INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13119^8

PRENDERGAST, SUSAN MARGARET FABRIC .FURNISHINGS. USED IN PHILADELPHIA HOMES ,. 1700-1775. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE (WINTERTHUR PROGRAM), M.A., 1978

Untersto: Microfilms International 300 n. zeebroad. ann a rb o r, mi8 io«6

© 1977

SUSAN MARGARET PRENDERGAST

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FABRIC FURNISHINGS USED IN HULADELPHIA HOMES,

1700-1775

BY

Susan Margaret Prendergast

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Faster of Arts in Early American Culture.

June, 1978

Copyright Susan Margaret Prendergast 1977

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FABRIC FURNISHINGS USED IN PHILADELPHIA HOMES,

1700-1775

BY

Susan Margaret Prendergast

Approved: Dr. Keimeth L. Ames Professor in charge of thesis on Behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: Dr,. Stedhanie lSTolfe Coordinator of the ■ogram in Early American Culture

1 / - Approved: i/ylttf/l/tbLd/ /• " of/fche >iphe College

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE

Purpose and Scope

Fabric furnishings easily rank among the least studied a-nd

most misunderstood aspects of early American material culture.

Despite the passage of almost a century of serious research, we know

less about fabric furnishings— bedding and bed hangings, table cover- « ings, upholstery, window hangings, floor coverings— than we do about

any other component of the colonial interior. The dearth of informa­

tion on eighteenth century fabric furnishings results primarily from

the long-standing and rarely challenged association between the study

of American material culture and the collection of American antiques.

Despite pretensions to objective scholarship, decorative arts histo­

rians have, until the very recent past, concentrated their research

almost exclusively on the identification, description, and elucidation

of those objects which, for aesthetic or historical reasons, have been

most prized by collectors. The latter have eagerly sought furniture,

silver, glass, ceramics, pewter, and researchers have followed suit by

fljna-g.

collectors have valued fabric furnishings, and scholars have rarely

investigated them in any great depth.

The noticeable lack of interest in collecting or studying

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv

fabric furnishings stems primarily from the very low survival rate of

these items. Fabric furnishings are inherently perishable, for the

■'.extiles that compose them are among the most fragile elements of man's

material culture. Age, abrasion, and exposure to light and air cause

severe and irreversible damage to textiles j the fibers themselves

deteriorate, thus altering the essential characteristics of the fabric.

Even when the material itself survives intact, the form is often

altered. Because fabric hangings and furniture coverings can be easily

cut and sewn into new shapes, they have always been particularly sub­

ject to the changing dictates of fashion. Modern museums and private

collectors have been as guilty of altering fabric furnishings as have

past generations. The patina of age enhances the appeal of a Queen

Anne chair, but its brittle, faded upholstery rarely attracts modern

admiration. Many an otherwise reputable institution has reshaped sur­

viving historic hangings or furniture coverings to suit the needs of

particular installations; these same institutions would stand aghast

at the suggestion of shortening a chair's legs to suit a particular

table. The frequent alteration of the form combines with the deterio­

ration of the fabric to reduce drastically the survival rate of his­

toric fabric furnishings; the few examples that do survive seldom

approach their original appearances.

Lacking a large body of authentic material evidence, decorative

arts historians have largely neglected to investigate the use of fabric

furnishings in American homes. Most of the existing information on

fabric furnishings results from the research of students and curators

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V

of textiles. These writers have focused primarily on the fabrics then-

selves— period names, weaves, fiber contents, design sources— and only

secondarily on their use. This situation again reflects the low sur­

vival rate of fabric furnishings. The majority of the historic tex­

tiles preserved in museum collections are unused pieces that have sur­

vived precisely because they were never made into garments or house­

hold furnishings. In many museums, the textile collection is organised,

housed, and studied separately from the decorative arts collection.

The textile staff studies fabrics* the decorative arts staff studies

household furnishings sans fabrics.

The isolation of textiles as a separate category has frag­

mented and distorted our Image of the early American interior. looking

sufficient, accurate documentation on the historic use of fabric fur­

nishings, museum installations generally have not presented an accurate

view of this aspect of colonial living. Instead, they have tended to

depict a romanticized, twentieth century image of what an eighteenth

century interior should have looked like. Too often, museum instal­

lations have projected modern tastes in hangings, upholstery, and floor

coverings onto supposedly colonial settings. Early period rooms were

often equipped with fabric furnishings designed primarily to satisfy

modern aesthetic needs and project a picturesque atmosphere. As

curators have recently become more aware of inaccurate fabric instal­

lations, they have begun to rely heavily on contemporary documentary

and pictorial sources for authentic designs, colors, and fabrics.

Recent research on fabric furnishings has concentrated on locating

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi

specific, descriptive details, both verbal and pictorial, that can aid

in fabricating authentic reproductions.

Decorative arts research should not stop with the mere iden­

tification and description of historic artifacts} this data should he

the key to understanding and interpreting the values and life styles of

past cultures. Several scholars have formulated conceptual models for

interpreting material artifacts as cultural expressions. Anthro­

pologist Ralph Linton has suggested that every artifact possesses four

distinct hut interrelated qualities: form, meaning, use, and func­

tion.^ Archaeologist Lewis Binford has further subdivided function

into three separate levels: technomic, sociotechnic, and ideo- 2 technic. Another archaeologist, James Deetz, has postulated four

critical aspects for each object: contextual, functional, structural,

and behavioral. None of these models adequately answers the needs of

the cultural historian. More recently, art historian Kenneth Ames

has proposed a fourth conceptual model for art if actual interpretation.

According to this model, each artifact possesses five distinguishable

qualities: material (physical substance), motif (decorative or

ornamental embellishment), form (physical shape), function (physical

use), and meaning (social and psychological functions).** Existing

research on fabric furnishings— and the decorative arts in general—

has concentrated on the first three qualities (material, motif, and

form) while neglecting the last two (function and meaning). Concern

for identifying, describing, and classifying surviving artifacts has

often obscured the important fact that these objects originally played

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii

functional, meaningful roles in the lives of those who made and used

them.

The task of relating concrete physical objects to abstract

behavioral patterns is always a difficult one, made harder in the case

of fabric furnishings by the exceptionally low survival rate of the

original artifacts. Except for a few purely decorative textiles,

woven fabrics were rarely produced as ends in themselves; they were

merely the preliminary stage in the production of functional artifacts,

primarily garments and household furnishings. The unused woven tex-

tiles preserved in museum collections, although physically complete,

have not fulfilled the functions for which they were intended. To

separate material, motif, and form from function and meaning— as has so

often been done— is to seriously distort the history of material cul­

ture.

The present study will follow the Ames conceptual model in

investigating fabric furnishings as indicators of cultural value sys­

tems and behavioral patterns in colonial Philadelphia. While not

ignoring material, motif, and form, it will concentrate on interpreting

function and meaning and on identifying patterns of possession and use

in eighteenth century Philadelphia homes. Comparison of these patterns

over time, economic level, social class, occupational group, geographic

residence, and religious or ethnic background reveals clear variations

in physical life styles; these variations suggest parallel but less

easily observed changes in culturally defined value systems and behav­

ioral patterns.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii

The scope of this study encompasses the county of Philadelphia

during the first three quarters of the eighteenth century. Several

factors determined the choice of this particular locality and time

period. As a leading colonial city, Philadelphia serves as an instruc­

tive case study. The inclusion of surrounding rural areas within the

Philadelphia orbit allows useful comparisons between urban and rural

life styles. The desire to investigate gradual changes in patterns of

use requires an extended time period for study. During the period

1?00-1775» Philadelphia experienced rapid and dramatic growth from a

snail and relatively new settlement to the leading city in the American

colonies, and these significant demographic, economic, and social

changes must have influenced patterns of domestic life.

Previous studies of fabric furnishings have often concentrated

on a single type of artifact— bed hangings, window hangings, upholstery,

floor coverings— producing a fragmented view of the subject. Seen as a

whole, however, these furnishings form a closely associated assemblage

of artifacts, related both in their material composition and in their

general function as coverings for other objects or surfaces. Fabric

furnishings often share elements of motif, form, and meaning as well.

It is therefore most instructive to consider first of all, the total

assemblage of fabric furnishings used in colonial Philadelphia homes.

The integration of all types of fabric furnishings in a single study,

set in context with other related household furnishings, suggests sev­

eral insights not apparent from the isolated consideration of indivi­

dual types. After exploring the relationships between different

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix

classes of fabric furnishings, it is also important to consider the

individual characteristics of bed coverings, table coverings, uphol­

stery, window hangings, and floor coverings.

Source Materials and Methodology

Numerous contemporary sources provide information on fabric

furnishings used in eighteenth century Philadelphia: probate records,

newspapers, craftsmen's account books and bills, family papers, pic­

torial materials. Probate records (including both wills and estate in­

ventories) have proved to be by far the most useful primary source, for

they yield the broadest range of evidence on household assemblages of

fabric furnishings. Newspapers, bills, account books, and family

manuscripts frequently contain more specific information on individual

forms, and these detailed descriptions often elucidate terse inventory

notations. However, since the former references are generally isolated

from their domestic context, they do not allow the reconstruction of a

household assemblage. Newspaper advertisements can tell us what items

were available and, occasionally, how much they cost, but seldom do

they reveal who purchased them, or how and with what other furnishings

they were used. Similarly, few sets of family papers are sufficiently

complete to reconstruct an integrated view of household furnishings.'*

Finally, newspaper advertisements and family papers automatically pre­

sume a minimum level of literacy, thereby excluding from consideration

a substantial segment of the population. Although certainly useful,

these sources do not provide a balanced or integrated overview of

fabric furnishings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X

Prolate records encompass & "broader range of information.

Estate inventories, customarily taken soon after a property owner's

death, assisted the executors in making equitable settlements to the

claims of creditors and heirs. At least in the early years of the

colony, however, estate inventories were apparently not required "by

law. Of the total 418 probate dockets read, a substantial proportion

(22.49 percent) lacked inventories, and many of these dockets did not

appear to have ever included inventories. The proportion of estates

without inventories was particularly high (38 *9 3 percent) in the 1700

period, and several decedents during those years specifically re­

quested that inventories be taken. In 1702 widow Prudence Vest in­

cluded the following provision in her last testament:

Ky Will is That ay Executors hereafter named or the Sur­ vivors or Survivor of them shall with all Convenient Speed after my Decease cause as true as Estimate as they can to be made of the Value of all my Estate in lands Tenements , & Hereditaments Goods & Chattels whatsoever & wheresoever.

These factors support the view that custom and practical needs, not

legal statutes, dictated the practice of taking estate inventories in n colonial Philadelphia.

The use of probate records, and especially estate inventories,

as primary sources of information requires an evaluation of the

accuracy and reliability of these documents. The absence of a legally

mandated inheritance tax in colonial Pennsylvania would have eliminated

the major impetus for systematic concealment of valuable goods, and

there are no indications that such concealment occurred. Indeed, since

an inventory served primarily to aid in the settling of an estate, it

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. :cL

would seem to have "been to the heirs' advantage, in most cases, to

declare the estate's assets as fully as possible. And although indivi­

dual appraisers sometimes varied widely in the format, specificity, and

valuations of their entries, analysis of a large number of inventories

tends to minimise statistically these individual deviations. Overall,

the remarkable consistency of the inventory data suggests a reasonably

accurate ref lection, of reality. The incidence of fabric furnishings is

indubitably slightly underreported— some appraisers simply lumped all

household goods together as a single entry— but there are no indications

that the general proportions between types of goods are not reasonably

accurate. Valuations for specific types of goods generally fall in

standard ranges and are rarely substantially different from the actual

sums raised at public vendue and recorded in the executors' accounts.

lack of specific descriptions of household goods constitutes

the greatest drawback to the use of inventory data. Decorative arts

historians commonly lament the disconcerting tendency of appraisers to

omit details of color, pattern, fabric, or design from their listings

of fabric furnishings and other household goods. It is far more pro­

ductive, however, to consider why the appraisers included some details

and excluded others. In the case of fabric furnishings, function was

clearly the crucial identifying characteristic. Occasional inven­

tories of merchants' estates demonstrate that some, if not all, ap­

praisers were fully capable of identifying specific fabrics. Very

detailed lists of shop fabrics are often followed by singularly in- O descriptive appraisals of household fabrics. Fabric identification

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xii

constituted the only means of distinguishing the unsold yard goods,

hut the color, material, quality, and form of the fabric furnishings

were clearly subordinate to their function. Ihe range of eighteenth

century furnishing fabrics did not approach the variety available for

dress goods, and the decedent's social and economic position may have

predisposed the appraisers to expect a certain level of fabric fur­

nishings. Identification of specific colors, patterns, or fabrics

appears most frequently when two items of similar fora or function

occur in close proximity in the same inventory; the appraisers

apparently included additional detail in order to distinguish between

these goods. Detailed identifications may also indicate unusual items

whose composition did not agree with the appraisers* expectations for a

particular fabric furnishing.

like all other primary sources, inventory data must be evalu­

ated, analyzed, and interpreted carefully. Since careless or hurried

appraisers could have easily overlooked or neglected to record some

goods, no estate inventory can be considered a definitive listing of an

individual's possessions. However, those items that were so trivial,

so little valued, or so taken for granted as to he commonly omitted

from estate inventories are hardly more likely to appear with any regu­

larity in other surviving documents.

Philadelphia County's probate files include two distinct

series of estate papers. The administrations series contains the

estates of persons who died intestate; the wills series includes the

estates of those whose wills provided for the disposal of their pro-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xlii

perty. The wills series has "been microfilmed, and the microfilm copy

of these documents provided the "basis for this study. A comparison of

microfilmed records with the original probate documents, on file at the

Records Center of the Office of the Register of Wills, City Hall Annex,

Philadelphia, substantiated the accuracy of the microfilm copy. Al­

though estates were occasionally photographed out of sequence, no

serious omissions were located in the estates surveyed. Estates that

were incomplete on microfilm were also incomplete in the original dock- .

ets; those that were missing on microfilm were also absent from the

original files.

The decision to exclude evidence from the administration se­

ries of probate records may introduce a bias in favor of those indi­

viduals who were sufficiently concerned with material well-being to

write wills providing for the disposal of their possessions. However,

several factors made this decision necessary. The administration pa­

pers have not been microfilmed, and most of the transcriptions made

during the nineteenth century have been lost. The original documents

remain folded in their dockets: the paper on which they are written has

not been treated in any way, is very brittle, and disintegrates swiftly

upon unfolding and handling. A brief survey of the administration

papers indicated that the inventories of these estates closely parallel

those of the estates with wills. Several of the same appraisers evalu­

ated estates in both series, suggesting a consistency of description and

evaluation. The inventories of the administered estates surveyed ranged

in value from h 3.9.6 to h 370.12.0 Pennsylvania currency. Although the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xiv

administered estates generally ranged near the lower end of the economic

scale, they were on a par with many of the estates with wills. The

Inventories of administered estates did not contradict the patterns

suggested by the microfilmed and more easily researched series of

estates with wills, nor did the former documents provide any signifi­

cant new information. Although a comprehensive investigation of

available evidence would certainly include a thorough study of the ad­

ministration papers, the nature of this study and the slight gain in

corroborative statistical evidence did not seem to justify risking fur­

ther deterioration of the original records through unnecessary

handling.

The conclusions summarized in this study rest upon careful

analysis of 418 estates, distributed at four twenty-five year intervals—

1700-1704, 1725-1727, 1750-1751. 1775* These estate papers include the

inventories of 324 estates, or 80 from 1700-1704 and 1775 and 82 from

1725-1727 and 1750-1751* The arbitrarily selected figure of approxi­

mately 80 inventories for each period provides a sample large enough to

observe major trends, and the use of an equal number of inventories

from each period facilitates statistical comparisons. It must be re­

membered, however, that since Philadelphia grew rapidly from approxi-

mately 5000 residents in 1700 to 40,000 in 1775» 80 inventories for the

earliest period represents a much larger proportion of the population 9 than does 80 inventories for the latest period.

Careful perusal of these 324 inventories produced voluminous

references to bedding, bed hangings, table coverings, upholstery, window

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XV

hangings, floor coverings, and other household textiles, as well as

tools and utensils used in preparing or maintaining textiles and fabric

furnishings. This information was tabulated and analyzed to provide

statistical comparisons of the possession and use of fabric furnishings

according to time period, economic level, geographic residence, and

occupational group. Ihe wills and inventories also provided information

on the value of fabric furnishings in relation to total estate valua­

tion, total investment in household goods, and investment in individual

■types of household goods, especially silver plate. As the statistical

data accumulated, certain distinct patterns began to emerge. These

patterns, which were not anticipated at the beginning of research, are

summarized in the tables of the appendix and discussed in depth in

Chapter I.

Recent articles have discussed the potential merits of elec­

tronic data processing in the study of history and related fields.^®

The format and methodology of this study were ideally suited to experi­

mentation with computer technology. Unfortunately, the scope of the

project and the length of time available for study rendered the task

of assembling a computer data bank infeasible. Once set up and pro­

perly programmed, however, electronic data processing would indubitably

have generated more conclusions than were possible with conventional

methods.

Although contemporary pictorial materials and surviving examples

are common sources for the study of fabric furnishings, both are inade­

quate in reconstructing an integrated view of household assemblages of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xvi

fabric furnishings. Pictorial sources nay provide specific evidence

for individual examples, tut they seldom show more than a few elements

of an interior. Furthermore, pictorial sources are subject to artistic

license and may well reflect what could or should have been used

rather than what actually was used. Surviving examples are even less

useful for understanding patterns of possession and use, for unusual

items are more likely to be preserved than common, ordinary ones. Em­

broidered furnishings survive in a much higher proportion than they

originally represented, mainly because later generations treasured and

preserved the handwork of their ancestors.^- la addition, surviving

examples are isolated from their original contexts and are consequently

of little use in evaluating the role of fabric furnishings in the

household environment.

The case study approach employed in this study is particularly

useful in challenging or confirming commonly held assumptions that pre­

sume both temporal and regional homogeneity in the use of fabric fur­

nishings in colonial American homes. Primary information on fabric

furnishings increases dramatically after 1775, and many authors have

Introduced later references as evidence of colonial practices. However,

patterns prevalent in 1780 or 1820 cannot be automatically extrapolated

backwards to 1760 or 1720. If patterns in the possession and use of

fabric furnishings changed over time, then the introduction of later

data is not only inaccurate but potentially misleading. Another com­

monly held assumption allows the indiscriminate introduction of refer­

ences from England or from various colonial cities as evidence of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xvii

standard. American practices. This assumption ignores the possibility

of regional variation, a phenomenon that has "been well documented in

furniture, silver, pewter, and other materials. Research strictly con­

fined to a specific area— Philadelphia County— during & specific time

period— 1700-1775— allows observation of regional and temporal patterns

and the formulation of specific conclusions. These observations and

conclusions can then be compared to data drawn from other areas and

later time periods.

Numerous works have been invaluable in suggesting a methodology,

in identifying obscure textiles, in describing particular types of

fabric furnishings, in providing background information on colonial

Philadelphia, and in supplying comparative data on fabric furnishing

practices in other colonial cities and in England. The case study

approach has already been applied with considerable success to fabric

furnishings used in the Boston area. Abbott Lowell Cummings's treatise

on Bed Hangings, considered a standard work on the subject, is admit­

tedly based on New England documentary materials. Anna Brightman's

doctoral dissertation at Florida State University investigates

"Fabrics and Styles of Colonial Window Hangings as Revealed Through

Boston and Salem, Massachusetts, Records, 1700-1760." Her findings are

summarized in two articles in the August and December 19&fr issues of

Antiques. Linda Baumgarten Berlekamp discusses "Upholstery Materials

Used in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1750-2.800," in an unpublished

paper written for the Winterthur Program at the University of Delaware.

Research on trade and the furniture crafts in Boston has also con­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xviii

tributed information about the use of fabric furnishings in that city.

Brock Jobe discusses the Boston upholstery trade at length in his

Winterthur thesis on "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1725-1760," and in

an article on the same topic published in Boston Furniture of the

Eighteenth Century. Linda Banmgarten Berlekamp investigates "The

Textile Trade in Boston: I65O-I7OO," in her Winterthur thesis and in an

article published in Arts of the Anglo-American Community in the

Seventeenth Century. Together, these studies of individual elements

combine to elucidate the major trends in fabric furnishing usage in

Boston.

Several other theses written for the Winterthur Program in

Early American Culture provide valuable information on the textile

trade and furniture crafts in eighteenth century Philadelphia: Ruth Y.

Cox, "Textiles Used in Philadelphia, 1760-1775” * Cathryn J. McElroy,

"Furniture of the Philadelphia Area: Forms and Craftsmen before 1730"*

Arthur Leibundguth, "The Furniture-Making Crafts in Philadelphia,

c. 1730-c. 1760"* Nancy Ann Goyne, "Furniture Craftsmen in Philadelphia,

1760-1780, Their Role in a Mercantile Society." Ruth Katzkin's thesis,

"Inventories of Estates in Philadelphia County, 1682-1710," discusses

early fabric furnishings. Kathleen K. Catalano*s unpublished paper on

"Textiles Used for Bed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings in Eighteenth

Century Philadelphia," provides more specific descriptions of Phila­

delphia fabric furnishings. The 31ue Book of Philadelphia Furniture,

by William MacPherson Kornor, Jr., and The Arts and Crafts in Philadel­

phia, Maryland, and South Carolina, 1721-1785, compiled by Alfred Coxe

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xix

Prime, "both contain numerous descriptive references gleaned from con­

temporary manuscripts and newspapers. Finally, Florence M. Montgomery's

research on the materials, motifs, and forms of fabric furnishings,

published in her book, Printed Textiles, aufl in numerous articles in

Antiques and other magazines, elucidated numerous perplexing references

and provided an initial stimulus for this research.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express deep and sincere gratitude to

who assisted in this endeavor. Beatrice Taylor, Kristen Bailey, and

Chris Edmondson of the Joseph Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collection

patiently aided me during hours spent squinting at microfilm and

located other useful information. Other Vinterthur Museum staff mem­

bers, including Susan B. Swan, Associate Registrar, and Deborah D.

Waters, Librarian, Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, listened to

my ideas and contributed valuable suggestions. Kate Hutchins,

Assistant Editor, Publications Office, guided me to useful reference

works on colonial and mercantile history. Nancy Richards, Associate

Curator, and Margaret Fikioris, Conservator of Textiles, first

directed my attention toward research on fabric furnishings and later

shared material with me. To Benno M, Forman, Research Fellow and

Teaching Associate, I am grateful for comments on the manuscript,

research suggestions, and the generous sharing of his own unpublished

research on upholstery practices in early colonial Boston.

Florence M« Montgomery, New Haven, Connecticut, listened to my

initial research proposals and suggested several sources of information.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XX

Patricia Chapin O’Donnell of the Department of Costume and Textiles,

Philadelphia Museum of Art, provided encouragement and perceptive com­

ments on technical aspects of colonial textiles. The staff of the

Records Center, Office of the Register of Wills, City Hall Annex,

Philadelphia, assisted me in studying the original probate records of

Philadelphia County. The staff of the Historical Society of Pennsyl­

vania also assisted me in the use of certain colonial Philadelphia

records. My classmates encouraged me and occasionally located valu­

able bits of information during the course of their own research. My

advisor, Dr. Kenneth L. Ames, contributed oft-needed encouragement,

sound advice, intellectual stimulation, and, most of all, humor and

enthusiasm. Finally, special thanks are due my parents, for their

unfailing encouragement and support, and to William F, Schoelver, mho

urged clarity and balance at all times.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO PREFACE

^lalph Linton, The Study of M a m An Introduction (New Yorks Appleton-Century, 193°)» P« 402, cited in Bernard L, Fontana, "The Cultural Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics as Social Documents," Ceramics in America, Winterthur Conference Report 1972, ed. Tan M.G. Qulmby (Charlottesville, Va,: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1973)* p. 3.

