was for “4 Peeces of fine Tapestry Hangings designed and workt after the Indian Manner” for Queen Mary’s withdrawing room at Kensington Palace. Indian Manner tapestries exist in a number of variations, reflecting their popularity in late 17th and early 18th-century England and Scotland, and their different sizes and formats demonstrate how easily they could be customised to a client’s needs. Their subjects were partly imaginary and partly based on the text and illustrations of travels books like Arnoldus Montanus’s Atlas Japannensis (1669) and Atlas Chinensis (1671), and The Embassy to China of Johan Nieuhof (1665), which were translated into English by John Ogilby soon after their first publication. The overall effect intended by the tapestries seems to have been an imitation of Chinese and Japanese lacquer (called ‘Japan’ or ‘India Japan’) which was imported into Europe in large quantities in the late 17th century for use as screens and wall-panels. Surviving examples of the Indian Manner genre include tapestries signed by Vanderbank at Belton House (woven in 1691-92, contract in the Belton House Archive), Weston Park and in the V&A (T.362-1910). Most surviving Indian Manner tapestries are therefore usually catalogued as woven by Vanderbank or his workshop, or in his style. As Mazarind’s signature on the current Indian Manner tapestry is otherwise unknown, it has been interpreted in all 20th-century references to it as an indication that he was likely to have been an associate of Vanderbank’s. In the most influential of them, Edith Standen’s extensive study of Indian Manner tapestries published in 1981, she identified the genre’s origin in two series produced by Vanderbank which she differentiated and gave the modern titles of ‘Chinoiserie’ (with preponderantly Chinese and Japanese elements) and ‘Indian’ (basically Indian, with Chinese and Turkish elements). She described the current tapestry, and with reference to its signature, called Mazarind “a weaver otherwise totally unknown…but he was evidently closely connected with Vanderbank”. Thanks to research by Wendy Hefford, we now know that Michael Mazarind had an independent workshop, in premises previously occupied by the tapestry-maker James Bridges and which were from 1702 occupied by members of the Chabeneix family of tapestry weavers. It can be seen that the cartoons used for Mazarind’s tapestries were completely different from those associated with Vanderbank. The designer is unknown (as for all the other series) but it seems likely that he drew on the works of John Ogilby for some of his inspiration. The distinctive design characteristics of the current tapestry confirm the origin in Mazarind’s workshop of three other pieces, which also had the same border of blue and white porcelain. Two were sold from Ickwell Bury in 1927 (illustrated in H C Marillier’s manuscript Subject Catalogue of Tapestries in the V&A). Of those one is now in the David Collection, Copenhagen; the whereabouts of the other is unknown. The remaining, smaller piece was purchased with the current tapestry by the McLarens at the Christies sale in 1919 and is now in a private collection. None of these other three pieces has Mazarind’s signature, however. This is the only surviving tapestry marked with the name of Mazarind. It is the only surviving tapestry of this particular design, and its condition through careful ownership by one family since the early 20th century is good enough to reveal the distinctive style and content that distinguishes a series comprising at least four tapestries. The series is likely to have been designed and woven before 1700, as part of a Mazarind design from it is copied in a documented set of three pieces sold by Leonard Chabaneix to the Earl of Melville in December 1700. Those tapestries survive and are in the Toms Collection, Lausanne, and the Beit Foundation, Russborough, Ireland. So far, tantalizingly little is known about Mazarind and his workshop, and the nature of his relationship with Chabaneix. In 1984 the first documentary evidence connected with him was published by Wendy Hefford (‘Huguenot Weavers in and around London 1680-1780’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, vol.XXIV, no.2, 1984, pp.103-112). She established from the rate books of St Martin-in-the-Fields, Out Ward, that a tapestry weaver called Michael Mazarind had been paying rates on workshop premises for several years, and that in 1702 the rates assessed on the premises were taken over from Mazarind by Leonard Chabaneix. The references to Michael Mazarind in the rate books, giving his name in a number of different spellings, date back to 1696. In the catalogue entry by Koenraad Brosens on the Indian Manner tapestry in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago (2008), Brosens speculated on the identity of Mazarind, raising questions as to the varied contributions to multiple different versions of Indian Manner tapestries made by Vanderbank, Mazarind and Chabaneix including shared use of the same cartoons. However, since then, Wendy Hefford’s ongoing research and analysis has established the particular significance of the Mazarind series. The series of which the current tapestry is part was not connected with Vanderbank’s two series (‘Chinoiserie’ and ‘Indian’, as identified by Standen) but was instead a contemporary competitor on the market. The inter-relationship of the different versions of Indian Manner tapestries is highly complex. From these three separate series (two by Vanderbank and one Mazarind), all woven before 1700, nearly all later Indian Manner tapestries descended.