^Levis R. Binford, "Archaeology as Anthropology," American Antiquity 28 (October 1 9 62): 219-20 , cited in Fontana, "Cultural Dimensions of Pottery," p, 4. 3 James Deetz, Invitation to Archaeology, American Museum Science Books (Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History, 1967)* p. 10,

Kenneth L. Ames, "Oriental Forms and the Shape of Western Decorative Arts," in "Proceedings of Thematic Sessions of the Twenty- Ninth Annual Meeting of The Society of Architectural Historians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19-2h Kay 1976." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 35 (December 1976): 301.

^The papers of General John Cadwalader, discussed by Nicholas B. Wainwright in Colonial Grandeur in Philadelphia, provide unusually extensive documentation for the furnishings of a single house, but even this exceptional cache contains significant omissions: see Nicholas B, Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur in Philadelphia: The House and Furniture of General" John Cadwalader (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1964).

^W-75, 1702, Philadelphia County Probate Records, Wills Series, microfilm copy at Joseph Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collection (DMMC), Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, originals at Records Center, Office of the Register of Wills, City Hall Annex, Philadelphia. Hereafter, probate records will be cited simply by estate number and year of filing. Unless otherwise noted, all references are to the microfilmed copy of the wills series.

^Ruth Katzfcin, "Inventories of Estates in Philadelphia County, 1682-1710" (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1959)» p. 6 , Hereafter cited as Hatzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories."

xxi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xxii

^-19, 1700; ¥-41, 1701* ¥-42, 1701* ¥-52, 1701* ¥-79, 1702* ¥-98, 1 7 02* ¥-342, 1725* ¥-34 5 , 1725* ¥-75, 1727? ¥-179, 1750* ¥-238, 1750. Q Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities In the Wilderness, The First Century of Urban Life in America, 1625-1742, 2nd ed. (Hew York: Alfred A. Knopf, I960), p. 143* Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt, Urban Life in America, 1743-1776 (New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 1955), p. 216,

^Marshall Snelser and William I, Davisson, "The Historian and the Computer; A Simple Introduction to Complex Computation," Essex Institute Historical Collections 104 (April 1968): 109-26.

^Abbott Lowell Cummings, comp., Bed Hangings. ■ A Treatise on Fabrics and Styles in the Curtaining of Beds, 1d 50-185Q (Boston: The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 196l), PP. 37-8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE (F CONTENTS

PREFACE ...... iii

Purpose and Scope ...... i n Source Materials and Methodology...... ix Acknowledgments ...... xix Notes to Preface ...... xxL

TABLE CS* CONTENTS ...... xxiii

LIST CF TABLES...... xxvi

ABSTRACT...... xxvii

Chapter I. PATTERNS OF U S E ...... 1

Conceptual Framework...... 1 Overall Patterns of Use ...... 10 Chronological Patterns of U s e ...... 12 Economic Patterns of Use ...... 15 Total estate valuation ...... 15 Household valuation ...... 18 Geographic Patterns of Use ...... 20 Occupational Patterns of Use ...... 23 Economic Significance of Fabric Furnishings . . . 27 Notes to Chapter I ...... 33

H . CARE AND PROCUREMENT OF FABRIC FURNISHINGS...... 36

Sources of Dry Goods ...... 36 Domestic production 3? Professional craftsmen ...... 42 Colonial manufactories ...... 45 Importation ...... 47 The Upholstery Trade ...... 50 Maintenance of Fabric Furnishings...... 58 Notes to Chapter I I ...... 6l

ndii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xxiv

HI. BED COVERINGS ...... 6?

Bedding ...... 69 Beds ...... ?0 Pill ovs and 'bolsters • 74 Bed linens ...... 75 Covers ...... 79 Bedsteads ...... 89 Bed Hangings...... 91 Arrangement of Bed Coverings ...... 95 Economic Value of Bed Coverings ...... 98 Inheritance of bed coverings ...... 100 Ownership of bed coverings ...... 103 Function and Meaning of Bed Co v e r i n g s ...... 105 Comfort, convenience, and cleanliness ..... 106 Associational value ...... 108 S t y l e ...... 109 Status ...... 112 Notes to Chapter H I ...... 116

IV. TABLE COVERINGS ...... 125

Tablecloths ...... 127 C a r p e t s ...... 130 Napkins ...... • 131 Towels ...... 134- Case Furniture Coverings...... 137 Procurement of Table Coverings ...... 139 Function and Meaning of Table Coverings ..... 141 Cleanliness ...... 141 Status and style ...... 141 Notes to Chapter IV 146

V. SEATING FURNITURE COVERINGS ...... 150

Material and Constructional Types of Seating Furniture Coverings ...... 153 Fibrous Materials ...... 1&1 Rush, flag, mat, and straw ...... l6l C a n e ...... 1&5 Leather ...... 170 Cushions...... 178 Textiles ...... 178 Function and Meaning of Seating Furniture Coverings ...... 183 Comfort ...... 183 Cleanliness ...... 188 Status and style 189 Notes to Chapter V...... 199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XXV

VI. WINDOW AND FLOOR COVERINGS AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES...... 207

Window Coverings ...... 20? Window "blinds ...... 209 Window curtains ...... 210 Function and meaning of window coverings .... 216 Floor Coverings ...... 223 Carpets ...... 226 Floorcloths...... 228 Hats and other floor coverings ...... 228 Economic value, arrangement, and procurement of floor coverings...... 229 Function and meaning of floor coverings .... 230 Wall Coverings ...... 233 Other Household Textiles ...... 235 Utility textiles...... 235 Surplus textiles ...... 238 Notes to Chapter VI ...... 244

vn. CONCLUSIONS...... 250 Notes to Chapter VII ...... 259

APPENDIX...... 260

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST CF TABLES

1. Overall Possession of Fabric Furnishings...... 260 2. Possession of Fabric Furnishings by Time Period . . . 261 3. Possession of Fabric Furnishings by Total Estate Valuation ...... 262 Possession of Fabric Furnishings by Household Valuation ...... 263 5. Possession of Fabric Furnishings by Geographic R e s i d e n c e ...... 264- 6. Possession of Fabric Furnishings by Occupation .... 265 7. Appraised Valuations ...... 266 8. Relative Investments ...... 267 9. Possession of Other Household Textiles and Production Supplies by Time Period ...... 268 10. Possession of Other Household Textiles and Production Supplies by Total Estate Valuation . . . 269 11. Possession of Other Household Textiles and Production Supplies by Household Valuation ..... 270 12. Possession of Other Household Textiles and Production Supplies by Geographic Residence .... 271 13. Possession of Other Household Textiles and Production Supplies by Occupation...... 272 lh-. Possession of Bedding by Time Period ...... 273 15. Possession of Bedsteads by Time Period ...... 27A 16. Possession of Specific Types of Bed Hangings...... 275 17. Possession of Table Coverings by Time Period ..... 276 18. Possession of Surplus Textiles by Time Period .... 277

x x v l

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

Analysis of 32^- Hiiladelphia Coimty estate inventories taken at

25-year intervals provides considerable information on the fabric fur­

nishings used in that region during the period 1700-1775. In addition

to identifying specific forms, textiles, and decorative motifs used in

colonial fabric furnishings, the inventories also indicate distinct

patterns in the distribution of these goods. Bed, table, seating

furniture, window, and floor coverings consistently appeared in that

order of descending frequency, even when measured over different

variables of time, economic level, geographic residence, and occupation.

Almost every self-sufficient household possessed some sort of

bedding (beds, headrests, bed linens and covers), but only about one-

half of the inventories listed bedsteads. No other type of fabric

furnishing appeared in over 5 0 .0 0 percent of the estates studied, and

the incidence of these goods was often markedly disproportionate to

their frequency in modem restorations and museum settings. less

than one-third of the estates recorded bed hangings, while almost two-

fifths listed table coverings. Chair cushions, textile upholstery,

window curtains, and floor coverings appeared extremely rarely. Fur­

ther statistical analysis of the inventory data indicates that wealthy,

urban estates belonging to merchants, tradesmen, or widows and

xxvii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xxviii

spinsters possessed a wider range and higher frequency of fabric

furnishings than did less wealthy, rural estates belonging to yeomen

and craftsmen. Textile upholstery, window hangings, and floor cover­

ings were confined almost exclusively to households within the

Philadelphia city limits.

ftie distribution patterns of fabric furnishings in colonial

Philadelphia County households, combined with other contemporary

evidence, suggests that these goods answered important practical

social, and emotional needs. Physically, fabric furnishings increased

comfort by cushioning and insulating can's living spaces. Psycholo­

gically, they ceremonialized the activities for which they were used.

They represented important economic investments while indicating

social status and good taste, especially since imported textiles sold

by merchants and upholsterers made up the majority of fabric furnish­

ings used in colonial Philadelphia.

Despite the combined influences of imported pattern books and

immigrant upholsterers, however, the seventy-five years preceding the

Revolution witnessed relatively little change in the assemblage of

fabric furnishings used in colonial Philadelphia homes. This constancy

suggests a conservative society in which the possession of certain

status bearing goods— like fine fabric furnishings— was restricted to

certain social and economic classes by force of custom and public

opinion. Finally, the inventory data indicates that the economic and

symbolic importance of fabric furnishings declined slightly during the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xx±x

colonial period. After the middle of the eighteenth, century, fine

wooden furniture "began to replace fabric furnishings as primary

indicators of household style and status, although the latter con­

tinued to fulfill other important functions and meanings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

PATTERNS OF USE.

The probate records of Thiladelphia County indicate distinct

patterns in the use of fabric furnishings during the first three-

quarters of the eighteenth century. The logical consistency of these

patterns suggests that the trends observed in eighteenth century

Philadelphia are but one snail slice of a long surd very gradual process

by which nan has elaborated his immediate physical environment.

Conceptual Framework

Fabric furnishings were coverings for horizontal and vertical

surfaces composed of other materials— beds, tables, seating furniture,

windows, floors, walls. All fabric furnishings were in this sense

accessories; they were not essential to maintaining human life. Han

required horizontal surfaces, if only the bare ground, on which to eat

and to rest— both in sleeping and in sitting; he did not require that

these surfaces be covered with textiles. Similarly, in most climates,

man required a shelter from the elements, but his subsistence did not

require that the ceiling, floor, and walls that enveloped him, or the

openings that pierced them to admit light, be fabric covered.

Since fabric furnishings were not essential for maintaining

1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2

human life, their introduction represented an important step in the

elaboration of living standards. Fabric furnishings served several

practical functions. First, sod most importantly, they increased

physical comfort by cushioning hard living surfaces. Bedding and uphol­

stery padded the horizontal surfaces on which man slept and sat* floor

coverings softened the impact of each step. Secondly, fabric furnish­

ings insulated man from cold living surfaces. Floor, wall, and window

coverings insulated nan's living space from cold drafts; bed coverings

warmed his most intimate environment. Fabric furnishings also insulated

man. from other elements of the environment. Removable table coverings

lessened the contact between man's food and the dirt raised by ordinary

living routines. Other fabric furnishings could exclude unwanted light

and muffle sound; they could even seclude man from contact with his

fellow beings.

Although fabric furnishings greatly increased physical comfort,

their material benefits were not the sole reason for their introduction;

indeed, their effect on physical comfort was not always the primary

motive for their use. In Mechanization Takes Command. Siegfried

Giedlon argues that bodily ease is not the only form of comfort. The

Middle Ages, for example, possessed a concept of comfort entirely dif­

ferent from our own. Whereas modem comfort revolves around physical

ease, medieval comfort centered on psychological ease and was not

measurable on a material scale:

The satisfaction and delight that were medieval comfort have their source in the configuration of space. Comfort is the atmosphere with which man surrounds himself and in which he lives. 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fabric furnishings functioned on the level of psychological as

veil as physical comfort. That which cushioned and insulated the body

also cushioned and insulated the soul. Fabric furnishings softened,

warned, secluded, and cleansed man's living spaces, them thereby

more suitable for his higher social, intellectual, and spiritual acti­

vities. By physically cushioning man from contact with the harsher

elements, and by secluding him from unwanted contact with his fellows,

fabric furnishings psychologically insulated him from the baser elements

of his own nature. Thus, fabric furnishings very early acquired a

civilizing function— they ennobled their possessor and elevated the

activities for which they were used. The drapery associated with

royal thrones and the cloths provided for religious services were early

manifestations of the psychological importance of fabric furnishings.

Fabric furnishings also possessed important social functions.

They could ensure privacy when desired. More importantly, they served

as Indicators of social and economic status. At first, only the afflu­

ent elite could afford to use fabric furnishings, since textiles were

both scarce and dear. The fragile nature of fabric furnishings aug­

mented their value as economic indicators. Possession of fabric fur­

nishings implied not only the financial means for initial procurement

but for continued maintenance and periodic replacement as well.

Finally, fabric furnishings fulfilled certain aesthetic needs.

They often provided decorative elements— color and pattern— in rooms

that would otherwise have been quite bare, both physically and

aesthetically. Their decorative function is evident in the eft-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. repeated injunction that chair, "bed, and window coverings should natch 2 in color if not in fabric. The eighteenth century’s interest in

matching fabric furnishings throughout a room may represent a lingering

of the late Gothic concern for unified and harmonious living space.^

As standards of living rose, and textile production increased,

so did the use of fabric furnishings. New types proliferated among the

affluent, while older types gradually filtered down the social, economic

scale. This process has been a long, slow, and gradual one, evolving

over the course of centuries until the present day, when most American

homes possess the full range of fabric coverings for bed, table, seating

furniture, window, and floor. Although the ancient civilizations of the

Mediterranean possessed fabric furnishings, the practice largely died

out in western Europe during the Dark Ages, when only the Catholic

Church and the highest lords possessed more than rudimentary textiles.

For this reason, it seems most appropriate to follow Giedion in seeing

the Kiddle Ages as a useful starting point for examining the develop-

ment of modem patterns of using fabric furnishings.

The evolution of fabric furnishings suggests that psychological

and social needs overshadowed physical needs. Upholstery enhanced

bodily comfort far more than did table coverings, yet the-latter devel­

oped earlier and attained widespread distribution long before the for­

mer. These factors suggest that the evolution of fabric furnishings

followed a very logical and consistent pattern. Since fabric furnish­

ings were psychologically ennobling and elevating, they were applied

first to surfaces serving the most important activities of human life,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5

and later to those surfaces of lesser significance.

The "bed played a central role in man's life, and thus provided

the first surface to he augmented with fabric coverings. Kan spent at

least one-third of his life span asleep in hed— more time than he

invested in any other single activity. His nightly repose refreshed

and renewed him, hoth physically and psychologically, to "begin another

day. In addition, the major "biological events of the human life cycle—

conception, "birth, and death— commonly occurred in "bed. The envelopment

of the bed in fabric coverings emphasized the importance of these

events to man's emotional and psychological development. By ennobling

and elevating the bed as the stage for the renewal and perpetuation of

life, fabric furnishings ceremonialized conception, birth, sleep, and

death. By raising these activities above the level of animal instinct,

bed coverings psychologically confirmed man's superiority and higher

nature. The psychological importance of the bed combined with the

physical comforts provided by its soft, warm coverings to confer on it

a high status and a central role in the social organization of the

household. Several authors have investigated the variety of activities

carried out in the shelter of the bed: eating, recovering from illness,

thinking, writing, reading, composing music, receiving visitors, over­

seeing the affairs of government.^ The best bedchamber commonly served

as the primary stage for polite entertaining, and householders often

stored their fine ceramics, silver, and surplus textiles there, thus

demonstrating the high status accorded this room.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

The general category of ted coverings included three com­

ponents— the lbedding, the bedstead, and the "bed hangings. Taken to its

tare minimum, tedding was a covering for an isolated area of the floor

on which man would otherwise sleep. Dyche and Pardon's dictionary of

1765 defined a ted as "a place or conveniency for a person or thing to

lie and grow in."^ Simple tedding— mattresses, headrests, linens,

covers— served all the essential functions provided ty more elaborated

ted coverings. Bedding cushioned the tody and encouraged greater

physical relaxation % it insulated against cold, unwanted light, and

noise; it provided a minimum of privacy and a psychological stage for

the perpetuation of life.

The bedstead was logically an accessory to the ted, not a

necessary or an inherent part of it. The bedstead served primarily as a

platform to raise the ted above the floor. It also insulated the

sleeper more effectively from cold, dirt, and vermin; it could be con­

structed to provide a more comfortable surface. Psychologically, it

elevated the activities of the ted just as it physically raised the

position of the ted.

Bed hangings represented the ultimate elaboration of ted cover­

ings; like the bedstead, they were not inherent to the concept of the

ted. Full ted hangings surrounded the ted entirely; they maximized the

sleeper's insulation from the natural environment and from his fellow

man. The fully hung ted was a self-contained living space, a chamber

unto itself, and the creation of a private, sacro-sanct room within a

room raised the human life cycle to its highest level.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The table, as the stage for the nourishment of human life,

provided the second surface to be augmented with fabric coverings. The

evolution of a specialized table for eating has been a recent and less-

than-universal development j for most of their history, tables have been

preeminently multifunctional objects. The same board that held the

dinner might also have been used for a variety of other activities.

Table coverings helped to physically protect man’s food from contamina­

tion by the dirt left on the table from other uses. Psychologically,

table coverings provided similar insulation j they signaled that the

activity of dining was elevated above the other uses of multifunctional

tables. Again, the use of fabric furnishings ceremonialized an animal

activity and confirmed man’s higher nature. In addition, since eating

was often a social activity, table coverings provided an obvious and

easily visible indicator of social and economic status. From the late

Kiddle Ages onward, fine white linen cloths covered rough, crudely 7 constructed board and trestle tables. later centuries witnessed the

further elaboration of table coverings. Individualized table coverings—

napkins— reflected practical concern for personal cleanliness, while

covering cloths for related horizontal surfaces— cupboards, chests of

drawers, mantle shelves— answered few practical needs but did display

social status and economic prosperity.

Upholstery, the third major type of fabric furnishing to appear,

covered man’s seating furniture. Although seating furniture was not

closely related to any of the major events in man’s biological life

cycle, it played a large role in his social and political life. Stable

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8

seating furniture appeared in the thrones and cathedras of medieval

civil and ecclesiastical rulers* the use of a chair (rather than a

simple folding stool) connoted power and authority. In 1765, Dyche

Pardon defined the chair as “a common houshold moveable to sit on, . . . *

and in a Metaphorical Sense, it means the head or supreme of an assem- 8 bly, as well publick or private." From the late fifteenth century on­

ward, chairs spread from the civil and ecclesiastical courts to other 9 segments of the population. Eventually, they became common elements

of social and political intercourse, both public and private.

• Ihe development of upholstery obviously postdated the develop­

ment of seating furniture itself. As with sleeping and eating, the

activity of sitting did not require a fabric-covered surface. Many

chairs, from the late Kiddle Ages to the present day, have been unadorned

by any sort of upholstery. When upholstery did appear, it echoed the

heavily draped royal throne in symbolizing social and economic status.

Upholstery also enhanced the comfort of sitting by cushioning the hard

surfaces of the chair.

The general category of upholstery included four major func­

tional groups: chair coverings composed of fibrous materials (pri­

marily cane and rush), leather, loose upholstery (cushions), and

textiles. Although rush, cane, and similarly furnished chairs are not

usually classified as upholstered, they were functionally and conceptu­

ally very closely related to the three more traditional classes. Bush

and cane, leather, cushions, and textile chair coverings all dignified

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

the activity of sitting while increasing bodily ease. Bach class of

upholstery represented a further stage in the increasing elaboration

of seating furniture, ranging from the least expensive rush seats

through durable leathers and heavy wools to costly and fragile silks

and velvets.

With the development of bed coverings, table coverings, and

seating furniture coverings, man had cushioned and insulated the major

surfaces he encountered, in his daily round of activities. From the

furniture itself, he turned to the architectural parameters of his

shelter— the windows, floors, and walls. Window coverings augmented

physical comfort by retaining heat and cutting off drafts. They also

presented to the world an ostentatious display of social and economic

status while shrouding from sight the private affairs of the household.

Psychologically, window coverings extended the status and dignity of a

curtained bed to an entire room. As window curtains became increasingly

common in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the importance

of bed curtains correspondingly decreased. At present, window curtains

are all but universal; bed curtains, almost non-existent.

Floor coverings also provided both physical and psychological

comfort. They warmed and cushioned cold, hard floors while they

impressed visitors with their owner's economic prosperity. Floor cover­

ings proclaimed that their proud possessors could afford to walk on ex­

pensive fabrics.

Wall coverings were conceptually part of the scheme of fabric

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10

furnishings. The great expense of covering large vertical expanses

confined early wall hangings to a very small proportion of the popu­

lation. Later, the development of wallpaper in imitation of fabric

hangings altered the course of evolution of wall coverings. Conceptu­

ally, wallpaper served many of the same purposes as textile wall

hangings and other fabric furnishings. Because wallpaper was commonly

considered as part of the building, rather than as an interior furnish­

ing, however, it was rarely inventoried and, hence, remains largely

outside the scope of this paper.

• Overall Patterns of Use

The patterns of use of fabric furnishings observed in eighteenth

century Philadelphia form but a microcosm of their long evolution in the

postmedieval Western world. The process of transforming a new land into

a cosmopolitan city telescoped into a few decades domestic changes that

had extended across centuries in Europe. By the settlement of Phila­

delphia in 1682, the use of bed coverings had spread throughout the

general population, and table coverings were also fairly common.

Upholstery and window hangings had just begun to develop in England,

however,and appeared infrequently in Pennsylvania at the beginning

of the eighteenth century.

Bed coverings were by far the most common type of fabric fur­

nishing in eighteenth century Philadelphia homes; 89.91 percent of all

the inventories studied listed some form of bed covering (see Thhle l).

Of the total 32*J- inventories, 23 recorded no household textiles,while

96.68 percent of the remaining 301 estates possessed some type of bed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

covering. The inventories that lacked "bed coverings usually reflected

unusual situations, for by 1700 bedding had clearly become indis­

pensable for civilized living. In some cases, appraisers did not in­

ventory bedding given away by the decedent during his lifetime or be­

queathed in his Kill. In other cases, the decedent was apparently not a

self-sufficient householder, but a transient, single, or elderly person

boarding or residing in a furnished room provided by another household.

In a recent paper investigating living standards in colonial St, Mary’s

County, Maryland, Barbara and Cary Carson have classified as complete

households only those inventories that listed cooking utensils and bed­

ding, for "only those two activities, food preparation and sleeping,

were in our opinion essential to a self-sufficient household."^'

Although almost every self-sufficient household in the Phila­

delphia area possessed some type of bed covering during the period

1700-1775* not all possessed a complete assemblage of bedding, bedstead,

and bed hangings. Most inventories (88.58 percent) listed some type of

bedding (feather, flock, or chaff beds; pillows and bolsters; sheets;

blankets; covers), but only 51.85 percent recorded bedsteads. Even

fewer possessed bed hangings. Only 22.8b- percent of the total inven­

tories specifically mentioned bed curtains; an additional 7 .7 2 percent

implied bed hangings in the use of a general description— bed and bedding,

appurtenances, clothes, covers, or furniture— combined with a high valu­

ation (over £ 10.0.0-h 12.0.0 ), bringing the total figure for bed hang­

ings to 30.56 percent of all inventories read.

Table coverings followed bed coverings in frequency; 38.58 per-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

cent of the total inventories listed some type of table linens. 3he

number of households possessing table coverings exceeded slightly the

number with fully hung beds.

Less than one-fourth (24.07 percent) of all inventories studied

listed any type of seat covering. Fiber bottomed chairs (primarily of

rush but occasionally of cane) occurred most frequently, appearing in

19.75 percent of all inventories. Leather bottomed chairs appeared in

8.33 percent of the inventories, and textile coverings occurred even

more rarely. Ten inventories (3.09 percent) included loose cushions,

and only eight (2.47 percent) recorded fabric upholstery. (These fig­

ures probably underestimate the actual situation; some pieces described

simply as chairs, walnut chairs, or mahogany chairs probably had

leather or textile covered seats. Nevertheless, the extremely low

occurrence of textile covered chairs suggests an imbalance in present

period room interpretations).

Window and floor coverings also appear more frequently in mod­

ern museum settings than they did in colonial Philadelphia homes. Less

than one-tenth (9.88 percent) of all inventories listed window curtains,

and only 2.78 percent recorded floor coverings of any type. (Since the

contexts of unspecified curtains strongly and almost invariably indi­

cated their use on beds rather than on windows, only those hangings

specifically identified as window curtains have been counted as such).

Chronological Patterns of Use

A chronological analysis of holdings provides further insight

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

Into the evolution and spread of fabric furnishings in colonial

Philadelphia (see Table 2). The number of households possessing some

type of bed covering remained fairly constant throughout the period,

averaging near 90.00 percent of all inventories and near 96.50 percent

of those inventories listing household textiles. These figures demon­

strate that, by 1700, the use basic bed coverings had already spread

throughout the general population. The use of bedsteads, however, rose

considerably between 1700 and 1775. During the first three quarter-

century periods, the number of households possessing bedsteads remained

constant between 41,46 percent and 47.56 percent? in 1775 it climbed

sharply to 72, $0 percent— almost three-quarters of the population. In

contrast, the use of bed hangings remained below 40.00 percent through­

out the colonial period.

Like bed coverings, the use of table coverings remained fairly

stable throughout the colonial period, rising only slightly from 42.50

percent of all inventories in 1700 to 48.75 percent in 1775. During the

same interval, the frequency of seating furniture coverings increased

from 23.75 percent in 1700 to 33.75 percent in 1775. Within this cate­

gory, fiber bottomed chairs rose in frequency from 16.25 percent to

26,25 percent, while the occurrence of leather and textile covered

chairs remained steady. Cushions disappeared after 1727. The fre­

quency of window coverings rose from 8.7 5 percent at the opening of the

century to 15.00 percent just before the Revolution. Cloths and carpets

specifically designated as floor coverings did not appear at all in the

estates studied until the 1775 period, when 11.25 percent of the inven-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lb

tories recorded them. During the 1700-1?(& and 1725-1727 periods,

appraisers either specifically designated carpets as table carpets or

listed them in close association with tables. This data accords Kith

current scholarly opinion classifying pre-1750 carpets as table cover­

ings. 13

Despite very slight upward trends in the use of table, seating

furniture, window, and floor coverings, overall constancy is the most

striking result of the chronological analysis of usage patterns.

During the seventy-five years prior to the Revolution, the assemblage

of fabric furnishings in Philadelphia homes changed relatively little.

Several factors may explain this phenomenon. Constancy suggests a

conservative society, in which usage of certain material goods was

closely associated with social and economic status and restricted to

certain classes by force of custom and public opinion. Secondly, other

factors not taken into account by the overall percentages, such as the

distribution of estates according to economic valuation, geographic

location, and occupational background, may affect the final figures.

This is certainly the case for the periods 1725-1727 and 1750-1751# foe

which the lower percentages recorded in some categories reflect a decline

in total estate valuations for these groups of inventories (see Table 7)*

The median estate valuation declined from t 23^.15.10f- Pennsylvania cur­

rency in 1700-17CA to £ 180.19 .0 in 1725-1727 and £ 202.1 .6 in 1750, IK- then rose again to £ 252.10.0 in 1775. Depreciation of Pennsylvania

currency during the colonial period, although never as severe as in

New England, renders the median valuation for 1700-17C& proportionately

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

slightly higher than the figures themselves indicate.

Economic Patterns of Use

Total estate valuation

Analysis of fabric furnishing use according total estate valu­

ation reveals further trends (see Table.3). Ibese figures must be

considered guardedly, however, for in many cases the total known estate

value (based on inventories as well as account papers when preserved)

did not equal the decedent's actual worth. The bequests made in wills

often included real estate holdings or other possessions that were not

inventoried or included in the executors' records. Consequently, actual

worth often exceeded the currently known estate valuation. In addition,

valuations quoted throughout this study do not reflect the effects of

inflation or the depreciation or reevaluation of colonial currency. The

Pennsylvania pound declined slightly in value during the pre-Revolutionary

period. In 1683 h 100.0.0 in British sterling cost £ 133.0,0 Pennsyl­

vania currency; the rate of exchange remained steady at £ 133 .0 .0

through 1720-1722, but rose after Pennsylvania issued its first paper

currency in 1723. in 1727-1729» E 100e0.0 British sterling cost

£ 150.0.0, and by 1750 the rate of exchange had risen to h 171.0.0.

By 1775 it dropped slightly to £ 166.0.0. In comparison, the rate of

exchange on Massachusetts and Connecticut currencies in 174*9 was

h 1100,0.0 for £ 100.0.0 British sterling. The metallic content of the

British pound remained relatively stable during the period 1700-1775, so

that an estate appraised at £ 133.0.0 Pennsylvania currency in 1700

would equal, in terms of real worth, an estate valued at £ 171.0 .0 in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

1750.15

The occurrence of bed coverings remained generally constant

among estates worth E 100.0 .0 or more, averaging near 92.00 percent of

the inventories. Estates valued at less than £ 100.0.0 showed a some­

what lower percentage of bed coverings (80.48 percent), suggesting that

these individuals were more likely to be boarders or transients rather

than self-sufficient householders. Bedsteads rose in frequency from

42.68 percent of all estates valued under £ 100.0 .0 to 53.66 percent of

the estates valued between £ 100.0 .0 and £ 1000,0 .0 and 68.00 percent

of all estates valued over £ 1000.0.0. Although bed hangings occurred

in less than one-tenth (8.57 percent) of the estates valued under

£ 50.0.0, they rose steadily in frequency as estate value rose. At the

top of the economic scale, almost three-fourths (74.29 percent) of all

estates worth more than £ 1000.0 .0 possessed bed hangings.

Similarly, table coverings increased with estate valuation.

Possession of table coverings jumped from a low 14.29 percent among

estates worth less than £ 50.0 .0 to over one-third (38.58 percent) of

all estates valued between £ 50.0.0 and £ 200.0.0. The percentage of

households with table coverings remained steady between 41.82 percent

and 45.83 percent for estates valued between £ 200.0 .0 and £ 2000.0.0,

then climbed sharply to 78.57 percent among the very wealthy whose

estates exceeded £ 2000.0.0.

Estates with valuations over £ 1000.0.0 dominated use of seating

furniture coverings; they possessed at least one-half of the recorded

occurrences of leather and textile covered furniture. Upholstery of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

some type appeared in 51.43 percent of these wealthy estates, compared

with 19.39 percent among estates with valuations under E 1000,0.0. Of

the thirty-five estates valued over £ 1000.0.0 , 45.71 percent possessed

fiber "bottomed chairs; 37.14 percent, leather upholstery; and 11.43 per­

cent, textile upholstery. In contrast, only 16.03 percent of the estates

under £ 1000.0 .0 possessed fiber bottomed chairs; 4.88 percent, leather

upholstery; and only 1.39 percent, textile upholstery. Cushions,

curiously, did not occur in any of the estates valued over £ 1000.0 .0,

but were most frequent among estates valued at £ 600.0.0-£ 1000.0.0,

where they appeared in 16.67 percent of the inventories.

Window coverings did not occur in any estates valued below

£ 50.0.0, and they remained rare among estates valued between £ 50.0 .0

and £ 600.0.0, where they appeared in only 6.14 percent of the inven­

tories. Among wealthier households, their frequency increased rapidly

to 26.67 percent of the estates valued at £ 600.0.0-£ 2000.0 .0 and

50.00 percent of the estates valued at over £ 2000.0.0. Even among the

wealthiest estates, however, only one-half of the inventories listed

window coverings.

Floor coverings occurred only in estates valued at over

£ 200.0 .0 and then only rarely, never exceeding 10.00 percent of the

inventories valued under £ 2000.0.0. less than one-fifth (17.14 per­

cent) of the wealthy estates, valued at over £ 1000.0.0,recorded

floor coverings.

Analysis of fabric furnishing use according to total estate

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

valuation indicates an increasing percentage of these goods among the

upper economic classes. It also shows newer forms of fabric furnish­

ings— primarily window and floor coverings and textile upholstery-

emerging first among the wealthy classes while older types— bed hangings,

table coverings and fiber or leather chair coverings— were still spread­

ing to lower economic groups.

Household valuation

While suggesting these general trends, analysis according to

total estate valuation tends to ignore the crucial factor of personal

taste. Although elusive to historians, this factor strongly influenced

interior furnishings in colonial Philadelphia, Some individuals chose

to invest substantial portions of their estates in non-productive

household goods; others chose, or were required by their particular

occupations, to invest more heavily in capital goods (farm implements,

sailing vessels, shop goods, craft tools), real estate, cash, or notes

and bonds. Consequently, a middling craftsman might have as many house­

hold goods as a large landowner. For this reason, the value of house­

hold goods (including all usual domestic appurtenances, apparel, and

unspecialized tools bat not including cash, shop goods, farm implements,

or specialized craft tools) provides a more accurate index to trends in

the use of fabric furnishings (see Table 4).

The occurrence of bedding remained constant above 95.00 percent

for all estates with household goods worth more than £ 20,0.0. The

slightl y lower figure of 87.76 percent among households under i> 20.0 .0

suggests that the lowest group again included slightly more non-self­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

sufficient householders (hoarders or transients). The percentage of

"bedsteads rose steadily from **2.7 3 percent among households worth less

than £ **0,0 .0 (approximately the median investment in household goods)

to 7^.**3 percent among households worth over £ 80,0.0. The frequency of

"bed hangings increased similarly, from 6 .1 2 percent among the poorest

households (worth less than £ 20.0.0) to 80.60 percent among those

worth over £ 80.0,0.' Table coverings exhibited the same trends, rising

steadily from 16.33 percent of the lowest group to 92.31 percent of the

wealthiest households worth over £ 200.0 .0.

Upholstery also rose in frequency as investment in household

goods increased. Almost all (92.31 percent) of the households worth

over £ 200.0 .0 included some type of upholstery, compared with only

6,12 percent of the poorest households worth less than £ 20.0.0. Fur­

thermore, no upholstery appeared in the inventories of the latter

group until 1750» and then was limited solely to fiber bottomed chairs.

The frequency of upholstery increased steadily for households valued

between £ 20.0 .0 and £ 200.0,0 , and the occurrence of fiber bottomed

chairs consistently outnumbered those furnished with cushions or

leather or textile upholstery. Textile covered chairs did not appear

in any inventories of households valued under £ 80.0.0, and then only

rarely. Even among households valued at over £ 120.0.0, only 17.65

percent of the inventories mentioned textile covered chairs.

Window curtains appeared in all ranges of household valuation

but were much more common among wealthier domiciles. Less than 2.00

percent of all households valued under £ **0.0 .0 possessed window hang-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

ings, while 84.62 percent of the households worth & 200.0 .0 or more were

so equipped. Floor coverings, the latest innovation in fabric furnish­

ings to he introduced into eighteenth century Philadelphia, appeared in

only one household worth less than 6 120.0.0. In contrast, 23.53 per­

cent of the households valued over this figure possessed either floor­

cloths or carpets.

Geographic Patterns of Use

Although closely and directly related, economic standing was not

the sole determinant for the possession of fabric furnishings. A com­

parison of urban estates (those of individuals residing within the city

of Philadelphia) with rural ones (those of individuals residing outside

the city itself) demonstrates the influence of geographic residence on

material possessions (see Table 5). While the percentage of estates

recording bedding remained roughly equivalent for both groups, bed­

steads and bed hangings appeared much more frequently among urban house­

holds. While 62.50 percent of the Philadelphia inventories listed bed­

steads, only 46.50 percent of the rural households were similarly

equipped. Over twice as many urban householders (4-7.32 percent) pos­

sessed bed hangings as did their rural counterparts (23.00 percent).

Table coverings also appeared almost twice as often in Phila­

delphia homes (5^.25 percent) as in outlying areas (30.00 percent),

while upholstery was over three times as prevalent in the city. Almost

one-half of the urban inventories (45.54 percent) recorded some type of

seat covering; 40.18 percent of them had fiber bottomed chairs; 19.64

percent had leather chairs; and under 10.00 percent possessed cushions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

or textile upholstery. Outside the city, only 13.00 percent of all

inventories included any sort of seat covering; 9.0 0 percent had fiber

bottomed chairs and a mere 2.5 0 percent possessed leather chairs or

cushions.

While "bed coverings, table coverings, and the less elaborate

types of upholstery appeared in both rural and urban inventories, the

newer, finer, or more expensive types of fabric furnishings— textile

upholstery, window hangings, floor coverings— were confined almost

exclusively to urban homes. A total of 200 rural inventories contained

no references to either textile covered chairs or floor coverings. Only

two rural inventories (1.00 percent) listed window hangings. In con­

trast, 7.14 percent of the 112 urban inventories included textile

covered chairs; 8.04 percent mentioned floor coverings; and over one-

fourth (26.79 percent) had window hangings.

This data suggests that rural householders possessed a smaller

variety of fabric furnishings, concentrated in the most utilitarian and

elemental types— bedding and table coverings. They invested less

readily in the more evolved types of fabric furnishings whose functions

related less closely to daily living routines. The additional physical

comforts, aesthetic effects, and indications of status provided by bed

hangings, upholstery, window curtains, and floor coverings apparently

appealed less to rural householders than to city dwellers. Presumably,

different status symbols— possession of land or livestock rather than

fine household furnishings— operated in the countryside. In support of

this hypothesis, rural appraisers generally described livestock more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

carefully than household goods.

Within the city, however, a higher population density made

interior furnishings more visible and heightened their importance as

status symbols. Conversely, urban conditions discouraged the accumu­

lation of large holdings of land and livestock. Urban appraisers

generally recorded household goods in greater detail than their rural

counterparts, indicating that these goods were relatively more important

in the city than in the country. Increased social intercourse and busi­

ness contacts drew visitors and strangers inside homes far more often in

Philadelphia than in the smaller outlying settlements or on isolated

rural plantations. Philadelphians also had faster contact and easier

access to fine imported fabrics and finished goods, skilled upholster­

ers, and the latest European styles. These factors combined to hasten

the spread of fine fabric furnishings within the city itself.

Window curtains provide an instructive example of the style and

status bearing role of fabric furnishings. Within the city, their pre­

sence at windows, apparent to both visitors within and strangers with­

out, represented a highly visible sign of their owners* good taste and

economic well-being. In rural areas, where houses were scattered rather

than packed tightly along a street, and traffic along the'roads was

considerably less, window curtains were correspondingly less successful

in proclaiming style and status. The need for privacy was also much

less in the country than in the city.

Interestingly, both examples of window curtains found in rural

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

homes occurred early in the century, in 1?01 and 1702, when the concept

of window coverings was still quite new and quite stylish. Both

examples occurred in the homes of very wealthy widows, one at Essex

House, in Chester, Chester County; the other in New Castle Town,

New Castle County.^ No further examples of window curtains appeared

in rural inventories during the remainder of the colonial period.

Nargaret B. Schiffer's study of Chester County. Pennsylvania. Inven­

tories. 1684-1850, also reports a very low incidence of window curtains

in rural homes during the colonial period. These goods appeared with

greatest frequency (6.4-1 percent) in Chester County inventories during

the first decade of the eighteenth century, then dropped to less than 17 1,00 percent. This data, although fragmentary, suggests that at the

opening of the eighteenth century Philadelphia had not yet established

itself as the style center of the Delaware Valley, but was still rivaled 18 by older, established settlements at New Castle and Chester. In these

early years, wealthy residents of these outlying towns, as well as 19 Burlington, West Jersey, and perhaps other settlements,matched

Philadelphians in the possession of fine fabric furnishings as they did

not do during the remainder of the colonial period.

Occupational Patterns of Use

In addition to economic position and place of residence, a

householder’s occupation also influenced his use of fabric furnishings

(see Table 6). The occupations listed by Philadelphians during the

period studied fell into ten main categories, arranged in order of fre­

quency: yeomen, craftsmen (carpenters, smiths, cordwainers, turners,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24*

joiners, coopers, tailors, saddlers), widows and spinsters, tradesmen

(shopkeepers, innkeepers, millers, takers, "butchers, "brewers, tanners),

merchants, mariners, husbandmen, gentlemen, laborers, and professionals

(doctors, lawyers). The last six groups, however, were too small to

allow firm statistical comparisons or conclusions.

Merchants, not surprisingly, possessed large assemblages of

fabric furnishings. Well over one-half of their inventories included

fully hung beds, table coverings, upholstery, and window hangings, while

one-fourth of them listed floor coverings. The twenty-three tradesmen’s

inventories closely rivaled those of the merchants in the possession of

most types of fabric furnishings. Although 95.65 percent of the trades­

men owned bedding and 69.57 percent had bedsteads as well, only 4*3.48

percent of them possessed fully hung beds (compared to 66.67 percent of

the merchants). Ownership of table coverings and upholstery remained

roughly equivalent between the merchants and the tradesmen, while window

hangings and floor coverings were slightly less common among the latter

group. Somewhat more than one-third (39.13 percent) of the tradesmen

possessed window curtains, while only 8.70 percent owned floor coverings

(compared to 62.50 percent and 25.00 percent, respectively, among the

merchants).

Compared to the holdings of merchants and tradesmen, possession

of fabric furnishings dropped substantially among craftsmen and even

further among yeomen (primarily a rural class). Slightly less than

one-half (48.57 percent) and one-fourth (24*. 29 percent) of the craftsmen

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

owned 'bedsteads and "bed hangings, respectively, although 87.14 percent

owned "bed coverings of some sort. About one-third(35.71 percent) of

the craftsmen* s Inventories included table coverings while approximately

one-fourth (25.71 percent) listed coverings for seating furniture. Most

of the latter references were to fiber bottomed chairs, which appeared

in 21.43 percent of the craftsmen's inventories. None of the crafts­

men's estates recorded textile covered chairs, and only a few (4,29

percent) listed cushions or leather upholstery. Similarly, very few

craftsmen's inventories contained window curtains (4.29 percent) or

flo

The group of yeomen's inventories presents an even sharper con­

trast to the holdings of the merchants and tradesmen. Ken who consid­

ered themselves yeomen were generally rural landowners who personally 20 resided on and worked their own property. As a group, they possessed

a very limited variety of fabric furnishings. Almost all yeoman inven­

tories (93.67 percent) included bed coverings of some sort, but less

than one-half (48.10 percent) listed bedsteads, and only 25.32 percent

included bed hangings. Thble coverings were hardly more common than

bed hangings, appearing in 29.11 percent of the yeoman households.

Only 11.39 percent of the yeomen possessed any type of seat coverings,

and these possessions were limited exclusively to fiber and leather

bottomed chairs. None of the yeoman inventories included cushions,

tactile covered chairs, window curtains, or floor coverings.

In comparison to the land-owning yeomen, landless farmers, 21 designated by the term husbandmen, possessed even fewer fabric fur­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nishings. Of the small group of husbandmen*s estates located, all six

inventories included bedding, but only three possessed bedsteads. Two

husbandmen owned table coverings, but no bed hangings, upholstery,

window or floor coverings appeared in these inventories. Similarly, a

small group of four laborers* inventories suggests that these generally 22 unskilled workmen commonly possessed bedding and sometimes owned bed­

steads and table coverings as well, but did not invest in any of the

more evolved types of fabric furnishings.

The estates of widows and spinsters comprised a sizeable group

V ___ of thirty-six inventories. These estates generally posssesed a substan­

tial amount and variety of fabric furnishings— more than the estates of

yeomen and craftsmen but less than those of tradesmen. Since the social

and economic position of these women depended almost exclusively upon

the wealth or status accumulated by, and inherited from, their husbands

or fathers— whose occupations were seldom specified— it is difficult to

make sound generalizations about the fabric furnishings owned by widows

and spinsters. The practice of making wills, among women, seems to have

been limited primarily to quite wealthy women or widows with young chil­

dren for whom to provide. The generally prosperous economic level of

the former group may account for the relatively high percentages of fab­

ric furnishings in the inventories of widows and spinsters. Alterna­

tively, since women were less likely to hold land or other major invest­

ments, household goods often constituted a large proportion of their

total estates. Recognizing this, perhaps appraisers were more careful in

recording household furnishings in women's estates than in men's, in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

which they often devoted considerable attention to livestock, farm

implements or trade tools, land, and hills or notes due.

Comparison of inventory listings according to time period,

economic valuation, geographic residence, and occupation has illuminated

numerous trends in the use of fabric furnishings in colonial Phila­

delphia homes. Further research and analysis of the data according to

religious or ethnic backgrounds would no doubt produce additional in­

sights. Comparison of patterns among the three major nationalities

settling in early Philadelphia— English, Welsh, and German— would be

most informative, as would a comparison of Anglican and Quaker house­

holds. It might also be fruitful to correlate fabric furnishing use

with family size.

Economic Significance of Fabric Furnishings

In addition to their physical function and psychological mean­

ing, fabric furnishings constituted a significant economic investment

for many householders. Thbles 7 and 8 provide an index of the value of

household textiles in relation to total household and total estate

valuations. (The figures for the value of household textiles include

the worth of utility textiles, surplus textiles, and textile raw

materials as well as bed, table, seating furniture, window, and floor

coverings. They do not include the value of apparel). Although house­

hold values varied from a low of L 3 .1 6 .0 in 1725-1727 to a high of

£ 500.12.1-3 A in 1750-1751» the median investment in household furnish­

ings remained remarkably constant, ranging from a low of L kZ, 0.0 in

1700-170h to a high of £ 45.0.0 in 1725-1727. These slight variations

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

may reflect fluctuations in the relative value of Pennsylvania cur­

rency, The median household investment represented about one-fifth of

the median total estate value; throughout the period, the worth of

household furnishings in relationship to total estate value remained

fairly stable, ranging from a low median investment of 18,20 percent of

the estate in 1?25-172? to a high of 21.53 percent in 1700-1704.

The value of fabric furnishings per household declined slightly

during the period studied, from a high median investment of h 17.10,0

in 1700-1704 to a low of slightly over 5 12.0.0 in 1750-1751 and 1775.

The concurrent depreciation of Pennsylvania's currency suggests that

real investment in fabric furnishings declined slightly more than these

figures indicate. This decline, coupled with a slight increase in the

occurrence of fabric furnishings, suggests that, despite the depreci­

ation of the colonial pound, the real cost of fabric furnishings de­

creased during the period 1700-1775. Such a diminution in prices would

have hastened the slow tut steady drift of fabric furnishings into lower

social and economic echelons; it would also have allowed householders to

purchase a larger variety of other furnishings and domestic equipment

without diminishing their enjoyment of fabric furnishings. A steady

decline in the value of fabric furnishings in relation to total house­

hold investment reflected the increasing ability of householders to in­

vest in other household goods. Prom a high of 42.08 percent in 1700-

1704, the median investment in fabric furnishings in relation to all

household goods declined to only 27.42 percent in 1775. During the

same period, the value of fabric furnishings in relation to total

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

estate holdings also declined from a median Investment of 8.71 percent

in 1700-170*l> to a median of 5.72 percent in 1775. Yet the decline in

hoth the absolute and relative values of fabric furnishings during the

first three-quarters of the eighteenth century did not indicate a de­

cline in the use of these goods; the occurrence of fabric furnishings

in Philadelphia homes remained steady or slightly increasing during the

same period.

Students of colonial culture have commonly assumed that wrought

silver constituted an important focus for the investments of prosperous

colonists:

It had long been the custom for men of wealth to turn their coins into silver plate, which was not only an elegant reminder of one’s station in life but was also useful and identifiable in case of loss or theft. 23

While not challenging the obvious fact that many settlers did indeed

invest in plate, an analysis of Philadelphia inventories suggests that

fabric furnishings constituted a far more important area of household

investment. While 301 of the 32^ inventories studied (92.90 percent)

included household textiles, only 60 (18.52 percent) listed items of

silver. The percentages of total estate and household worth invested in

plate generally ranged substantially below the corresponding figures

for fabric furnishings (see Table 8), In only seven cased did the in- o Il vestment in silver exceed the value of fabric furnishings.

Fabric furnishings possessed all of the attributes commonly

cited as reasons for investing in silver, They were functional, style

bearing, and visible symbols of prosperity. In fact, fabric furnish-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

ings reflected a far more cosmopolitan standard of living than did

wrought silver, for while silver could he worked in the colonies, fine

furnishing fabrics had to he imported. In addition, a fully hrmg bed

was not only more valuable than most pieces of silver, it was also

more noticeable and more difficult to steal, A fully hung bed was

quite often the most valuable single item in a household. Eighteenth

century householders were well aware of their substantial economic in­

vestments in fabric furnishings and frequently bequeathed these items—

especially beds— to the next generation. Thus, while silver undoubtedly

served as an investment for some colonists, fabric furnishings consti­

tuted a far more common and almost always more substantial household

investment. Both silver plate and fabric furnishings were essentially

luxuries in that life did not depend on their presence, but fabric fur­

nishings related far more closely to the essential activities of living

than did silver. Ceramic, glass, wooden or pewter drinking vessels

could easily replace silver ones, but there were no substitutes for

comfortable beds.

A few minor points remain to be considered in relation to the

overall patterns of use of fabric furnishings in colonial Philadelphia.

Bie inventory records make clear that some householders owned surpluses

of fabric furnishings— especially bed and table linens— possessing many

more sheets, blankets, tablecloths, or napkins that would seemingly be

necessary to answer daily family needs. Did these surpluses represent

simply an economic investment, or did they mark an especially ostenta­

tious display of wealth and status? Did large surpluses serve practical

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

functions "by providing for the extra needs of house guests, or by

constituting a supply sufficient to last between infrequent washings?

Barbara and Cary Carson have called the provision of bed linen in

quantities a "most significant improvement in sleeping equipment"

because

owning large numbers of sheets meant more than consuming expensive fabrics conspicuously or protecting oneself from scratchy blankets and coarse mattress covers. Extra linen meant changes of clean sheets even when rain and cold delayed laundering for weeks. Fresh bedding could slow the spread of contagious skin diseases and may also have helped to keep bed bugs at bay,^5

Perhaps, by allowing increased cleanliness, the possession of surplus

table coverings also narked a significant improvement in living stan­

dards.

The arrangement of entries for many fabric furnishings—

especially bed, table, and window coverings— suggests that these items

were kept in storage rather than in current use. These items often

appeared as a series of consecutive entries listed in close conjunction

to a box, trunk, or chest in which they were apparently stored. Surplus

fabric furnishings appeared most frequently in the best chamber or its

equivalent. Tablecloths were almost always listed in conjunction with

other household linens rather than with tables; this phenomenon raises

the question of how frequently they were actually used. Perhaps their

functional value— expressed by actual use— was less important than their

symbolic value as status indicators— which could be expressed as well in

storage as in use. Perhaps, then as now, the labor involved in main­

taining table linens limited their use to special occasions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

Unfortunately, the inventories alone do not provide sufficient

evidence to answer the questions posed by the possession of surplus

textiles. They merely indicate that numerous households possessed fab­

ric furnishings that were apparently stored rather than used. The

inventories also do not sufficiently illuminate the question of seasonal

changes of fabric furnishings. Some inventories do imply that light­

weight bed curtains of muslin, chintz or calico, which were apparently

in storage at the time of the appraisal, were intended as summer replace­

ments for heavier hangings then on the beds. However, since the curtains

in storage were more likely to be specifically described them those in

use— the latter were often recorded by a collective phrase as "bed and

furniture"— the evidence on this point is inconclusive. The inventories

also do not indicate the extent to which colonial Philadelphians

attained the ideal of matching fabrics throughout a room. Occasional

references to coordinated bed and window hangings and, more rarely,

matching upholstery, bed and window hangings, suggest that some Americans

did indeed aspire to the ideal. Its realization seems to have been

more the exception than the rule, however, for relatively few colonial

Philadelphia households possessed all the components of a well matched

room. Finally, the inventories alone do not reveal the sources from

which Philadelphia householders procured their fabric furnishings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER I

^Siegfried Giedion, Mechanization Takes Command, A Contribution to Anonymous History, The Norton Library (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.,1969), p. 301. 9 Florence M. Montgomery, Printed Textiles: English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700-1850, A Winterthur Book (New York * Viking Press, 1970), pp. 4-7-8.

■^Giedion, Mechanization, pp. 299-304.

^Ibid., p. 258.

^Mary Eden and Richard Carrington, The Philosophy of the Bed (New York: G.P.Putnam*s Sons, 1961); also Lawrence Wright, Warm and Snug: The History of the Bed (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., T9&T. Thomas Dyche and William Pardon, A New General English Diction­ ary, 12th ed. (London: Catherine and Richard Ware, 1765). 7 Mario Praz, An Illustrated History of Furnishing from the Renaissance to the 20th Century, trans. William Weaver (New York: George Braziller, 1964), pp. 78-147 passim; Giedion, Mechanization, fig. 144, p. 270.

®Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

^Giedion, Mechanization, pp. 299-304-.

^ T h e Golden Age of English Furniture Upholstery. 1660-1840, with Introduction "by Karin-M. Walton (Leeds, England: Temple Newsam House, 1973), PP. v-vi, xvii-xvili. Hereafter cited as English Furniture Upholstery.

^■Barhara Carson and Cary Carson, "Styles and Standards of Living in Southern Maryland, 1670-1752," paper read at Southern Historical Association meeting, November 12, 1976, p. 4. 12 Anna Brightman used the same criteria for identifying window curtains in colonial Massachusetts inventories; see Anna Brightman, "Fabrics and Styles of Colonial Window Hangings as Revealed through Boston and Salem, Massachusetts, Records, 1700-1760" (Ph.D. dissertation,

33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3^

Florida State University, 1963? Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Micro­ films, Inc., n.d.), pp. 11-2. Hereafter cited as Brightaan, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings." 13 Rodris Roth, Floor Coverings in 18th-Century America. United States National Museum Bulletin 250, Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology, Paper 59 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 19^7),p. 4; also Nina Fletcher little, Floor Coverings in New England 3efore 1850, Old Sturbridge Village Booklet Series, ed. Catherine Fennelly (Sturbridge, Mass.: Old Sturbridge, Inc., 1967). pp. 3-1*. 1^ Unless otherwise noted, all valuations are in Pennsylvania currency.

^ F o r expanded information on the relative value of Pennsylvania currency during the colonial period, see Charles J. Bullock, Essays on the Monetary History of the United States, Hie Citizens library (New York: Hie Macmillan Company, 1900), pp. 17-23, 39; Charles J. Bullock, Introduction and Notes to A Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America, &c., by jfllUam nnngriagg (TVmdon. Y, Cooper, 1739; reprint ed., American Economic Association, Economic Studies 2 (October 1S97): 300-ln, 31^-5n; Henry Phillips, Historical Sketches of the Paper Currency of the American Colonies, 2 vols., Woodward's Historical Series 5 (Roxbury, Mass.: W. Elliot Woodward, I865), 1:11-36; and Anne Bezanson, Robert D. Gray, and Miriam Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania, Industrial Research Department, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, Research Studies 26 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1935), PP. 7, 31*ta, 432 (Table 18).

l6W-5^, 1701; W-98, 1702. 17 Margaret B. Schiffer, Chester County. Pennsylvania. Inven­ tories, 168^-1850 (Exton, Pa.: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 1 9 W , pp. 88-9. T Q The towns of New Castle and Chester (previously known as Upland) both dated to the period of Swedish colonization of the Delaware River Valley, 1638-1655. For further information on these pre-William Penn settlements, see Jeanette Eckman, Delaware, A Guide to the First State, ed. Henry G. Alsberg, American Guide Series, rev. ed. (New York: Hastings House Publishers, Inc., 1955), PP. 25-30; also Henry Graham Ashmead, History of Delaware County. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: L.H. Everts & Co., 1884; reprint ed., Chester, Fa.: John Spencer, Inc. for Concord Township Historical Society, 1968), pp. 8, 13-5.

^ A t their deaths in 1?00 and 1701, respectively, Burlington residents John Tatham, Gentleman, and his wife, Elizabeth, owned a man­ sion and household goods notable for their richness, abundance, and variety. For their inventories, see Biomas C. Middleton, "John and Elizabeth Hitham of Burlington, New Jersey, 1681-1700," Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 6 (1895)• 65-135.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

Of) Peter J. Laslett, The World We Have Lost: England Before the Industrial Age, 2nd ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971)» p. ^5. 21Ibid.

22Ibid., p. *7.

2^Kartha Gandy Fales, Early American Silver, rev. ed., A Dutton Paperback (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973)» pp. 3-*K •

2V- 51, 1727: W-178, 1750; W-182, 1750; V-238, 1750; W-253. 1751; w-106, 1775: w-157, 1775.

2^Carson and Carson, "Standards of Living," p . 17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II

PROCUREMENT AM? CARE OF FABRIC FURNISHINGS

Fabric furnishings represented to the American colonists one of

the highest material attainments of the urbane, sophisticated, and cos­

mopolitan centers of European culture. Fine furniture and wrought sil­

ver. emerged from colonial workshops; American-made glass, ceramics, iron,

and occasionally other metal wares appeared prior to the Revolutions

painters and printmakers practiced their arts in the colonies. Fine

furnishing fabrics— silks, worsteds, and most cottons and linens—

however, were almost exclusively the products of European textile

industries, not American handicrafts.^

Sources of Dry Goods

Historians and museums of early American life have often

painted cosy, sentimental images of colonial housewives kept busy

spinning and weaving cloth for sneets, blankets, coverlets, curtains,

tablecloths, and upholstery— or bent over quilting frames sewing bed

covers. Recently, the catalog of a major exhibition on the activities

of early American women has helped to perpetuate these images. In

Remember the Ladies. Women in America, 1750-1815* Linda G. DePauw writes:

In addition to preparing food, colonial women were responsible for manufacturing a variety of items needed in the home, such as candles and soap. . . . Hie most important items manufactured by women, however, were

36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37

clothing and bedcoverings. Spinning, weaving, sewing, knitting, and quilting were constant occupations for the white colonists.

Continuing:

The need of white Americans for clothing, both for modesty and warmth, made great demands on women in the pre-industrial age when ready-made fabrics were too ex­ pensive for ordinary people to afford. Although both boys and girls were taught the rudiments of sewing and mending and some men worked as professional weavers to prepare cloth from yarn spun by women in their homes, women in rural areas usually had to manufacture their families* clothing without assistance. This was a time-consuming, never-ending task. 2

The Philadelphia County inventories studied, however, suggest

that a radically different situation prevailed in the colonial city and

its environs. Of the four major sources of textiles— household produc­

tion; production by individual, professional craftsmen within the

colony; production by large-scale colonial manufactories; and importa­

tion from foreign sources— the last named source provided the majority

of fabric furnishings used in Philadelphia.

Domestic production

Domestic or household production has been vastly overrated as a

source of colonial household textiles. Although some curators and popu­

lar authors have emphasized crude, quaint homemade fabrics as evidence

of early American crafts, most discerning colonists would certainly

have preferred the fine linens and woolens produced by well developed

European textile industries. Grace Rogers Cooper comments on this mis­

conception:

We like to think of the early settlers in America as being ruggedly independent and self-sufficient. Many times our ideas of life in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

turies seem to stem from our image of frontier life, where from necessity the family might produce »~n or most of their household goods. But, in the coastal ports, the cities, and even the small villages, professional special­ isation became a reality very early. Not only were ser­ vices performed by skilled artisans but also when better goods could be imported, they were. 3

The Philadelphia County probate records demonstrate convin­

cingly that the majority of colonial households in that area did not

engage in any stage of domestic textile production (see Table 9). Of

the 324 inventories studied, less than half (45.99 percent) contained

references to either the tools (primarily spinning wheels for wool or

flax, reels, wool cards or combs, flax hackles) or the raw materials

(mainly wool, flax, tow, wool or linen yam, worsted) used in textile

production. More homes possessed tools (38.89 percent) than owned raw

materials (23.*+6 percent), possibly due to seasonal variations in the

availability of raw materials. Possession of tools for textile produc­

tion was least common in the early years of the eighteenth century; in

1?00-1?04, only 26.25 percent of the inventories included such tools,

compared with over 40.00 percent for the remainder of the colonial

period. Ownership of raw materials was also low in 1700-1704, when

20.00 percent of the inventories listed textile raw materials; this

figure rose slightly to 28.05 percent in 1725-1727 and 29.27 percent in

1750-1751* then declined again to less than 20.00 percent in 1775. These

figures suggest that the earliest settlers were, in general, less self-

sufficient in textile production than were their immediate descendants.

A letter written at the beginning of the eighteenth century to prospec­

tive settlers in England urged them to bring with them to Pennsylvania

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 9

"stores of good cloth and good sarge and "bedding of all sorts," imply­

ing that textiles were not yet readily available in the colony.**

Analysis of the data "by economic level indicates that pros­

perous, bat not extremely wealthy, households participated most often

in domestic textile production (see Table 10). Poorer and richer house­

holds owned tools and raw materials for textile production much less

frequently than those in the middle range. Of the estates valued under

£ 200.0.0, 37.66 percent owned textile tools or raw materials, compared

with a frequency of 57.89 percent among estates valued between

£ 200,0.0 and £ 1000.0.0. Among very wealthy estates, worth over

£ 1000.0.0, textile tools or raw materials appeared in only 31.^3 per­

cent of the inventories. According to this data, the households most

likely to be equipped for domestic textile production were those of the

middle economic range— most of idiom could surely have afforded to buy

finished fabrics. Perhaps a modicum of economic prosperity encouraged

textile production by freeing leisure time from the elemental round of

duties necessary for subsistence among the poorer classes. Among the

poorest households, whose total estates amounted to less than £ 50.0.0,

textile tools. and raw materials appeared in less than one-third (31. ^3

percent) of the inventories. The very wealthy, in contrast, probably

channeled their leisure time into pursuits more elegant than spinning—

embroidery, canvaswork, music, reading.

Ownership of the means of production shows similar trends when

compared to household value instead of total estate worth (see Table U).

Textile tools and raw materials appeared most commonly among fairly sub­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

stantial households worth £ 40.0.0-h 80.0.0, occurring In 60.56 percent

of the inventories for this group. Among the poorest households,

valued at less than £ 20.0 .0, only 28.57 percent possessed the mpans of

textile production. Very wealthy, sophisticated households possessed

textile tools and raw materials even less frequently; only 15.38 per­

cent of the inventories for households w«vth over £ 200.0 .0 included

spinning wheels or reels, wool or flax.

The popular theory does hold true in claiming that domestic

textile production was more common in rural settlements than in urban

communities (see Table 12). Households outside Philadelphia possessed

tools and raw materials over twice as frequently (58.50 percent) as did

city households (25.00 percent), suggesting that easy access to imported

textiles in the port city decreased the need for domestic production.

Only 6.25 percent of the city households possessed textile raw materials,

compared to 34.50 percent of the rural households. Many rural yeomen no

doubt obtained wool and flax fibers from sheep and flax they raised them­

selves; their easy access to the source of supply made home textile pro­

duction more logical than for city dwellers, who could have purchased

finished goods as easily as raw materials, and thereby have saved them­

selves considerable labor.

Occupational backgrounds also directly influenced involvement in

domestic textile production (see Table 13). Yeomen possessed the highest

frequency (63.29 percent) of textile tools and raw materials. Widows

and spinsters ranked second, with 58.33 percent ownership of the means of

textile production. Spinning wheels, reels, cards, and fibers appeared

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in only 38.57 percent of the craftsmen’s inventories and in but 26.09

percent of the tradesmen’s estates. Significantly, none of the mer­

chants' estates listed either textile tools or raw materials.

The inventories of Philadelphia County indicate that the house­

holds of moderately prosperous, rural yeomen were most likely to be

equipped for domestic textile production. This group possessed a very

limited range of fabric furnishings. The prosperous urban merchants

and tradesmen, who possessed the widest range of fabric furnishings,

were least often equipped to produce textiles domestically. In short,

the possession of fine fabric furnishings emphatically did not coincide

with the possession of the means of textile production; this phenomenon

strongly suggests that relatively few fabric furnishings were homemade.

The complexity of textile production has engendered considerable

confusion in discussions of domestic textile manufacture. A long and

complicated process involving numerous distinct steps, textile production

begins with the cultivation of the natural sources of fibers— mainly

cotton and flax plants, sheep, silk worms. Next, the raw plant and

animal fibers must be cleaned and treated to make them useable. The

processed fibers must then be spun into yarns or threads, which are

woven into cloth on a loom. Finally, the woven cloth must be given a

finishing treatment. Even when colonial households engaged in textile

production, they rarely attempted the final two stages of the process—

weaving and finishing. Recent research on Pennsylvania German textiles

has found that:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. kz

To date no primary source has come to light in the German areas of Pennsylvania which would prove that any­ one other than professional weavers produced homespun fabric. With the exception of tape production, non­ professional weaving was just not part of Pennsylvania German culture,5

Currently available data suggests that amateur weaving was not of any

culture in colonial Pennsylvania.

Professional craftsmen

Weaving was a skilled craft as much as silver smithing or cabinet-

making; like other billed crafts, it required a substantial period of

apprenticeship to learn the mysteries of the trade.^ To claim that the

ordinary housewife who spun thread also wove fine bed and table linens

is as illogical as to claim that the ordinary yeoman who chopped wood 7 also made fine cabinetry. Like fine cabinetry, weaving also required

specialized equipment, for although plain woven fabrics could be pro­

duced on simple two or four harness looms, most patterned weaves required

more complex looms as well as skilled weavers.

Full-sized weaving looms appeared only rarely in colonial

Philadelphia County inventories. Although 126 of the inventories (38.89

percent) included equipment for processing and spinning natural fibers,

only 8 households (2.^7 percent of the total inventories) possessed Q looms. Since these looms represented fairly sizable investments—

averaging about L 3.15.0 each— it seems unlikely that the appraisers

would have omitted a large number of existing looms. The data avail­

able for colonial Pennsylvania clearly contradicts claims like that made

by Carleton L. Safford and Robert Bishop in their popular work on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

America’s Quilts and Coverlets: "Almost every family possessed a »na.n

four-harness loom (as well as coverlet patterns or ’drafts'), either

trought from Europe or fashioned in America of hand-hewn logs."'

In addition to the full-sized looms, at least two other Phila­

delphia County households possessed small, probably table-sized, looms

for making fringe or tape.^0 Although these small looms were relatively

inexpensive (the fringe loom was valued at only 4s.), both appeared in

estates valued at almost L 300 .0.0 , suggesting that tape and fringe-

making required a modicum of leisure time. One other specialized type

of loom appeared in two Philadelphia County inventories of the 1750-1751

period: the stocking loom or stocking-weaver.^ This device is de­

scribed in R. Campbell's London Tradesman of 1747 as a "late Invention"

designed to weave stockings much more quickly and economically than they 12 could be knit by hand.

The eight men who owned full-sized looms were probably a.11 pro­

fessional weavers. Five of them specifically called themselves weavers*

two others used the title yeoman* and the last did not state his

occupation. The use of the title yeoman does not eliminate the possi­

bility that those two men were also weavers by trade. As Peter J.

Iaslett has pointed out, the term yeoman was a status title as well as

an occupational description, and "there was a yeoman status even in the 13 companies of craftsmen in the cities." Like many rural Pennsylvania 14 weavers, the two individuals in question owned farm land; they were

thus entitled to call themselves either yeomen or weavers. In other

cases, men occasionally chose to call themselves by the status title

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. yeoman while their contemporaries referred to them hy an occupational

Most weaving done in colonial Pennsylvania was accomplished hy

skilled, professional, male weavers— not hy amateur housewives.

Significantly, no looms appeared in the inventories of widows and spin­

sters, although these groups possessed a high frequency of textile raw

materials and spinning equipment. In 1?25, David Jones, yeoman of

Blockley Township, whose house included a "Shopp," "bequeathed one of his

looms to his son John. These factors suggest that Jones was indeed a

professional weaver, for if the loom had been used primarily by distaff

members of his family— as the popular image claims— it would surely

have been left to Jones* s wife, who was still living when he wrote his

will.16

Hie assertion that most of the cloth produced in colonial

Pennsylvania was professionally woven does not contradict the claim that

some households— usually rural ones— did engage in some facets of tex­

tile production. An explanation of the confusion stay lie in the word

used to describe domestic textile products— homespun. Semantically,

the very fact that these types of fabrics were commonly called homespun—

not home-woven or homemade— is very significant in suggesting that most

fabrics were, indeed, not woven at home. Rural households processed the

raw fibers and spun them into threads or yarn, then sent them to pro­

fessional weavers to be made into cloth. Several inventory references

to "yam at the weaver" or "a piece of cloth at the weavers" document 1 7 this practice. 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 5

As early as 1683, when German immigrants set up a center for 18 linen weaving near Philadelphia, cloth production concentrated in the

hands of specialists. The Philadelphia County probate records include

the estates of numerous textile craftsmen: feltmakers, worsted combers,

wool carders, fullers, silk dyers, and starchmakers as well as tailors,

glovers, clothiers, weavers, and stocking weavers. 3. Campbell de­

scribes the accomplishments of these and other branches of the textile

trade in his treatise on The London Tradesman. With the services of

skilled, specialized craftsmen available, it is extremely unlikely that

many colonial households carried on all stages of textile production

under their own roofs.

Colonial manufactories

In addition to the textile production of individual craftsmen,

several groups attempted to introduce large-scale textile manufacturing

into Pennsylvania during the colonial period. Although several projects

predated the mid-eighteenth century, including the 1683 establishment of

the Germantown linen weaving center, most colonial textile production in

this period derived from the efforts of domestic spinners and individual,

professional weavers. Not until the decade of the 1760*s, when non­

importation agreements signed in response to British trade restrictions

cut off the supply of foreign textiles and stimulated colonial produc­

tion, did Pennsylvanians make serious strides toward establishing colo­

nial textile manufactories. In her thesis on "Textiles Used in Phila­

delphia, 1760-1775," Buth Y. Cox details these late pre-Revolutionary

efforts to encourage colonial production of linen, wool, and cotton

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

cloth as well as silk fibers. Ihe most notable point to be made about

the numerous textile manufacturing attempts is their consistent failure.^

Textile production was inherently a labor-intensive industry, and

skilled labor was in short supply throughout the American colonies.

Significantly, textile production was the first recipient of the

English inventions that precipitated the Industrial Revolution: John

Kay's flying shuttle, l?33l James Hargreaves's spinning jenny, l?64j

Richard Arkwright's water frame, 1768, and carding machine, 1775*

Samuel Crompton's spinning mule, 1779* Edmond Cartwright's power loom, 20 1785. Pennsylvania textile manufactories could not compete with the

production of well established, organized, and increasingly mechanized

European cloth centers, and foreign fabrics of fine quality could be 21 imported less expensively than they could be made in the colony.

Governor John Penn, writing to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and

Plantations, described the plight of Pennsylvania's infant textile

industry in 1767:

Nor do I know of any /manufactories/ actually carrying on at this time except two. One of them was set up about three years ago in this city by private subscription for the making of sail-cloth, ticking, and linens* but the persons concerned have already sunk money by the project, for the high price of labor will not allow any of the articles to be Bade at so cheap a rate as those of the same quality and goodness manufactured in England are sold for by the re­ tailers here: they have therefore lately resolved to dis­ continue the undertaking. 22

Despite numerous attempts to produce textiles in Pennsylvania

prior to the Revolution, the output of colonial manufactories, pro­

fessional weavers, and domestic spinners was insubstantial compared with

the vast amounts of textiles regularly imported into the port of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

Philadelphia. La the 32^ inventories studied, only 2 specific refer­

ences to homespun cloth occurred, both in 1750. Jacob Optergrave,

weaver of Perfciomen and Skippack Townships, possessed 'Tour yards & a

half of homespun Cloth" valued at l6s. and probably woven by his own 23 hands. John Bet tie, cordwainer of Philadelphia, owned the only

example of a fabric furnishing specifically designated as being made of

homespun cloth; appraisers valued his "Two Diaper Table Cloths, 6 Pillow

Cases, 6 Towels, & two home spun Thble Cloths" at a total of £ 1.10.0.

And although in 1727 James Tuthill, Gentleman of Philadelphia, had

among his shop goods 109 yards of "German Town Chex" valued at 2s.6d.

per yard for a total of £ 13.12.6, his stock of imported goods was far 25 more extensive.

Importation

Throughout the colonial period, imported textiles provided the

vast majority of goods used as fabric furnishings. Merchants' shop in­

ventories contained voluminous amounts of textiles used for bed cover­

ings and hangings, table coverings, upholstery, and window hangings:

fine and coarse linens (damask, diaper, huckabuck, holland, kenting,

cambric, dowlas, canvas, sheeting, ticking, gar lick, oznahrigg, Scotch

cloth), cottons (fustian, dimity, muslin, calico, chintz), heavy woolens

and finer worsteds (serge, half thick, broadcloth, frieze, kersey,

linsey woolsey, stuff, flannel, blanketing, shalloon, tammy, camlet,

calamanco), and occasionally silks. The difficult problem of identi­

fying specific fabric types has already been addressed by several au­

thors, including Linda Baumgarten Berlekamp, Anna Brightman, Abbott

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

Lowell Cunnings, Hazel Cummin, Florence M. Montgomery, and Hath Y. Cox,

who has listed and described the major imported fairies available in 27 Philadelphia just prior to the Revolution.

Imported fairies arrived in Philadelphia from many countries—

England, Ireland, Prance, Germany, the Low Countries, Italy, Russia,

India, China. England provided the bulk of the trade, however, and, in

compliance with British trade restrictions, Continental and Oriental 28 textiles were generally imported to the colonies through London.

Philadelphia merchants occasionally smuggled Irish linens directly into 2 0 the colony, in contravention of British mercantile laws. Some foreign

textiles also reached Philadelphia through other colonial ports, espe­

cially during the early part of the eighteenth century, when Phila­

delphia’s shipping industry had not yet reached its full capacity.

Prior to 1730, Boston's shipping greatly exceeded that of both Phila­

delphia and New York, and Boston merchants sent lumber, Vest Indian goods,

wine, fish, iron ware, and European goods (including textiles) to

Philadelphia in a coastwise trade carried primarily on New England

ships. 30 According to research by Brock Jobe, Boston merchant-upholsterer

Thomas Fitch (1669-1736), a close associate of Philadelphia merchant-

upholsterer Edward Shippen, established an "extensive trading network

throughout the colonies, specializing in the distribution of English

textiles.

Textiles dominated the English export trade throughout the

eighteenth century; they "accounted for about three-fifths of exports at 32 both the beginning and the end of the century.” In Philadelphia,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 9

various kinds of cloth and other varieties of dry goods . .. . taken together invariably accounted for sore than half of the total value of imports from the mother coun­ try, . , , British woolens were by far the most valuable item sent to Pennsylvania as they were, indeed, to every American colony, . . . Next in value were British linens of various kinds.33

By the early 1770% Pennsylvania was importing from England over

b 375,000 worth of textiles annually, slightly over half of the total 34 volume of imports from England,

Philadelphia's heavy dependence on British imports for its sup­

ply of textiles and other manufactured goods rendered prices in the

colony extremely sensitive to any alterations in the trade provoked by

European political affairs or economic changes: "Probably at no time

since the Revolution have prices in Philadelphia been so influenced by 35 external affairs as they were during the colonial period." Economic

historians have charted the frequent fluctuations in the cost of dry 36 goods in colonial Philadelphia, but the long term trends remain un­

clear. In addition, it is not known how closely the values listed in

inventories for fabric furoi shings— generally goods some years o l d -

reflected the current market prices for new textiles. Prices in Phila­

delphia reflected the current supply, expected shipments, availability

of currency, ease or difficulty of transportation, and legal trade

regulations as well as economic conditions of inflation or recession,

depreciation of colonial currency (determined by the rate of exchange

for British pounds sterling or Spanish milled dollars), and real

changes in the cost of production and transportation. Anne Bezanson

and her colleagues concluded in their study of Prices in Colonial

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

Pennsylvania that:

The most significant aspect of the 'behavior of the prices of British goods, so far as the prices of osnaburgs / £ coarse linen^ are typical, is that from 1720 to 1775 there was a horizontal trend underlying the successive swings.37

However, Ralph Davis, a British economic historian, has argued that the

price of English wool declined substantially during the century follow­

ing the Restoration:- "There were strong reasons, even in the absence of

technical innovation, why many grades of English cloth should have been

produced much more cheaply around 1720 or 1750 than half a century OQ earlier." The increasing mechanization of the British textile industry

during the eighteenth century would also have tended to drive down

prices.

The Upholstery Trade

In addition to yard goods, merchants also imported ready-made

fabric furnishings: tablecloths, blankets, coverlids, quilts, and bed 39 rugs. The upholstery trade, however, supplied by far the largest pro­

portion of fabric furnishings used in colonial Philadelphia.

R. Campbell’s London Tradesman describes the position of the eighteenth

century upholder, as the trade was then known:

I have just finished my House, and must now think of furnishing it with fashionable Furniture. The Upholder is chief Agent in this Case: He is the Han upon whose Judgment I rely in the Choice of Goods: and I suppose he has not only Judgment in the Materials, but Thste in the Fashions, and Skill in the Workmanship, This Tradesman’s Genius must be universal in every Branch of Furniture: though his proper Craft is to fit tip Beds, Window-Curtains, Hangings, and to cover Chairs that have stuffed Bottoms: He was originally a Species of the Taylor; but, by degrees, has crept over his Head, and set up as a Connoisieur in every article that be­ longs in a House.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

Campbell continues with a description of the skills required of the

upholder:

He must handle the Needle so alertly as to sew a plain Seam, and sew on the Lace without Fuckers; and he must use his Sheers so dextrously as to cut a Valence or Counterpain with a genteel Sweep, according to a Pattern he has before him. . . . The stuffing and covering a Chair or Settee-Bed is indeed the nicest Fart of this Branch; but it may be acquired without any remarkable Genius. W

Although William KacPherson Homor, Jr. *s Blue Book of Philadelphia

Furniture and two Winterthur theses on furniture making in Philadelphia

by Cathryn J. HcElroy and Nancy Ann Goyne consider the upholstery trade

tangentially, relatively little research has addressed the subject

directly; more information is certainly needed on this important aspect

of Philadelphia craft and mercantile activities.

In contrast, much more is known of the upholstery trade in

Boston. In his article on "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1720-17A-0,"

Brock Jobe discusses the upholstery trade in depth, largely on the basis

of ten volumes of shop records kept by Boston upholsterers Thomas Fitch

and Samuel Grant between the years 1702-1771. Jobe comments on the

scope of the upholstery trade in colonial Boston:

During the eighteenth century the upholstery trade was deemed the most lucrative and prestigious craft profession. Its members not only made and sold bedding, bed curtains, anfj upholstered furniture, but also imported all types of textiles and dry goods for resale.^1

Like Fitch, many early Philadelphia upholsterers were probably importers

as well. At legist one man whose estate was probated in Philadelphia

practiced both trades. Anthony Chi swell referred to himself as a mer- ko chant in his will, but his appraisers designated him an upholsterer.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

According to the research of Homor, McELroy, Goyne, and

Alfred Core Prime, at least twenty-eight upholsterers or merchant-

upholsterers worked, in Philadelphia prior to the Revolution.^ In con­

trast, Jobe reports twenty-three upholsterers working in Boston during

. JJi- the shorter period 1725-1760. Only one Philadelphia upholsterer, John h,C Budd,is definitely known to have been active before 1700, suggesting

that the development of the upholstery trade in the new colony of

Pennsylvania lagged far behind that of Boston, which had supported up­

holsterers as early as the l660's. Benno M. Forman has documented at

least twelve upholsterers working in Boston prior to 1700, and at least

one of these men, Thomas Fitch, had developed an extensive business by 46 1702.

Several upholsterers worked in Philadelphia during the first

half of the eighteenth century— Job Adams, Peter 3aynton, Thomas

England, Peter Hall, John Housman, Joseph Shippen, Joseph Stockdale, and 47 Plunket Fleeson. 1 Fleeson is certainly the most well known of all

colonial Philadelphia upholsterers, as much, one suspects, for the

quaintness of his name as for the longevity and productivity of his

career. The great majority of known Philadelphia upholsterers, however,

arrived in the colony during the third quarter of the century, when the

number of newspaper advertisements for upholstery work Increased 48 sharply. This phenomenon suggests that, like its shipping, Phila­

delphia* s taste for fine, sophisticated fabric furnishings did not come

of age until the 1760's and 1770*s.

Philadelphia's upholsterers, like their Boston counterparts,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

provided a vide variety of goods and services to their customers. No

continuous documentation for a Philadelphia upholsterer— comparable to

the Pitch and Grant account and letter books— has yet come to light, but

scattered references from newspaper advertisements and family bills and

papers suggest the general range of activities. Plunket Fleeson, whose

career lasted from his arrival in Philadelphia in 1?39 until shortly 49 before his death in 1791* is by far the best documented Philadelphia

upholsterer, and his business nay serve as an example of the develop­

ment of the trade in Philadelphia. During the course of his career,

Fleeson offered for sale bed ticks, blankets, leather chairs, curled

hair mattresses, and nsea-beds, bedsteads and bottoms ready made,

mattrasses of all kinds, feather beds. “ He also sold goose feathers,

wallpaper, and furnishing fabrics— "cotton chintz, and copper-plate bed

furniture, harrateens and chineys, with suitable trimmings, hair seat­

ing, norans, . . . furniture checks. In addition to selling yard

goods and ready-made items, surviving bills demonstrate that Fleeson

custom-made upholstery and bed and window hangings for Levi

Hollingsworth, William Armstrong, Steven Paschall, George Croughan,

John Reynolds, John Cadvalader, Stephen Collins, several members of the

Norris family, and other wealthy Philadelphians.^

Other upholsterers in the city advertised similar wares. In

1722 John Housman announced his intention to leave for England, selling

out his stock "consisting chiefly of Standing Beds, Feather-Beds, Quilts, 52 Blankets, Stuffs for Curtains, Chairs, Looking-glasses, Couches, &c.

Ten years later, Job Adams offered "all Sorts of Upholders Goods, vis.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5^

Beds and Beding, Easy Chairs, Settees, Squats and Couches, Window-Seat

Cushions Bussia Leather Chairs. In 1754 Janes Waite announced that

he would make

all sorts of furniture for teds, window curtains, either festoon or plain, all sorts of chairs, either French or India back, sofa's, settees and settee-beds, feather-beds, mattrasses, and all other sorts of household furniture.5^

Two years later, the partnership of White (another man)^ and Lawrence

advertised*

All sorts of upholstery work, such as bedsteds, cornices, and furniture, feather beds, sacking bottoms, mattrasses, all sizes blankets, rugs, cabbin stools, all sorts of •paper hangings, &c.&c.&c.5o

Upholsterer John Kason gave notice in 1??1 that he had just imported "a

neat assortment” of the

best Wilton Carpetting, in the piece, best superfine Flanders tickens, 6-4, 8-4, and 9-4 stained bed quilts, 9-4, 10-4, and 11-4, cotton counterpanes; . . . , 8-4 coverlides, with several other articles in the upholstery way. 57

Hie upholsterer's task did not end with the sale of bedding,

hangings, and furniture coverings, however. Like other furniture crafts- e g men in London, Boston, and Philadelphia, Philadelphia upholsterers

engaged in a variety of odd jobs related to their craft. Several uphol­

sterers advertised their willingness to "wait upon any family and finish <9 off any work at their own houses, if required. One of the most com­

mon out-jobs was the hanging of wall coverings— both paper and fabric-

sold at the upholstery shops during the third quarter of the century.

Kost upholsterers offered to perform this service for their customers,

and many advertised the quality of their work. In 1754 James White

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

advertised "paper hangings put up, so as not to he affected by the

hottest veather.

Another common task was that of setting up a bed with its

hangings. In 17&2 Plunket Fleeson charged Charles Norris 2s.6d. for

"Thking down a raisd teastr bed" and 7s. 6d. in l?o5 for "putting up a

bed & window Curts tax & nails. In 1770-1771 Fleeson billed John

Cadwalader 12s. 6d. for "fixing and putting up the new Chinee bed.

Cloak pins, tacks," and 7s.6d. for "putting up a high post Chinee bed

& fixing 2 Winn Curt." Upholsterer William Atlee apparently hoped to

simplify ihe recurrent task of putting up and taking down beds; in 1732 he

advertised "beds after the most fashionable and plain way to take off 63 the Wood-work.” These activities apparently coincided with seasonal

changes, periodic cleanings, and attempts to eradicate the ever-

threatening bed bug, as well as with the installation of new hangings.

One enterprising upholsterer, John Webster, even advertised "Webster* s

Liquor, for entirely destroying that offensive and destructive vermin

called Buggs, which he has coapleated with success. Finally, several

Philadelphia upholsterers, including John Budd and Thomas Harper, also 66 doubled as appraisers — not an uncommon practice, according to The 67 London Tradesman.

Although undertaking constituted a large proportion of the 68 upholsterer * s business in London and other areas, this facet of the

trade rarely surfaces in Philadelphia records. Only two upholsterers

are known to have specifically mentioned the undertaking business in

their advertisements. In 1754 James White, "Upholsterer and Undertaker,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

lately arrived from London," advertised "funerals furnished, and

shrouds ready made, pink'd as in London, or plain and plaited, and 69 sheets." In 1771 Charles Allen announced to the public, "That he pro­

poses to undertake and carry on the Upholsterer's Business in all its 70 "branches with the utmost elegance and taste." Similarly, few of the

known upholsterers* bills include coffins, shrouds, or other funerary

appurtenances. In contrast, many surviving records document large num­

bers of coffins made and furnished by Philadelphia joiners and cabinet­

makers. This phenomenon was not unusual, for Campbell's London

Tradesman associated undertaking with the woodworking— not the

upholstery— trade:

The last Trade I shall mention is the Undertaker, a Set of Ken who live by Death, and never cares to appear but at the End of a Kan's Life . . . ; their Business is to watch Death, and to furnish out the Funeral Solemnity, with as much Pomp and feigned Sorrow, as the Heirs or Suc­ cessor of the Deceased chuse to purchase: They are a hard­ hearted Generation, and require more Koney than Brains to conduct their Business; I know no one Qualification pecu­ liarly necessary to them, except it is a steady, demure, and melancholy Countenance at Command: I do not know, that they take Apprentices in their Capacity as Undertakers, for they are generally Carpenters, or Herald-Painters besides. 71

Perhaps Quaker disapproval of extravagant funerals limited the profits 72 of undertaking in Philadelphia.

In short, practitioners of the upholstery trade provided their

customers with utilitarian bedding— bed ticks and mattresses— and ready­

made blankets, quilts, rugs, coverlids, and hangings as well as more

elaborate and expensive custom-made bed and window hangings and uphol­

stered furniture. Although some households no doubt owned fabric fur­

nishings constructed at home from colonially woven textiles, Philadelphia's

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

upholsterers and merchants supplied the vast majority of fabric fur­

nishings, both cheap and expensive, simple and elaborate, and almost

all made professionally from imported cloth. The upholsterers'

advertisements constantly emphasized their familiarity with the latest

English and Continental styles of fabric furnishings, suggesting that

they believed such claims would benefit them in their competition for

patronage. How much the public shared the tradesmen's interest in the

latest styles remains open to question. Linda Baumgarten Berlekamp

has argued that, in late seventeenth century Boston, many colonists

resisted imported goods, not because they were old fashioned, but because 73 they were not sufficiently conservative.

Despite its prominence and activity, available evidence suggests

that the upholstery trade in Philadelphia, at least prior to 1750, was

not nearly as sophisticated as that of Boston, which was well developed

by the opening of the eighteenth century; this fifty year lag no doubt

reflected Philadelphia's later founding. Even as late as the 1770's,

crimson silk damask, which was used for bed and window hangings by the

wealthiest, most sophisticated Bostonians by the 1730's and 1740*s,

was not readily available in Philadelphia. The records of Holy Trinity

(Old Swedes) Church in Wilmington, Delaware, for 1772, describe the

congregation's difficulty in obtaining pulpit hangings of crimson silk

damask: "The material could not be found in Philadelphia, but Mr. 75 Fleeson, the upholsterer, sent to New York."In 1771, John Cadwalader

purchased almost 170 yards of rich blue and yellow silk damask directly

from the London wholesale house of Rushton & Beachcroft. Since

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

Cadwalader ordinarily patronized. Philadelphia upholsterers Plunket

Fleeson and John Webster (in 1772 the latter made up these pieces of

silk damask into curtains and upholstery) for other fabrics and fabric

furnishings, his direct dealings with Rushton & Beachcroft suggest that 76 suitable rich silk damasks were not available in Philadelphia. The

second Philadelphia Non-Importation Agreement, drawn up in protest of

the Townshend Acts of 178?, had ended by the early autumn of 1770. ^

Philadelphia upholsterers and merchants would have had plenty of time to

order and restock silk furniture damasks— had they so desired— before

Cadwalader authorized purchase of goods in London in August of 1771. A

lingering of the Quaker aesthetic preference for high quality but un­

ostentatious materials might explain the absence of rich silk furniture 78 damasks in the Philadelphia dry goods trade. Recent research, however,

has suggested that silk furnishing fabrics were relatively rare even in

England during the eighteenth century. Writing on the subject of silk

consumption in colonial America, Natalie Rothsteln comments:

Both in England and in the Colonies, the silks were intended for one purpose— costume, men's as well as women's— and not for furnishings. It was only the Crown or the Governor of a Colony who had some furnishings of silk for the State apartments, .... The trade itself was made up of piecemeal orders of not more than two or three pieces at a time, destined in some cases to meet an individual-* order, placed with a retainer in a small Colonial town.

Maintenance of Fabric Furnishings

The cost of owning fabric furnishings did not end with the

initial purchase, but entailed a relatively high cost of continued

maintenance to protect against a host of hazards. Textiles faded and

rotted if exposed to sunlight, and molded if exposed to dampness.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Woolens often fell prey to moths. Cleanliness was a constant problem,

and bed bugs and other vermin were the price paid for its neglect. Even

ordinary use presented a hazard to fabric furnishings, for abrasion wore

away their very fibers.

Colonial Philadelphians recognized many of the problems in­

volved in caring for fabric furnishings. Extra bed and table linens and

bed hangings helped increase cleanliness, and the efforts of upholster­

ers in taking down and putting up beds have already been noted. In

1767, John Webster, inventor of the bed bug cure, proclaimed the advan-

tages of

the newest invented Venetian sun blinds for windows, on the best principles, stain*d to any colour, moves to any position, so as to give different lights, screens from the scorching rays of the sun, draws a cool air in hot weather, draws up as a curtain, and prevents from being overlooked, and is the greatest preserver of furniture of any thing of the kind ever invented. 81 Slipcovers, mentioned in two of the inventories studied and more fre­

quently in upholsterers' bills and advertisements, protected fine up­

holstery fabrics from light, dirt, and abrasion. Some wealthy house­

holders, like the John Cadwaladers, had covers for their floor carpets

as well.®2 By 1775* at least one-third (35.00 percent) of the Phila­

delphia County estate inventories listed some utensils for textile

naintenanee— primarily smoothing irons, sad irons, or box irons and

occasionally ironing boards and brushes for removing dirt. Ihese uten­

sils were probably used most frequently for maintaining clothing, but

they also could have served to care for fabric furnishings. Interest­

ingly, screw-presses, used to keep tablecloths and napkins sharply

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

creased 'between meals, were generally absent or unidentifiable in

Philadelphia County Inventories. An exception is the 1726 inventory of

William Alexander, Esquire, Gentleman, late of London, which listed "In

ye Back Chamber, . . . 1 Table, 2 old Chairs & 1 Cloath press" valued

together at 10s.; the low valuation suggests that Alexander's "Cloath

press" could have been a screw-press for linens rather than a large DO case piece for storage.

In summary, colonists in the Philadelphia area had access to a

wide variety of fine and coarse European textiles, imported more cheaply

than they could be produced by colonial weavers or textile manufactories,

and the wide ranging services of a small but active body of skilled

merchant-upholsterers. Ihese goods and these craftsmen provided the

bulk of the bed, table, seating furniture, window, floor, and wall

coverings used in Philadelphia area homes during the period 1700-1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER II

Grace Rogers Cooper, The Coup Family Textiles, Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology 7 (Washington, D .C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971)» p. 4-7.

'Tiinda Grant DePauw, Conover Hunt, and Miriam Schneir, Remember the Ladies, Women in America, 1750-1815, A Studio Book (New York: . Viking Press in association with The Pilgrim Society, 1976), p. 4-3. •j ^Cooper, Como Family Textiles, p. 46.

^"Early Letters from Pennsylvania, 1699-1722," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 37 (1913)* 332, quoted in Ruth Y. Cox, "Textiles Used in Philadelphia, 1760-1775" (K.A. thesis, University of Delaware, I960), p. 2. Hereafter cited as Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles."

^Pennsylvania Farm Museum of Landis Valley, The Homespun Textile Tradition of the Pennsylvania Germans, with Introduction by Ellen J. Gehret and Alan G. Keyser (Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1976), no pagination. Hereafter cited as Landis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles.

8R. Campbell, The London Tradesman (London: T. Gardner, 174-7; reorint ed., Newton Abbot, Devon, England: David & Charles, Ltd., 1969), p. 260. 7 In their thorough discussion of Canadian weaving traditions, Harold B. and Dorothy K. Burnham also argue strongly against the myth of widespread home weaving? see Harold 3. Burnham and Dorothy K. Burnham, "Keen Me Warm One Night,” Early Handweaving in Eastern Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press and Royal Ontario Museum, 1972), pp. 173-9.

8W-65, 1702? ¥-106, 1702; ¥-346, 1725; ¥-6 3 , 1727; ¥-76, 1727; ¥-19 6, 1750; ¥-216, 1750; ¥-14-1, 1775. 0 Carleton L. Safford and Robert Bishop, America* s Quilts and Coverlets (New York: Weathervane Books, 1972), p. 221.

10¥-37, 1700? ¥-338, 1725.

^¥-200, 1750; ¥-232, 1750.

61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

^Campbell, London Tradesman, pp. 214-5.

^Laslett, World We Have Lost, p. 45. 14 land Is Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles.

15W-124, 1?03.

l6W-346, 1725.

1?W-120, 1703; W-141, 1704; W-34, 1727.

^Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," p. 1.

19Ibid., pp. 12-68. 20 Joseph R. Strayer, et al., The Mainstream of Civilization. Part 2. Since 1660 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 5?3; Catherine Fennelly, Textiles in New England. 1790-1840, Old Sturhridge Village Booklet Series, ed. Catherine Fennelly (Stur"bridge, Mass.: Old Stur"bridge Inc., 1961), p. 21.

21Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 19, 21, 160. 22 Governor John Penn to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, January 21, 1?67, quoted in John Thomas Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884. 3 vols. (Philadelphia: L.H. Everts & Co., 1884), 3 '•2227, and cited in Nancy Ann Goyne, "Furniture Craftsmen in Philadelphia, 1760-1780, Their Role in a Mercantile Society" (M.A. thesis. University of Delaware, 1963), p. 45. Hereafter cited as Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen."

23W-190, 1750.

2V l 7 8 , 1750.

25W-75, 1727; also W-342 , 1725.

26W-19, 1700; W-41, 1701; W-42, 1701; W-52, 1701; W-79, 1702; W-98, 1702; W-342, 1725; W-345 , 1725; W-75, 1727; W-179, 1750; W-238 , 1750; W-150, 1775.

27Linda Baumgarten, "The Textile Trade in Boston, 1650-1700," Arts of the Anglo-American Community in the Seventeenth Century. Winterthur Conference Report 1974, ed. Ian M.G. Quimby (Charlottesville, Va.: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1975), PP. 235-47; Linda Baumgarten Berlekamp, "The Textile Trade in Boston: 1650-1700" (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1976), pp. 64-74; Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 63-155; Cummings, Bed Hangings, pp. 14-38; Hazel Cummin, "Calamanco," Antiques 39 (April 1941): 182-4; Hazel Cummin, "Camlet,"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Antiques 42 (December 1942): 309-12* Hazel Cummin, "Colonial Dimities, Checked and Diapered," Antioues 38 (September 1940): 111-2* Hazel Cummin, "Early Seersucker," Antioues 38 (November 1940): 231-2* Hazel Cummin, "Moreen— A Forgotten Fabric," Antiques 38 (December 1940): 286-7* Hazel Cummin, "A Note on Nankin, Colonial Calico," Antiques 41 (March 1942): 197* Hazel Cummin, "Tammies and Durants," Antioues 40 (September 1941): 153-4* Hazel Cummin, "What Was Dimity in 1790?" Antiques 38 (July 1940): 23-5; Florence M. Montgomery, “Eighteenth- Century English and American Furnishing Fashions," Antiques 97 (February 1970): 267-71* Florence M, Montgomery, "English Textile Swatches of the Kid-Eighteenth Century," The Burlington Magazine 102 (June i96 0): 240-3* Florence M. Montgomery, "Furnishing Textiles at the John Brown House, Providence, Rhode Island," Antiques 101 (March 1972): 496-502* Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 8l-l4o.

^Berlekamp, "The Textile Trade in Boston: 1650-1700" (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1976), p. 17. Hereafter cited as Berlekamp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis). 29 Arthur L. Jensen, The Maritime Commerce of Colonial Philadelphia (Madison, Wise.: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin for the Department of History, University of Wisconsin, 1963), p. 135.

3 °Ibid., pp. 1-5, 75-7.

3^Brock Jobe, "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1720-1740," 3oston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts 48 (Boston: The Colonial Society of Massachu­ setts, 1974), p. 27.

32 T.S. Ashton, Introduction to English Overseas Tirade Statistics 1697-1808, by Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, I960), p. 1 2 .

33 Jensen, Maritime Commerce, p. 89.

^Ibid., p. 297, Tables XVIII and XIX.

Bezanson, Gray, and Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania, P. 337. * Ibid., pp. 263-92* also Jensen, Maritime Commerce, pp. 114-29. •vj Bezanson, (hay, and Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania, p. 292.

3®Ralph Davis, "English Foreign Trade, 1700-1774," The Growth of English Overseas Trade in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. and with Introduction by W.E. Minchinton, Debates in Economic History, ed. Peter Mathias (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1969), p. 101. Hereafter cited as Minchinton, English Overseas Trade.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

39W-19t 1700} ¥-41, 1701; ¥-42, 1701; ¥-342, 1725* ¥-345, 1725; ¥-238, 1750. 40 r Campbell, London Tradesman, pp. 169-70.

^Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, p. 24.

42W-73, 1702.

^William Macpherson Homor, Jr., Blue Book of Philadelphia Furniture, from William Penn to George Washington (Philadelphia^- 3y the Author, 1935) ? Cathryn J. KcElroy, Furniture of the Philadelphia Area: Forms and Craftsmen before 1730“ (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1970); Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen"; Alfred Coxe Prime, comp., The Arts and Crafts in Philadelphia. Maryland and South Carolina. 1721^1785, Gleanings from Newspapers (/Topsfield. Pass, /i The Walpole Society, 1929), pp. 199-219.

Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, p. 3.

^^Homor, Blue Book, p. 2; KcElroy, "Furniture of the Philadel­ phia Area," p. 168. Hereafter cited as KcElroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture." LA Benno K. Forman, "Seventeenth Century and William and Kary Style Furniture in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum" (manuscript, 1977), Section 4; Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, p. 27n. 4? 'Homor, Blue Book; KcElroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture"; Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 199-219.

**^Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 199-219.

^ i l o M. Naeve, "Plunket Fleeson, Eighteenth-Century Uphol­ sterer," Winterthur Newsletter 4 (January 28, 1958): 3-4.

^ Pennsylvania Gazette, Philadelphia, October 19, 1789, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 276.

^Naeve, "Plunket Fleeson," pp. 3-4; Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 69, 81-3; Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-3; Steven Faschall, Receipt Book, 1760-1771, 65 x 5&7» DKMC; Receipted Bill, Plunket Fleeson to William Armstrong, April 29, 1782, 52.74, DKMC; Plunket Fleeson, Account with John Reynolds, 1754-1755* photostat, Fh 1073* DKMC, original, Coates-Reynell Papers # 58, Business Papers A-106, Box 1755-1787* Folder 25* Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP), Philadelphia; Receipted Bills, Plunket Fleeson to George Croughan, 1765-1787* photostats, Fh 988-9, DKMC, originals, George Croughan Papers, HSP,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

52 American Weekly Mercury, Philadelphia, June 14, 1722, Prise, Arts and Crafts, p. 205,

53 Ibid., May 18, 1732, p. 199. 54 ■^Pennsylvania Gazette. July 4, 1754, Ibid., p. 299,

33Alfred Core Prime, c o e d . , Colonial Craftsmen of Pennsylvania. (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art, 1925), p. 1 . 56 ■^Pennsylvania Gazette. January 22, 1756, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 217. 57 Pennsylvania Chronicle. Philadelphia, October 28, 1771, Ibid., p. 209. 'Qie figures, 6-4, 8-4, 9-4, 10-4, 11-4, expressed the widths available in terms of fractions of a yard; 8-4 designated a piece of cloth two yards wide, cq Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," 3oston Furniture, pp. 27-8; Arthur Idebundguth, "The’ Furniture-Making Crafts in Philadelphia, c. 1730-c. 1760" (K.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1964), pp. 7-28; and Helena Hayward, lecture on "John Linnell, London Cabinetmaker," presented to the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, October 8, 1976, 5 0 ■^Pennsylvania Journal. Philadelphia, October 3, 1771, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 200,

^Pennsylvania Gazette. July 4, 1754, Ibid., p. 219.

^Charles Norris, Account with Plunket Fleeson, I76O-I765, original in Norris of Fairhill MSS, Family Accounts, 1:41, HSP; repro­ duced in Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," p. 6 9. 62 John Cadwalader, Account with Plunket Fleeson, 1770-1771, original at HSP, reproduced in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-1,

^American Weekly Mercury. September 19, 1732. 64 L.O.J. Boynton, "Bie Bed 3ug and the ’Age of Elegance, Furniture History 1 (1965): 24.

^Pennsylvania Journal. August 20, 176?, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 215. 66 Budd, W-37, 1700; W-72, 1702; ¥-79, 1702; W-84, 1702; W-97, 1702; W-147, 1704; Harper, Pennsylvania Packet. Philadelphia, January 30, 1775, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 277.

^Campbell, London Tradesman, p. 175.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

^English Furniture Upholstery, p, xxL. 6q Pennsylvania Gazette. July 4, 1?54, Prime, Arts and Crafts. 219. 70 Pennsylvania Journal. October 3 , 1771, Ibid., p. 200.

'^Campbell, London Tradesman, pp. 329-30. 72c72 Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 127-8.

73,Berlekarrp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis), p. 31 . 7Jj. Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 114-5* Cummings, Bed Hangings, pp. 11, 14, 23-4, 3 7 .

^ T h e Records of Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church. Wilffl-tnfrton. Delaware, from 1697 to 1773. traps. Horace Burr. Parers of the Historical Society of Delaware 9 (Wilmington: Historical Society of Delaware, 1890), p. 499. I am indebted to Michael K. Brown for this information, 76 Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 52, 69. 77 Jensen, Maritime Commerce, pp. 194-5.

'Frederick B. Tolies, Meeting House and Counting House. The Quaker Merchants of Colonial Philadelphia, 1682-1763 (Chapel Hill. North Carolina: “Hie University of North Carolina Press for The Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., 1948), pp. 123-32.

"^'Natalie Roth stein, "Silks Imported into America in the 18th- century, An Historical Survey," Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Tex­ tiles 1975 Proceedings, Imported and Domestic Textiles in Eighteenth- Century America, ed. Patricia L. Piske (Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum, 1976), p. 21. Hereafter cited as Imported and Domestic Textiles. 80 Pennsylvania Journal, August 20, 176?, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 215.

8lW-42, 1701; W-166, 1750.

^Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 50-1, 72.

®W-18, 1726.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER H I

BED COVERINGS

Bed coverings were by far the most common and most important

fabric furnishing used in eighteenth century colonial Philadelphia

homes. By 1700, self-sufficient households almost invariably possessed

some sort of bed coverings, however poor or rude. Bed coverings were

also the most expensive fabric furnishings found in colonial Phila­

delphia inventories. Kany householders, in all income ranges, invested

more money in their best bed than in any other single household item.

Some colonial Philadelphia appraisers recorded very detailed,

itemized lists of bed coverings and other fabric furnishings. John

Cadwalader and Edward Roberts, appraisers for estates within the city of

Philadelphia during the period 1725-1727* habitually provided very

thorough, methodical, and specific descriptions of sleeping equipment:

"Feather bed bolster 2 pillows 2 shets 2 blankets Quilt Curtains

Vailings head & tester Cloths & bed stead . . . 7.10.0," or, for a less

elaborate bed, "Small feather bed bolster sheet blanket rug and bed­

stead . . . 2.10.0."^ Other appraisers, particularly those in rural

areas, recorded fabric furnishings in much less detail. Over one-half

of the total inventories studied grouped bed coverings together in

collective descriptions— bed and bedding, bed and bed clothes, bed and

67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

covers, "bed and appurtenances, "bed and furniture. As the century pro­

gressed, the frequency of collective descriptions increased (see Table

1*0. In 1700-170**-, *0.06 percent of the inventories listing bed

coverings employed collective descriptions; by 1750, almost three-

quarters of the inventories (7*^32 percent) with bed coverings employed

general terms. Ihroughout the period, many appraisers combined col­

lective descriptions for assemblages of bed coverings actually in use

with itemized listings of pieces currently in storage. This practice

greatly complicates identification of the actual composition of the

bed. when in use.

Host modern works, Including Cummings's treatise on Bed

Hangings, have interpreted the eighteenth century term "bed furniture"

to mean "the complete accessories of the bedstead, that is, curtains, 2 valance, tester and counterpane." Evidence from Philadelphia inven­

tories, however, suggests that appraisers, at least in that section of

the country, employed collective terms like bed and furniture inter­

changeably and with little standardization to describe the bed and what­

ever happened to be on it, The valuations assigned to these collective

listings of bed coverings support the supposition that the term bed and

furniture did not necessarily denote a fully hung bed. These valuations

depended on a number of factors, including size, age, condition,

quality of materials. Since these factors were not always accounted

for in the inventories, it is often difficult to ascertain mean or

median valuations. In general, however, appraisers valued fully hung

beds (which they specifically described as such) at i 8.0.0 or more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

during the period 1700-170*4-; later in the century, the value of fully-

hung "beds sometimes dropped as low as £ 6,0,0 each. However, a fine

feather-filled bed tick alone could he worth as much as £ 7*0.0, so a

high valuation does not always imply the presence of bed hangings. The

valuations for a bed and furniture ranged from over £ 20.0.0 (indubi­

tably with hangings) to £ 1.0,0 or lower (surely insufficient to in­

clude hangings). This data suggests a far from standardized usage of

terms like bed and furniture; they could as easily denote the bed and

its tick or case, bed linens, blankets, covers, hangings, or any com­

bination thereof, depending on the wealth of the owner and the com­

position of his bed. In 1703, Edmund Cartlidge*s appraisers specifi­

cally recorded "one Bed and ffumiture with Curtains & Covlidd . . .

10,0.0, indicating that the term bed and furniture did not necessarily

include hangings.

Within the limits of the data available, however, it is cer­

tainly possible to identify the major types of bed coverings used in

colonial Philadelphia and to indicate their material composition,

economic value, relative importance, and occasionally their appearance.

Bedding

The bed, defined as a functional assemblage of sleeping equip­

ment, could include three major types of appurtenances: bedding, bed­

stead, and bed hangings. Bedding (including the bed and its casing,

headrests, bed linens, and outer covers) was by far the most common

general type of bed furnishing, appearing in 88.58 percent of all inven­

tories studied (see Thble l). In contrast, only 51.85 percent of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

inventories listed bedsteads, and only 3 0 .5 6 percent either specifi­

cally recorded or strongly implied possession of bed hangings. The

frequency of bedding remained fairly constant, averaging near 9 0 .0 0

percent for all periodic, economic, geographical, and occupational

groups for which sufficient data could be obtained (see Tables 2-6).

This pattern suggests that bedding represented the lowest common

denominator among fabric furnishings.

Beds

Within the category of bedding, the bed itself represented the

basic level— over 90.00 percent of the inventories with bedding included

some type of bed (see Thble 1*0. The term bed is here used in its

eighteenth century sense, meaning a bag or case filled with feathers,

flocks,chaff, or other cushioning material, roughly equivalent in func-

tion to today* s mattress. Riysically and psychologically, the bed en­

couraged relaxation by providing a soft, insulating layer between the

sleeper and the cold, hard floor.

Colonial Philadelphia householders could choose from a variety

of stuffing materials for their beds. Although many of the inventories

(59.93 percent) simply used the general term bed, without further de­

scription, some appraisers distinguished between various types of cush­

ioning materials. Of the stuffings specifically mentioned, feather

beds appeared most often, in 39.37 percent of the inventories with

bedding. Chaff beds, filled with the husks, straw, and other refuse

separated out from grain in the process of winnowing,^ appeared next

most frequently, in 13.9^ percent of the inventories with bedding.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Flock "beds, stuffed with very short wool fibers, ranked third,

appearing in only 1 0 .4 5 percent of the inventories with bedding. While

the frequency of feather beds remained fairly constant throughout the

period (allowing for variations in the specificity of the records),

the use flock and chaff beds reversed between 1?00 and 1775. In 1 7 0 0 -

1704, flock beds appeared over twice as often as chaff beds, but from

1725 on, the opposite situation prevailed. Philadelphia upholsterers

continued to advertise beds stuffed with wool fibers as late as the

1 7 7 0 's . In 1769 John Mason offered for sale

. . . mattrasses,or wool beds, which are so beneficial to mankind, for when a CONSTITUTION grows weak through inadvertency, or any waye thrown into CONFUSION, these beds are of great use to rest on, therefore I would advise every CONSTITUTION to be provided with one of them,6

Despite such advertisements, the inventories indicate that the popularity

of flock beds declined substantially after the first quarter of the

eighteenth century.

In addition to feathers, chaff, and flocks— the three most popu­

lar kinds of stuffing— the Philadelphia inventories also listed straw

beds (probably equivalent to chaff beds— four occurrences), wool beds

(probably equivalent to flock beds— two households), and cattail beds

(four inventories). Four Philadelphia inventories employed the term

ordinary bed, which probably designated a chaff bed. In 1700 William

Yalicot's appraisers recorded "an ordinarie ^bed/ and sum furniture . . .

2.10,0," and immediately below, "another old chafe bed & sum bed g clothes . . . 1.0.0." Only ten inventories included mats or mattresses,

despite the advantages that Mason and other upholsterers advocated for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

these Items. The term mattress apparently designated a rather flat bed

stuffed with wool, flocks, or possibly curled hair. An advertisement by

Kason in 1?69 described mattresses as “Wool or Hair Beds. Bailey’s

Dictionarium Britannicum of 1730 defined a mattress as "a kind of

Quilt filled with Wool, Cotton &c, a flock Bed," and Dyche and Pardon's

dictionary of 17^5 described it as "a quilt or thin bed to lay over

others; and sometimes to lie on alone. Two inventories also listed

cots, which may have been similar to mattresses.^- The Oxford English

Dictionary lists eighteenth century uses of the term cot to mean "wool

matted or felted together in the fleece" or "a light bedstead.

Other types of beds mentioned in the inventories included pallet

beds (small, low beds^— two inventories), chaff bags and straw bags

(twice each), "2 old lin: flock beds," and "one flock and feather bed.

Pour inventories listed sea beds; one had a flock sea bed and another,

"a Small Cabbin bed. Although only one of these householders identi­

fied himself as a mariner, the names of these beds suggest a typological

origin in the outfit tings made for ships. Philadelphia upholsterers

frequently advertised sea beds and other furnishings for ships, suggest­

ing that in Philadelphia as in Boston, a substantial proportion of the

upholstery trade consisted of fitting out ships* cabins.^ The term sea

bed may, in fact, have designated a type of hammock, since the latter 17 were commonly defined as hanging beds used primarily at sea. The

term hammock itself, however, may have designated a finer or more

elaborate item than an ordinary sea bed, since the eight inventories

with hammocks all belonged to individuals who had invested over

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

h 100.0.0 in household goods. Hammocks seen to have "been a rather

exotic luxury in colonial Hiiladelphia, possessed mainly by individuals

with cosmopolitan tastes, whose businesses brought them into close

contact with imported and exotic goods— two mariners, a wealthy mer- X3 chant, two wealthy widow/shopkeepers, and three prosperous tradesmen.

Finally, nine inventories specifically recorded the use of bed ticks,

and seven designated bed cases.

Feathers consistently made up the most expensive type of bed

stuffing, generally ranging in value from t 3.0.0-h 7.0.0 per bed. Bol-

sters and pillows were often valued together with beds, making it diffi­

cult to ascertain individual values. The value generally depended on

the weight and quality of the stuffing, for feathers were available in

several grades, ranging from the "Good live Geese Feathers" advertised

by ELunket Fleeson and other upholsterers to less fine and soft varie- 1 9 ties. In 1727 appraisers valued one of widow Catherine Griffing’s

feather beds with its two pillows, weighing sixty-four pounds in all,

at l6d. per pound, for a total of 2b 4-.5A. they appraised another fea­

ther bed with bolster and two pillows, weighing eighty-six pounds in 20 all, at 20d. per pound, for a total value of h ?AA.

Flock and chaff beds were considerably less valuable. Flock

beds generally ranged in value from 10s.-fc 2.0.0 each? like feather beds,

they were occasionally valued by weight. The accounts of Elizabeth Fox’s

executors recorded the sale of one flock bed weighing 7?i pounds at ?d. 21 per pound, for a total of £ 2.5*2. Chaff beds were the cheapest type

of tick, generally averaging under is 1.0.0 each in value.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philadelphia upholsterers commonly sold feather and flock or

wool "beds, hut some householders may have made their own bed ticks—

especially those stuffed with the homelier materials like chaff,

straw, and cattails. Upholsterers occasionally sold bed ticking by the 22 yard, and merchants stocked large supplies and various grades.of this

utilitarian commodity: flowered ticking, striped ticking, "Cullerd

Ticking," broad Hamhorough ticking, "Cherge Ticking," bed ticking, 23 pillow ticking, bolster ticking. Remnants of ticking and bolstering oh. listed in household inventories suggest that householders purchased

manufactured ticking cloth, shaped it, and stuffed it with feathers,

flocks, chaff or cattails they had collected. Several inventories

listed bags of feathers stored in garrets, probably being saved for

later use in pillows, bolsters, or bed ticks. ^

Pillows and bolsters

Pillows and bolsters generally used the same kinds of stuffing

materials as beds— preferably feathers but also flock or chaff or, less

frequently, cattails. Pillows generally but not invariably appeared in

pairs, while bolsters usually appeared singly. Dyche and Pardon's dic­

tionary of 1?65 described a bolster as "a long pillow to lay the head

on," suggesting that eighteenth century bolsters probably resembled 26 their m o dem counterparts in form. In 1700-17C&, the frequency of

bolsters substantially exceeded that of pillows} the former appeared in

52.78 percent of the inventories with bedding, while the latter appeared

in only 38.89 percent. During the 1750-1751 and 1775 periods, how­

ever, the number of households owning pillows exceeded slightly those

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

with 'bolsters. Tiro pillows and one 'bolster seem to have been the

standard equipage for a fully furnished bed.

Bed linens

Bed linens— sheets* blankets* pillow and bolster cases— consti-

tuted the next major sub-category of bedding. During the entire period

studied, only 2 0 .5 6 percent of all inventories with bedding specifically

listed casing for pillows and bolsters, while 4-5.30 percent listed

sheets and 36.59 percent included blankets. These percentages indubi­

tably underestimate the actual situation,for many appraisers did not

bother to itemize bed linens actually in use; if a family did not pos­

sess surplus sheets, blankets, or cases, no entries for these items

would have appeared in the inventory. In other cases, appraisers

grouped these items together in collective descriptions— bed linens,

parcels of linens, household linens. Despite these problems with the

data, certain trends remained consistent throughout the period.

Sheets occurred slightly more frequently than blankets and much more

often than pillow and bolster cases. Host appraisers referred to pillow

coverings as cases. Despite attribution of the term pillowbeers to

eighteenth century usage, only thirteen inventories actually used this

term, while fifty-two inventories used the term pillowcases. Nine of

the thirteen inventories recording pillowbeers dated between 1700 and

1704-, while no examples of this term appeared in the 1775 inventories.

The popularity of the term pillowbeers apparently waned throughout the

colonial period. Finally, at least two inventories listed bolster

cloths, probably decorative cloths used to cover the bolster when the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

27 bed was made.

Sheets, pillowcases, and bolster cases were generally made of

linen, and contemporary lexiconographers closely associated linen fab­

rics with these bed furnishings: "Sheet . . . a large Linnen Cloth to 28 lay upon the Bed," Some other fabrics also appeared, however:

cotton (three times), wool (once), and flannel (five times) for sheets / \ 29 and cotton (once; for pillowcases. Some appraisers noted different

varieties of linen sheeting and casing materials: canvas, tow, flaxen, 30 Holland, Scotch cloth-' — while others distinguished between coarse and

* fine grades of sheeting linen, A few recorded the appearance of the

cloth, describing "Chequered Linnen'* pillowcases, a blue cattail pillow,

and brown (probably unbleached) sheets.^ Although most sheets

appeared in pairs, some beds— especially those in households with low

valuations or the lesser beds in more substantial homes— had only one

sheet. This suggests that the normative use of two sheets per bed was

not yet universally practiced. Finally, some inventories distinguished

between large and small sheets, suggesting variations in bed sizes within

a household, from the large best bed to smaller, less elaborate ones.

Like sheets, blankets also appeared frequently— but not always—

in pairs. Appraisers rarely recorded the appearance or material compo­

sition of blankets. This phenomenon probably reflected several inter­

related factors. Blankets were available in a smaller range of materials

than sheets, so appraisers had no need to list different types of fabrics.

Their appearance was much less important than their function, so apprais­

ers had no need to describe the former. Among the few examples for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

which the appraisers recorded physical descriptions were a yellow 32 “blanket and a striped blanket. Finally, blankets were less important

as indicators of status than sheets, so appraisers had less need to

distinguish between grades of quality. Hie appearance in shop inven­

tories of fabrics called simply "blanketing" suggests the limited range 33 of blanket materials. Although one inventory recorded a flannel blan- 34 ket and another, a cotton blanket, most blankets were probably made OC of wool, or perhaps a wool-cotton blend. In 1?65, Dyche and Pardon de­

fined a blanket as "a covering for a bed, made of woollen cloth, 36 commonly white.

Comparison of the value, function, and occurrence of sheets and

blankets confirms the higher status value of the former. Blankets were

essentially practical objects, serving primarily to keep the sleeper's

body warm. Sheets were practical also, but in a less elementary way.

A linen sheet Insulated much less effectively than a wool blanket, so

it was physically less necessary. Hie sheet did, however, increase

physical comfort by protecting the body from the scratchy wool surface

of the blanket. Because sheets were washable and therefore more

easily changed, they also increased cleanliness and reduced contact

with vermin and other pests. Unlike warmth, however, cleanliness and

comfort were not elemental physical needs, they were luxury needs.

Sheets served as status symbols because they indicated that their

owner could not only provide with ease for his elemental physical

needs, but could also provide inessential comfort and cleanliness as

well. Hi many cases, colonial householders apparently stored their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

surplus sheets and pillow and holster cases with their surplus table

linens, suggesting a shared status value.

Householders generally accumulated many more sheets than blan­

kets. In 1775, for example, “Thomas Iawrenee, a merchant of Philadelphia, 3 7 owned twenty pair of sheets and only two blankets. Pew households

possessed as many sheets as Iawrenee, but many owned four to eight pair,

compared to an average of two to three pair of blankets. Sheets gener­

ally cost more than blankets. Although three shop inventories listed

new blankets at 12s.-15s. each,^® the valuations for used blankets in

household inventories generally ranged between 2s. -6s. each, compared to

an average range of 7s.6d.-10s. each for sheets. Ihe relatively high

cost of sheets, combined with the practice of accumulating surpluses,

made them an important household investment.

Both upholsterers and merchants stocked ready-made blankets,^

but neither sold ready-made sheets. Householders apparently purchased

sheeting as yard goods, then made— or had made— sheets to fit their

beds. Household inventories listing remnants or unused quantities of 4q sheeting yard goods testify to this practice. Merchants' shop inven­

tories included sheeting Holland, sheeting linen, brown sheeting, zn Russian sheeting, as well as yard goods of blanketing and flannel.

Household inventories also included remnants and amused yardages of 42 flannel and blanketing, suggesting that some householders made their

own blankets from purchased material even though ready-made blankets

were available.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

Covers

The third sub-category of bedding consisted of textiles used as

outer covers for the bed— rugs, quilts, counterpanes, and coverlids or

coverlets. These items provided warmth as well as decoration. As the

Wadsworth Atheneun*s 1972 catalog on Bed Ruggs. 1722-1833 noted, it is

often difficult to distinguish between the various types of outer bed

covers— especially rugs, coverlets, and blankets— on the basis of dic- 4 .3 tionary definitions or manuscript references. This catalog defines

a bed rug as "a heavy needleworked bed covering, with a pile or smooth

faced, with or without shaped ends, worked in polychrome or, rarely,

monochrome wools on a woven foundation." However, the catalog con­

cedes that documentary evidence from New England inventories prior to

1780 does not conclusively prove "that the rugs listed are at all like

needleworked bed rugs." Bailey*s Dictionarium Britannlcum of 1730

defined a rug as simply "a Coat, or shaggy Coverlet for a Bed.

Throughout the eighteenth century, ready-made, imported rugs came to

America from textile making centers in England, Spain, France, Poland, 46 and Ireland.

Whatever their exact composition, rugs were apparently the most

utilitarian and, consequently, the most widespread of the various types

of outer bed covers used in colonial Philadelphia. Seventy-two inven­

tories (25.09 percent of those with bedding) specifically listed rugs,

compared with fifty (17.4-2 percent) listing coverlids or coverlets,

thirty-three (1 1 .5 0 percent) with quilts, and only fifteen (5.23 percent)

with counterpanes. The popularity of bed rugs apparently declined sub-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

stantially during the coarse of the eighteenth century. In 1700-170^,

^3 .0 6 percent of the inventories with “bedding listed “bed rugs, “but in

1775, they appeared in only 20.00 percent of these households.

The Wadsworth Atheneun catalog suggests that rugs often com­

prised the top layer of bedding, even when a coverlet was also used on

the same bed. The Philadelphia inventories studied seem to support

this conclusion, at least in part. In methodical listings of furnished

beds, rugs often appeared either first or last in the list of covers,

suggesting an uppermost position: "one feather Bed a pair of Sheets

1 pair of pillows Bolster a blanket and Rug , . . 6.10.0." In cases

where the same bed included both a coverlid and a rug, however, the rug

often appeared in the middle of the list. Appraisers recorded the color

and design of rugs fairly frequently, suggesting that their appearance

was important, either because bed rugs were commonly visible or because

color provided the easiest means of distinguishing between one rug and

another.

Colonial Philadelphia householders possessed a variety of types

of bed rugs: red (nine examples), green (seven), blue (two), white

(two), sad-color (five), spotted (one), coarse (two), fine (one),

worsted (one). At least five households possessed both red and green 2*9 bed rugs, often listed in close conjunction. The variety of colors

listed for rugs suggests that they played an important decorative role

in addition to their primary insulating function. At least three

wealthy households coordinated the colors of their bed rugs and hangings.

In 1702, widow Elizabeth Pox owned "Redd” and "Sad Colourd" bed rugs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

and curtains, and gentleman Gilbert Wheeler furnished a bed with "one

Red Rugg with Curtains, Variances.

Although some writers, following Noah Webster*s dictionary of

1828, have denigrated bed rugs as mean or ordinary items, ^ a good rug

generally cost slightly more than a pair of sheets, a counterpane, or a <52 coverlid. Both upholsterers and merchants sold rugs. In 1701 the

appraisers of James Fox's estate valued six new rugs in his shop as

follows: "2 Worsted Ruggs Spotted at 22s. . . , 2.4.0/ 1 Purple Ditto

at 20s. . . . 1.0,0/ 3 Spotted Worsted Ditto Smaller at l6s. . . .

2.8.0,"^ Valuations for rugs in household inventories generally

ranged from 15s.-25s. each.

Coverlids, the second most frequently occurring type of outer

bed cover, are the most difficult to identify. Philadelphia appraisers

seem to have used the terms coverlid and coverlet interchangeably, as

well as interesting variant spellings as "Coddleletts," "Condelid," and 54 "kiverlid. The term coverlet has always created considerable con­

fusion among students of early American material culture. Semantically,

it derives from the French words "couvre" and "lit," meaning, very

simply, the cover for a bed. In a basic sense, then, the term coverlet

could include any and all types of outer bed covers: "A bed rug can be

called a coverlet, but a coverlet is not always a bed rug. The

arrangement of entries in Philadelphia inventories suggests that, like

rugs, coverlets often served as the uppermost layer of bed covers. In

1765 Dyche and Pardon defined a "coverlet or coverlid" as "an ornamental

covering thrown over all the other cloaths upon a bed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

Modem usage has associated the term coverlet with patterned

"bed spreads of wool and linen or cotton woven in overshot, double,

summer and winter, point-twill, twill diaper, Jacquard, or other

weaves, hut recent research has shown that few surviving examples of 57 these goods predate the Revolutionary War, Eighteenth century usage

of the term probably extended to other types of covers as well, and the

wide range of descriptions and valuations for coverlets and coverlids

in colonial Philadelphia Inventories argues against the existence of a

standard definition. Appraisers valued most coverlets between 5s. and

10s. each, but a very few recorded appraisals of over 5> 1.0.0. They

described a variety of types of coverlids: green, calico, cotton, rQ linen, tow, and feather (once each). The latter may have resembled

modern feather comforters. The 1702 inventory of Philadelphia, tailor

John Martin included "1 Coverlid for a bedd maid of Shredds," valued

with two yellow blankets at fc 1.0.0. This interesting and unusual entry

suggests a bed covering pieced together of small bits of fabric.^

Appraisers also distinguished between single and double coverlids; this

may refer to the size of the spread or, more plausibly, to a single or 60 double thickness in the weave of the cloth. Many colonial coverlets

were probably plain woven, with design created by color banding only,

while others may have incorporated simple blrdseye or overshot weaves. ^

Both upholsterers and merchants stocked imported, ready-made

coverlets. In 1771 Philadelphia upholsterer John Mason announced that

he had just imported from Bristol a variety of dry goods, including 62 coverlids two yards wide. In 1700 the appraisers of Robert Stevenson's

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

estate recorded among his shop goods: "22 Coverlids cost in England

*te.8d. ps. . . . 5.2.8."^

Quilts, the third major type of outer bed cover, appeared in

only thirty-three inventories (1 1 .5 0 percent of those with bedding).

Although the term quilt was also used to designate a rather flat mat­

tress f illed with wool or flocks and held together with regular stitch-

ing, its primary meaning apparently denoted a bed cover. Dyche and

Pardon's dictionary of 1765 described a quilt as "the upper covering for

a bed, &c. commonly made of various sorts of stuff, with wool between

the’ two coverings, and sewed together in the form of a chequer or diamond

work, Evidence gathered from the Philadelphia County probate records

indicates that quilts are among the most misunderstood types of fabric

furnishings. Pew colonial American quilts have survived, and students

of the subject have long based their comments on surviving quilts made

in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. According to

the prevailing mythology,

In early New England quilt making was a matter of extreme necessity and practicality. Fabrics were precious. The tiniest scraps of fabrics, including those that had been used and reused, were saved to be pieced together in a hit-or-miss fashion and quilted into warm bed covers.

By 1750# however, increasing leisure time

meant that housewives could, give more consideration to the decorative aspect of such utilitarian concerns as quilt- making. . . . Although fabrics were used more extrava­ gantly, . . . the old habit of thrift was not forsaken. Hie smallest scraps continued to be saved and used. . . . The nineteenth century, however, brought a progressive disregard for the saving ways associated with quilting in the previous century. 66

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. £&

This romanticized view of colonial quilts is neither logical nor

consistent with documentary evidence from the Philadelphia area. The

economy of Pennsylvania— as well as the other American colonies—

suffered from a chronic shortage of labor hut did not lack access to

imported textiles in abundance. A thriving shipping industry and the

efforts of an aggressive group of merchants provided easy, if somewhat

irregular, access to cheap, imported textiles. The high cost of colonial

labor made it impossible for colonial textile manufactories to compete

economically with imported textiles. Occasionally, the merchants over­

estimated the demand, and excesses of imported textiles glutted the

colonial market, driving prices down even lower than normal.^ The

inventory listings indicate that, throughout the period, many house­

holders in both rural and urban areas owned substantial quantities of

unused textiles at the time of their deaths (see Tables 9-13). Given

these two opposing factors — a severe shortage of labor and relatively

abundant supply of imported textiles— quilting could not have been an

economically feasible or widespread household enterprise in colonial

Philadelphia. The cost of labor expended in piecing together innumer­

able tiny scraps of fabric would surely have exceeded the cost of a

ready-made bed cover.

Available evidence suggests that prior to 1775 quilting was pri­

marily the work of skilled professional artisans. It did not become popular as a household craft until the very late eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries, when interest surged in ladies* leisure and

accomplishments and incipient industrialism highlighted the sentimental

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

value of hand-made objects. Quilting existed as a specific professional

occupation in eighteenth century England, described by R. Campbell in

The London Tradesman of l?h7*

Since I am so bold as to make free with the ladies Hoop Petticoat, I must just peep under the Quilted-Petticoat. Every one knows the Materials they are made of: They are made mostly by Women, and' some Ken, who are employed by the Shops and earn but little. They quilt likewise Quilts for Beds for the Upholders.®”

Philadelphia upholsterers apparently followed the London practice of

hiring quilters to supply bed covers. In 1739 Joseph Stockdale adver­

tised "all Sorts of Upholsterer's Work, as Beds and Sacking-Bottoms,

easy Chairs, Couches, and Seats, as also Quilting, done by Joseph 69 Stockdale." As early as the l?20's, Thomas Coates's executors re- 70 corded payments for "Quilting" done for his daughter Sarah. Phila­

delphia upholsterers also imported ready-made quilts from England, as 71 did many merchants/ In 1701 Margaret Beardsley's shop goods included

three quilts valued at L 2.0.0-b 2.8.0 each.^

In contrast to the evidence documenting the availability of

ready-made quilts and professional quilting in colonial Philadelphia,

very little firm data supports the idea of home quilting in that city.

Although Homor located references to "an occasional" quilting frame as 73 early as 1720, only three of the inventories studied for this project

listed quilting frames— all after 1750 and all within the city of

Philadelphia. Admittedly, the low value of quilting frames might have

caused them to go unlisted in some estates, but the extremely low fre­

quency of their appearance suggests that they were, in fact, uncommon.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Michael Brown, the only known owner of a quilting frame in the 1750- 1751 period, nay have incorporated quilting with his trade of silk ?4 dyeings several of the quilts described in the Philadelphia inventories

were made of silk. In 1775 quilting frames appeared in the inventories

of Christiana Davis, widow, and Thomas Cash, shopkeeper by this time,

quilting was beginning to emerge as a household craft. Significantly,

all three quilting frames appeared in prosperous urban households— not in

thrifty rural ones. A H three owners of quilting frames had invested

over £ 60.0.0 in household goods— well over the median investment of

£ 44.0.0-£ 44.10.0 for the period. Cash was indeed a wealthy man, with

a total estate of £ 1262.3.11 and household goods totaling £ 168.14.6.

This data suggests that quilting begem to emerge as a household craft

only during the latter half of the eighteenth century, and that it was

at first considered a stylish occupation for ladies of the leisure

classes— not a thrifty habit of hard working farm wives. John Martin* s

"Coverlid for a bedd maid of Shredds," inventoried in 1702, certainly

suggests a pieced bed cover, but this entry is extremely unusual. Fur­

thermore, neither the description nor the low valuation indicates a

quilted spread. Even if the spread was quilted, however, Martin was a

tailor by trade and so must be classified as a professional at the 76 craft of sewing.

Philadelphia appraisers almost invariably assigned high valua­

tions to quilts; they rated most quilts between £ 1.0.0 and £ 2.10.0

each, with a few as high as £ 4.0.0-£ 5.0.0 each. In 1701 Lydia Wade of

Essex House in Chester owned "2 New Quilts" valued together at £ 2.6.0,^

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

The inclusion of several layers of fabric in each quilt indubitably in­

creased its worth, but the high valuations also suggest the use of fine

fabrics— not worn scraps. The descriptions of quilts support this hypo­

thesis, Appraisers recorded green, dark-colored, sad-colored, calico,

India, yellow taffeta (one inventory each), and silk quilts (three 78 households). The majority of quilts listed in colonial Philadelphia

inventories belonged to urban households that had invested over

h 100.0.0 in household goods; only five rural inventories listed quilts.

Available evidence indicates that most quilts used in colonial Phila­

delphia were expensive, high quality, imported or professionally-made

goods— symbols of status and cosmopolitan taste— not the products of

household crafts or amateur needlewomen. Berlekamp has reported a simi­

lar situation in late seventeenth century Boston: "No references were

found suggesting quilts pieced from leftover fabric swatches or made

of anything but very elegant fabrics."79

Counterpanes constituted the least common type of outer bed

cover. Only 5.23 percent of all inventories with bedding listed counter­

panes. Unlike rugs, which declined in popularity during the colonial

period, counterpanes seem to have become more common during the third

quarter of the eighteenth century. Up to 1750, less than 5.00 percent

of the inventories with bedding listed counterpanes, while 10.00 percent

did so in 1775. The Philadelphia inventories studied do not support

Cummings’s suggestion that the term counterpane "was apparently synony- 80 mous with coverlid." like quilts, counterpanes seem to have been a

more stylish bed cover than either rugs or coverlids. The descriptions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

recorded by appraisers suggest that many counterpanes were wade of im­

ported Indian cottons? these descriptions included cotton (four times), 81 calico, white, and printed counterpanes (once each). In 17?1 Phila- 82 delphia upholsterer John Hason advertised cotton counterpanes,

ifoomas Wallace, mariner, owned "one Woolen Counterpine" worth £ 1.0.0

in 1775. hut this item seems to have been exceptional.^ Being composed

of only one layer of fabric, counterpanes were worth slightly less than

quilts, but generally more than coverlets. Appraisers valued most

counterpanes between 15s. and 20s. each. like quilts, counterpanes

generally did not appear in poorer households. Cf the fifteen estates

possessing counterpanes, at least eleven had invested over £ 5 0.0 .0 in

household goods.

Philadelphia inventories also listed coverings, old cloths, and gk a "blue cotton cloath"— all of which probably served as bed covers.

During the early years of the eighteenth century, several householders

used hides, bearskins, and elkskins for bed covers. The 1?02 inventory

of Susannah Elton, widow of Philadelphia, included "one bed stead & QC corde 8s. wth a bear skin 8s." In the sane year, Elizabeth Dyer's

appraisers recorded a fully furnished bed, complete with:

One bed Bolster, two pillows, on pair of Sheets and one pillow Beer, one green Sugg, two 31ankets, two Cattail* pillows one Small white Hugg, one Bedstead and Cord, a Set of green Curtains, the Indian matt and hide, with fring for the Curtains . . . 8.8.8.86

In 1703 Kendrick Taunton’s appraisers recorded among this yeoman’s house­

hold goods, "one old Elk skin to belong to the beding . . . 0.4.0"®^

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bedsteads

Economically and symbolically, the bedstead remained subordinate

to the bedding and hangings at least until the very end of the colonial

period; only about one-half (5 1 .8 5 percent) of all inventories studied

listed bedsteads. However, in 1775 the percentage of households pos­

sessing bedsteads rose to 7 2 .5 0 percent from an earlier figure of 45.08

percent for the 1700's, 1720's, and 1750's (see Tables 1-2). Of the 168

total estates with bedsteads, 1 7 .2 6 percent possessed sacking bottom

bedsteads and 15.48 percent owned corded bedsteads (see Table 15).

The$e descriptions apparently referred to two distinctly different

methods of supporting the bed on its frame. Sacking bottom bedsteads

possessed a fabric bottom of duck, canvas, or other heavy linen laced

tightly to a border strip nailed to the bedstead rails; stretched tightly 88 across the frame, the sacking bottom supported the bed tick. Corded

bedsteads employed ropes— stretched taut across the frame from pegs or

holes in the rails?— to support the bed.

The proportions of corded and sacking bottom bedsteads in use

altered dramatically during the course of the eighteenth century. In

1700-1704, 32.43 percent of the inventories with bedsteads specifically

listed corded bedsteads and only 5.41 percent recorded sacking bottom

bedsteads. In 1725-1727 and 1750-1751 the two types appeared with

equal frequency, but in 1775» 2 9 .3 1 percent of the inventories with bed­

steads listed sacking bottom bedsteads and only 6.90 percent had corded

ones. The replacement of corded bedsteads by sacking bottom ones may

have reflected an increasing desire for physically comfortable sleeping

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

equipment.

Although corded and sacking "bottom "bedsteads made up the majority

of "bedsteads specifically described by appraisers, the Philadelphia in­

ventories did list several other types. Six inventories included

truckle or trundle bedsteads, and another five listed pallet beds or

bedsteads. All three terms designated small, low bedsteads, sometimes

on wheels, designed to be pushed out of the way under larger bedsteads 89 during the day. A few inventories listed bedsteads that folded up

into the wall or converted to other pieces of furniture. James Korris,

sawyer of Philadelphia, owned a "Large press bedstead" worth i 1.2.6 in

1?26, while in 1750 lagdalen Stillfield of Germantown died possessed of

“One Bedstead to Shut together and form a Table,” valued at is 1.0.0.^

Another widow, Elizabeth Dyer of New Castle, owned a "Settled bedsted"

in 1?02, and the inventory of Henry Gibbins, webster, taken in the same

year, listed "one bedstead chairbst" worth 15s. in the parlor and 0 1 , another "Chairbd" in the kitchen.' Dyche and Pardon, in 1765, described

a settle bed as "one that turns up and contains all the cloaths, &c. 92 within a Chest or box, and when so done forms a seat, &c. In 1734-

upholsterer William Atlee advertised, both "Settee Beds and Easie Chair

Beds, Commodious for lower Rooms (models of which may "be seen). John

hart in, tailor of Philadelphia, owned a bedstead "wth Screws" worth 9s.

when he died in 1702. The use of screws in bedstead construction held

the frame together securely but allowed it to be dismantled fairly rtf ■■ easily. Other descriptions recorded in the inventories included field,

high post, standing, and board bottom bedsteads, a bedstead "with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91

wheels" (probably a trundle bedstead), and bed stocks. ^ Appraisers

also identified bedsteads by the type of wood used or by size (large

or small).

Bed Hangings

Bed hangings marked the greatest elaboration of the bed,' and

much has been written about their colors, styles, and fabrics. Although

they have now become an important symbol of colonial life, bed hangings

were far from being an universal phenomenon in colonial Philadelphia

inventories. Throughout the period, only 30*56 percent of the inven­

tories specifically listed or strongly implied possession of bed hang­

ings (see Table l). Even when they did possess bed hangings, however,

few householders owned a complete set of curtains, valances, head and

tester cloths for every bed. Only one inventory— that of a wealthy

merchant who died in 1750— specifically mentioned a fabric covered cor­

nice. ^

Descriptions of specific colors and fabrics used in bed hangings

were rare among the Philadelphia inventories studied, and the data

available is insufficient for firm conclusions. In the inventories read

for this paper, appraisers provided more specific and detailed descrip­

tions of the colors and fabrics used in bed hangings during the 1700-1704-

period than they did for the other three periods combined. This pheno­

menon suggests that even though the frequency of bed hangings remained

fairly constant during the colonial period, their relative importance as

indicators of style and status declined substantially between 1700 and

1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

Printed or painted fabrics dominated the "bed hangings described

in Philadelphia inventories, especially after 1750 (see Table 16).

Four sets of calico hangings appeared in four inventories taken before

1750, while nine sets appeared in six inventories taken in 1750-1751 97 and 1775. Adam Peterson's inventory, written in 1702, listed a set

Q g of bed curtains and valances of "painted limti" valued at £ 1.0.0,

Green was by far the most popular solid color for bed hangings in

eighteenth century Philadelphia— as it had been in seventeenth century 99 Boston. Six inventories listed nine sets of green bed hangings plus

one.green and white set and another in red, green and white.Blue

hangings followed green in popularity: six sets of blue hangings

appeared in six inventories. Two other estates possessed blue and white

hangings, and one individual owned blue and white checked hangings.*^*

Three estates possessed one set of red hangings each; two inventories

listed single examples of sad-colored bed hangings; and one estate re- 102 corded a "Sett of Cynnamon colloured Curtains and Valances." Although

white appeared in combination with other colors, it was apparently not

favored alone; only one estate listed a set of white hangings.Only

one inventory specifically mentioned checked bed hangings, and none 10i* recorded worked or embroidered curtains. Cummings has reported a

similarly low incidence of checked and embroidered bed furniture in

colonial New England inventories.*®^

The Philadelphia inventories studied recorded bed curtains made

of muslin, linen, Scotch cloth, serge, linsey woolsey, shalloon, and

cheyney (see Table 16 ). The limited data available suggests that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. woolen, worsted, and linen fabrics predominated prior to 1750, when

cotton fabrics began to replace them. None of the Philadelphia inven­

tories studied recorded silk damasks, satins, or velvets used in bed

hangings. Research by Hornor, Natzkin, and Kathleen M. Catalano has

uncovered many more specific contemporary descriptions of Philadelphia

bed hangings, including references to bed curtains made of broadcloth,

linsey woolsey, serge, stuff, camlet, cheyney,calamanco, damask, hara-

teen, moreen, paragon, perpetuana (both worsteds), linen, garlick, hol-

land, diaper, kenting, gauze, hair, muslin, dimity, calico, chintz, cot­

ton; silk, satin, Persian (a silk), and worked fabrics.

The value of bed hangings varied according to the number of

pieces, fullness of the cut, quality of material, condition, age and

amount of trimming, but these factors were rarely recorded in the in­

ventories. The average value for a full set of bed hangings ranged

between h 1.0.0 and h 2.0.0, occasionally rising to B 3.0.0 or £ ^.0.0.

Age seems to have substantially depreciated the value of bed curtains,

for appraisers generally valued "old" hangings at under 15s.

Provision of bed hangings constituted an important aspect of

the upholsterer's craft, and the advertisements and bills of these

tradesmen provide further information cn bed hangings available in colo­

nial Philadelphia. Upholsterers could supply their customers with

hangings imported ready-made from England or with custom hangings made

from fabrics imported by the bolt. Their advertisements reflected the

changing fashions in bed hangings. During the early part of the eight­

eenth century, upholsterers and merchants stocked and sold woolen and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9ft

worsted fabrics for use as bed curtains. In 1701 fexgaret Beardsley's

shop inventory contained twenty-four pieces of "Curtaine Stuff,

stuff being a particular type of worsted fabric.10^ In 1?22 upholsterer

John Housman offered for sale his supply of "Stuffs for Curtains.

In 1769, however, Plunket Pleeson advertised a different range of fur­

nishing fabrics: "cotton chintz, and copperplate bed furniture,

harrateens and chineys, with suitable trimmings, . . , norans, . . .

furniture checks. Just before the Revolution, in 177ft, Charles

Allen offered to make "all sorts of field, festoon, and canopy bed

drapery." During the same decade, William Martin and Hyns Taylor

both advertised ready-made beds for sale? Martin offered a "neat drapery

bed, of furniture check," while Taylor had "a genteel four post Bed,

with very fine flowered cotton furniture, fringes and ornamented with a „ H 3 comice." J

In most cases, the cost of the materials greatly exceeded that

of the upholsterer's labor. In 1767 John Mason published a price list

for labor alone:

JOHN MASON, Upholsterer, . . . begs leave to inform the Public. That considering the stagnation of business, and scarcity of cash, he finds it necessary to reduce the several prices of his work one third part lower than formerly, and in following manner, viz. £. s. d. For making a Harrateen Bed, with Cornices, 1 * 5 0 Venetian Curtains for Windows, 0 7 6 Calico Bed, with Cornice 1 2 6 Ditto without Cornice, 0 15 0 Making an easy Chair, 0 15 0 Making a Cover for Ditto, 0 6 0 Making a Settee, 1 2 6 Putting up a bed, 0 5 0 Good Sacking Bottoms, 0 1ft 0.11ft

Several bills from Plunket Fleeson also demonstrate the relative value

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

of upholstery materials and labor. In 1762 Fleeson billed William

Armstrong ii 3.0.0 for "making a full trim’d Bed" and h 26.2,0 for

"58 yds. Cotton Chinee for Do. During the years 1773-177^, wealthy

merchant Stephen Collins included in his account of the total "Coste of

a Bed & Furniture of a Room," t 15.3.0 for "56 yd. copperplate Furniture

cotton" and only i> 6.10.6 for "Fleesons accot. of making yt."*^

The upholsterers* advertisements and bills add several names to

the list of fabrics used for bed hangings in colonial Philadelphia—

worsted camlets, harateens, and stuff and cotton chintzes and copperplate

prints. However, elegant silk damasks are noticeably absent from the 117 list. Although some wealthy Philadelphians did own silk hangings,

their complete absence from a general sample of inventories and uphol­

sterers* advertisements suggests that these fabrics were not common in

the Quaker City. In 1772 crimson silk damask was not even available in U 8 Philadelphia. Perhaps a preference for plainer fabrics throughout the

eighteenth century reflected the lingering influence of an early Quaker

aesthetic.

Arrangement of Bed Coverings

Although the inventories clearly indicate the major components

of colonial Riiladelphia sleeping equipment, it is almost impossible to

reconstruct the parts or prices Of a standard bed. Bed furnishings

varied greatly according to taste and economic and social conditions, and

the inventories suggest no rigid rules governing the composition of the

bed. Indeed, they indicate great flexibility in the combination of vari­

ous .elements. Few households furnished every bed completely or with the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

sane quality of materials. Appraisers customarily recognized a gradation

in the quality and completeness of "bed furnishings within the same

household. Thomas James*s inventory, taken in 1?50, carefully listed:

the Best Bed and Bedding 20.00.00 the 2nd bed and Bedding 12.00.00 the 3rd bed & Bedding 12,00.00 the 4th Dtto 2 .1 0 .0 0 .1 1 9

Twenty-five years later, Jonathan Dickinson's appraisers valued his 120 "Best Bed & Curtains &c &c" at c 15.0.0. like Dickinson's apprais­

ers, many appraisers specifically distinguished only the best bed?

others did not specifically mention any gradation but implied a declin­

ing importance in beds through their descriptions and lower valuations.

The best bed was most likely to be fully equipped with hangings, bed­

stead, covers, blankets, two sheets, two feather pillows, a feather

bolster, and a feather bed. Lesser beds were more likely to have only

partial sets of hangings (or none at all), fewer and less stylish

covers, coarser sheets or sheet, and ticks and headrests stuffed with

flocks, chaff, or cattails instead of feathers.

Many inventories listed substantially fewer bedsteads than bed

ticks, and 48,15 percent listed no bedsteads at all. This phenomenon

probably reflected several factors. In some cases, the appraisers al­

most certainly meant to include bedsteads in their general descrip­

tions of beds and their appurtenances. In some households, a couch may

have provided a raised frame for an extra bed. In other cases, bed

ticks appeared in greater frequency because more than one was used on

each bedstead, sometimes for extra cushioning. However, bed ticks

served not only as supports for the sleeper but as covers as well.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

Several inventories document this practice. In 1726 Kathias Conrad's

appraisers recorded among his possessions "two chaff "beds, & two light

featherbeds for covering, with suitable sheets" worth L 6.0,0.'^ In

1775 Christian Lehman's household goods included:

A small Board bottomed Bedstead, with an upper Feather Bed, Cattail Under Bed, Straw Bag, a Linen Sheet, two Pillows & One Bolster 2.0.0. 5. A larger 3edstead with a Cattail Under Bed, a Straw Bag, Two Sheets, Two Pillows, one Bolster, a rug £ a Coverlid 3.O.Q.

The use of beds and straw bags as coverings was especially common in

Germanic households and may not have prevailed among the English and 123 Welsh colonists. Finally, many inventories did not list bedsteads

because many households did not possess them. The bedstead was not

essential to the bed, and many householders simply slept on bed ticks

laid directly on the floor. A few poor householders owned neither tick

nor bedstead and apparently slept on the floor, wrapped in what few

coverings they did possess. John Lloyd, laborer, owned only "two

blankets and one Rug" when he died in 1727; Henry Jones, yeoman, pos­

sessed only two blankets in the same year; and John West, in 1726, had 124 for bedding only "one ould 31anket and Course Sheet."

Colonial Philadelphians were also flexible in adapting items to

uses and needs other than those which they generally served. One

example is the use of feather beds and straw bags as coverings rather

than as cushions. Wool and flannel sheets provided additional warmth

in winter, while cotton blankets made cooler coverings in summer. Bear

and elkskin bed covers reflected adjustments to the proximity of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

wilderness; as the frontier receded further from Philadelphia after

the first years of the eighteenth century, the use of wild animal

hides on "beds declined.

Fifty-one of the total inventories studied (15.74 percent) in­

cluded itemized, room by room listings of household goods or at least

designated the room locations of some furnishings. These inventories

provide useful evidence on the placement of beds within the colonial

Philadelphia household. However, since room by room listings tend to

appear more frequently among wealthy households than among poorer ones,

these inventories may present a biased view of colonial practices.

Almost all of the room by room inventories listed beds in chambers- and

other upstairs rooms, and about one-third located them in garrets or

other third story rooms. Only twelve inventories listed beds in halls,

parlors, or other downstairs rooms, and three-fourths of these references

appeared in 1700-1704. This data suggests that, particularly after the

opening years of the eighteenth century, Philadelphians, especially

those in comfortable economic circumstances, preferred to sleep up­

stairs. Other researchers have reached the same conclusions about the

placement of beds in both Philadelphia and New England households during 125 the eighteenth century. J However, the Philadelphia inventories do not

concur with Cummings’s report of "dormitory accommodations" in New

England chambers. Most of "toe rooms itemized in Philadelphia room by

room inventories contained but one bed.

Economic Value of Bed Coverings

The economic value of bed coverings helped establish their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

psychological importance as indicators of wealth and status. However,

the economic values of various parts of the bed did not correspond en­

tirely to the importance modem scholars have assigned them. The

average ranges of valuation for each item suggest the following scale

of economic importance:

feather bed, bolster, and pillows b 3 .00.00-7,0 0 .0 0

quilt 1 .0 0 .00-2 .1 0 .0 0

hangings 1 .00.00-2 .0 0 .0 0

rug 0.1 5 .00-1 .0 5 .0 0

•counterpane 0.1 5.00-1 .0 0 .0 0

pair of sheets 0 .1 5.00-1 .0 0 .0 0

flock bed, bolster, and pillows 0 .1 0 .00-2 .0 0 .0 0

chaff bed, bolster, and pillows 1 .0 0 .0 0

coverlet 0 .05.00-0 .1 0 .0 0

pair of blankets 0 .0^.00-0 .1 2 .0 0

Physically and economically, the bed tick itself formed the foundation

of the sleeping assemblage. A quilt could cost as much or more than a

set of hangings. Hugs, often considered plain,uninteresting appur­

tenances, were generally more valuable than counterpanes and coverlids.

Although a pair of sheets was usually worth less than a quilt, a set of

hangings, a rug, or a counterpane, sheets were more often accumulated

in larger numbers than other items. Overall, fine sheets often repre­

sented a more important economic investment than stylish hangings or

bed covers.

Although the value of a bed-defined as a functional assemblage

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

of sleeping equipment— varied greatly according to the quality, condi­

tion, and selection of its component parts, it often represented an

individual*s largest single investment in household goods. Several

phenomena "bear witness to the economic importance of hed coverings.

Throughout the period, appraisers conscientiously recorded and valued

old hangings and "bedding of all types, not to mention "much wome,"

"very had,” moth-eaten, and even "burnt items. Beds were often the

first household items listed in the inventories, and they frequently

appeared sis "bequests in wills. Even though the frequency of "bed cover­

ings remained constant as the eighteenth century progressed, however,

their economic value declined slightly in relationship to that of

other household goods. This economic decline went hand in hand with a

contraction of the status implications and style hearing functions of

hed coverings. The diminishing psychological meaning of hed coverings

manifested itself in the decline in specific descriptions after the

1700-17Cfc period; appraisers no longer considered it essential to dis­

tinguish status or style hearing fabrics or colors.

Inheritance of hed coverings

Although certainly exceeded, hoth in value and in frequency,

hy "bequests of land and cash, "beds were the subject of more "bequests

than any other household item— with the possible exception of silver

plate. Almost one-fifth (19.62 percent) of the 418 wills read men­

tioned beds specifically; most of these bequests (8 7 .8 2 percent)

appeared in rural wills. The eighty-two decedents "bequeathing "bedding

to their heirs included sixty-nine men and thirteen women (all widows).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

The latter were primarily wealthy women with substantial estates of

which to dispose or dependent children for whom to provide. The men

who left wills also did so largely to provide for the support of

their widows and children. The economic value and function of the "bed

rendered it essential to the continued maintenance of a self-sufficient

household. Over one-half of the male group (58.5? percent) willed

bedding to their wives. In 1726 Thomas Potts, Philadelphia tanner,

left his widow a yearly income of £ 12.0,0 plus "my best feather Bead

with all Its Appurtenances and all the furniture of one Room or 128 Chamber." Sometimes the bequests of bedding or other household

goods fulfilled the widow's legal right to a one-third share of the

estate; sometimes they were given in addition to the dower right. In

1727 Griffith Miles, yeoman of Bristol Township, left to his wife Sarahs

(beside what the Law alows her or her Lawfull thirds) the feather Bed Bedstead 3oulster Pillows Curtains c other furniture about it which Stands in the parlor and the half dozen of painted Flagg'd Bottomed Chairs c one Turkey worked Chair and one Horse by her to be Chosen out of all my Horses and one Cow by her Likewise to be Chosen out of my Cows . . . my Walnut Chest of draws my Great Looking Glass Two of my Large Pewter dishes and two little ones c Tenn plates. ^9

Half a century later, however, Henry Herligh, yeoman of Cheltenham

Township, specifically provided that his wife Susanna was to receive

£ 200.0.0 and

my best Bed Beding & all furniture thereto belonging, all our Kitchen furniture, all our pewter, one Dresser & furniture thereof, one Mare & one Cow to dispose of all which as she pleases, in full of her part of Dower or Widows part of My Estate.^30

Concern for the economic and physical maintenance of the widow

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

and children provided the major impetus for "bequests of bedding and

other household goods in addition to land, cash, or an annual income.

Many men left substantial portions for the maintenance of dependent

children as long the mother remained a widow, but a much smaller in­

heritance to her if she were to remarry. In 177**- Jacob Cressen, yeoman

of Fassyunk Township, willed that his wife was to have “all my Substance

for the support of herself and my dear Children" as long as she remained

a widow, but if she remarried, only "her Thirds, and one Bed, two 131 Chairs and a Table." Widows without dependent children often re­

ceived only enough to support themselves. In 1774- Evan Williams, yeo­

man of East Nantmeal Township in Chester County, provided his wife with

an annual income of only h 2.10.0 plus "my best Bed and the furniture

thereof my Chest and all my pewter and all my Stock of sheep" and "the 132 use of my Lodging Room." J Widows with similarly reduced incomes

could hardly have afforded to replenish their stocks of bedding and

other necessary household goods.

The second largest proportion of beds went to daughters: 27.14-

percent of the men and 7 5 .0 0 percent of the women bequeathed bedding to

their daughters, while only 1 0 .0 0 percent of the men and 3 3 .3 3 percent

of the women so endowed their sons. In 1775 Mary Favis, a widow resid­

ing in New Britain in Bucks County, left to her unmarried daughter,

Nary Davis, "My Best bed and bedsteads and a Sufficient quantity of My

Most valuable bed Clothes to furnish one bed Compleatly, & also My 133 warming pan & three pewter dishes." Many of the beds left to

daughters— especially unmarried daughters— apparently comprised part

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

vajt of their dowries. John Chappell, yeoman of Oxford Township, in

1774 willed to his daughter Esther £ 500.0.0 to he given her on the day

of her marriage or her eighteenth birthday, together with "my Negroe

Child Called Viney, my Case of Drawers, one feather Bed and Bedding and

One Silver porringer, with Three Silver Table Spoons. In 1772

Bernard Iawerswiller, innholder of Philadelphia, provided that,

as my Daughter Mary hath had a Bed and Sundry other Move­ ables of me when she married, I give her further for the use of her husband Daniel Oldenbruch my best blue Coat and Jacket, Which is to be in full of all her Share & Demands in all my Estate. 13®

Finally, a badly t o m will by Awhrey Richardson, yeoman of Providence

Township, provides further documentation for the importance of beds in

dowries:

And further Its allso my wll . . . beding in my house and as my daughters happens to ferry Its my will they shall . . . beding in part of their portions at the appraisement of two honest men.137

Although wives and daughters received the majority of be­

quests of bedding, a few individuals left bedding to sons (13.41 per­

cent), sisters (4.88 percent), granddaughters (3.66 percent), and

other close relatives or friends.

Ownership of bed coverings

The wills also provide important evidence on the ownership of

bed coverings. According to eighteenth century English and colonial

law, only unmarried or widowed women could legally own property— real

or personal. When a woman married, her property legally passed into

the control of her husband.^® Christian Ruth, yeoman of New Britain

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

in Bucks County, thought it prudent in 1775 to specifically will to

his wife Barbara "all her wearing apparel. "^39 Kost individuals,

both men and women, who made wills commonly used the pronoun "my" to

refer to beds and other goods in their possession. Karried women did

not make wills, and widows— like men— were the legal owners of the

goods listed in their wills.

Despite these factors, however, a number of clues strongly sug­

gest that many beds actually belonged to the woman of the household.

Significantly, at least 90.00 percent of the wills bequeathing bedding

listed women as the recipients; men commonly received cash, land, live­

stock, farm implements, or craft tools as their inheritance. In 1775

Stephen Bowyer of Providence Township left £ 140.0.0 and some livestock

to his son Thomas and "the Bed and the furniture to it belonging and

her Case of Qrawrs I give to my Daughter in law Elizabeth the wife of 140 my sd Son Thomas . . . for her own use and disposal." Several men

used phrases as "her Bed & beding," "her Bed and fumature," or "her

Bed, Bedstead, Blanket and all Iinnen & Cloth that we have," to describe 141 bequests. These descriptions certainly imply that the bedding le­

gally given to- the wife by the will was already considered hers by the

family. Apparently, bedding and other goods included in a woman’s

dowry often continued to be thought of as her property during the dura­

tion of the marriage— even though she had no legal rights to them during

her husband’s lifetime. In 1702 Phineas Pemberton, yeoman of Bristol

Township in Bucks County, left to his "deare tender & nearly beloved

wife Alice all the household goods plate beding books and other things

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

that were hers before marriage and are now in being. 142 The following

year, Owen Morgan, husbandman of Merion Township, bequeathed to his

wife Blanche, "what Remanse of ye houshold stuff an beding . . . 143 brought with her here. " In 172? Hannah Carver received from

Richard Carver, yeoman of Abington, "My New Chest of Drawers and that 144 Bed with the fomiture which was hers when She was married with me."

Although the wills clearly indicate that many beds were consi­

dered feminine property, they do not answer the related question of

who selected and purchased the bed furnishings— the husband or the wife.

Noman who possessed beds generally inherited them from either their

fathers or their husbands, who nay or may not have allowed them to

participate in the selection of appurtenances. Most craftsmen addressed

their bills for goods or services rendered to the man of the household,

but this again reflected the legal situation of the times. Several

wills allowed wives or daughters their choice of beds and bedding,

suggesting at least some recognition of feminine taste. In 1702

wealthy widow Elizabeth Pox left her daughter Elizabeth:

That bed c Furniture in the Lower room in the new house c one dozen of Leather Chairs c one Table in the same room, but if she likes not the bedsted she shall have her choyse of all the rest and also one flock bed c furniture.^ 5

Upholsterers commonly addressed their newspaper advertisements to

"Ladies and Gentlemen," suggesting that both sexes participated in the

selection of bed coverings and other fabric furnishings.

Function and Meaning of Bed Coverings

Colonial Philadelphia bed coverings quite clearly possessed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

several levels of function and meaning. Many needs— "both physical and

psychological— influenced the selection, arrangement, and use of these

goods: comfort, convenience, cleanliness, associations! value, style,

status, privacy.

Comfort, convenience, and cleanliness

Upholsterers frequently emphasized the comfort provided hy

their particular method of making a bed tick. In 1771 Charles Allen

informed the public that he had "a particular method of preparing and

cleansing Feathers, and stuffing a mattress or Bed, so as to render 1^6 them remarkably easy." During the 1770*s upholsterer John Mason

waged a continual campaign advocating the increased comfort provided

by hair or wool mattresses:

. , . Kattrasses are a kind of beds worthy the notice of the Public, for, at this season, many persons receive benefit by sleeping on them, as they prevent a too great perspiration, which is so prejudicial to health, 1^7

Mason .attributed psychological as well as physical benefits to the use

of "Mattress Beds":

The utility of these beds, is not duly attended to, as they, by sleeping on them, strengthen and brace up the nerves, we need them much, at this crisis, when our Liberty is tottering, like our Neighbour’s Resolutions.

The shift from corded bedsteads to sacking bottom bedsteads, which

could provide more evenly distributed support, also reflected an increas­

ing concern for physical comfort.

Colonial interest in convenience manifested itself primarily

in the ingenious methods used to remove beds from living spaces when

not in use. Wheeled trundle and pallet bedsteads rolled small or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10?

secondary beds out of sight under larger ones; press bedsteads folded

up into the walls. Deception beds, advertised by at least one colonial lh9 Philadelphia upholsterer, cleverly converted to tables, settles,

chairs, or other types of furniture. These movable pieces of furniture

were certainly forerunners of the mechanized, constituent furniture of

the nineteenth century, which Siegfried Giedion has discussed in

Mechanization Takes Command.

Cleanliness entered into the composition of the bed in several

ways. The shift from the non-washable woolen hangings popular in the

early eighteenth century to the washable cottons prevalent after 1?50

represented an important advance. Accumulations of several sets of

sheets and pillowcases symbolized status and prosperity but also allowed

tangible improvements in living standards. Clean sheets, changed

regularly, reduced chances of infestation by vermin, Wool mattresses

were recommended as less attractive to bed bugs than feather beds.

Whatever filling was used, bed ticks had to be properly made and main­

tained to discourage vermin and prevent undesirable odors. Plunket

?leeson recognized the importance of thoroughly curing the stuffing for

a bed tick; in 1768 he wrote to his client John Smith to apologize for

a delay in preparing two feather beds:

I was favour'd with your Order of the 7 April last for 2 feather Beds which I expected to have sent up before now, but being desirous of as much time as might be for the better drying of the feathers which would be injured by to great a degree of heat, have defer'd therefore to fill the ticks in the latter end of this week when you may ex­ pect them up and as many more in a few days as you may think proper to Order.152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

Associations! value

The inventories, wills, and tradesmen's bills and advertise­

ments provide fairly firm, specific evidence on the physical materials,

forms, motifs, and functions of bed coverings. Although the meaning of

these objects remains much more elusive, bed coverings certainly

played important psychological roles in colonial domestic life.

References to the sentimental associations of beds are rare, but

occasionally the wording of bequests in wills suggests a recognition

of the bed's symbolic and ceremonial importance to family life. In

1750 ?eter Weger specified that his wife was to have "the Marriage 1*53 Bed." Occasional references to "our Bed" suggest more subtly the l<5*f shared nature of the connubial bed.

In other cases, bed coverings served as mementoes of the de­

ceased or another relative. In 1775 Jacob Weaver, yeoman of Spring­

field Township in Bucks County, willed to his wife Magdalene: "Ky

Whole bed & bedstead & the Curtains where I use to sleep in it in my

life Time. Bed coverings could become a type of family heritage,

providing a tangible link between one generation and the next, particu­

larly when passed on. to the children of a spouse already deceased. In

1701 John Roades, cordwainer of Darby in Chester County,left to his

youngest son "the Bed and furniture which I now Lye upon, it being In­

tended for him by his mother," and to another son, "one Bed and furni- 156 ture which his mother Left him." Sarah Ferry inherited from her

father, in 1726, "one Feather bed and boulster, one Rug, one Sheet, 157 one blanket, and one Bell-Mettle Pott, which were her Mother's."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

In 1?02 Henry Fumis, a Philadelphia saddler, disposed of several items

identified by family name and apparently passed down from different sets

of ancestors. To a Lowell cousin still residing in old England (pos­

sibly in Vales), Fumis bequeathed "my Lowll bedsted and bed and bol­

ster and pills and a pr of Sheats and a pill bare and 2 blankets and ye

Rugg and my Chest.

Sfcfig,

Bed coverings also fulfilled important aesthetic needs. Idfre

other fabric furnishings, they provided a note of color and pattern not

easily available in other types of household goods. As coverings, they

could be changed fairly easily to follow the seasons or new fashions.

In fact, the perishable nature of textiles demanded that, under normal

use, fabric furnishings be replaced more frequently than many other

types of household goods. These factors combined with the central

position of the bed in domestic life to make bed coverings important

indicators of taste and style.

Upholsterers clearly considered style one of the most important

features of bed coverings and other fabric furnishings. Newcomers to

Philadelphia consistently emphasized their recent leave-taking and re­

ported their past contacts with English and European upholstery shops.

In 1771 Charles Allen, "lately arrived from London," announced his

readiness to

carry on the Upholsterer’s Business in all its branches with the utmost elegance and taste; which he is enabled to do, having worked for the two most celebrated men of that occupation, viz. Mr. Bradshaw in London and Hons. Fleuri in Paris.^59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

More established upholsterers repeatedly stressed their familiarity

with the "newest taste" and their ability to make goods in the

"neatest and most fashionable manner. In 1771 John Mason promised

his clients that "they may depend on /their orders/ being neatly and

carefully executed, and as much to satisfaction as if he had been a

Londoner or Frisian.

English styles— introduced by immigrant upholsterers, imported

furnishings, and after 175^» furniture pattern books— indubitably influ­

enced furnishing fashions in Philadelphia. Throughout the period,

quilts and counterpanes were valued as more stylish bed covers than

rugs and coverlids. Wealthy householders aspired to the fashionable

ideal of matched bed furnishings. In 1702 Elizabeth Pox’s estate in­

cluded several sets of matched bed coverings: a set of green curtains

and valances with a green quilt, a set of sad-colored serge curtains

and valances with matching linens and rug, and a set of red curtains l62 with a red rug. Elizabeth Dyer of New Castle in the same year used

a color scheme of red, white, and green throughout her chambers: one

bed had a set of green and white fringed curtains with a red rug;

another had a green rug and a white rug matched with green hangings; a

third had "one pair of Curtaines Red, green and white." _ In 1727

Catherine Griffing owned one set of calico bed curtains with matching 164- inside curtains and "Covering." Only seven inventories specifi­

cally recorded matched bed and window hangings; one of these estates

dated to 1727, another to 1750, and the remainder appeared in 1775*^^

The inventory of wealthy Philadelphia merchant Thomas Burgess, taken in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill

1750* listed two sets of matched hed and window hangings:

1 Galileo hed with Cover'd coraish & 1 pair Window Curtains with hed rod & window Curtain rod 9.0.0

1 hlue & white hed with hed holster & pillows Blankets & Sheets with window curtains 35.0.0,

Twenty-five years later, Evan Morgan of Philadelphia also owned

"1 Suit of Calico hed & window Curtains" worth £ 5.0.0.^^ None of the

inventories studied specifically recorded the presence of upholstered

seating furniture to complete the assemblage of matched fabric fur­

nishings.

The few references located to matched fabric furnishings de­

rived almost entirely from the upper ranks of society— wealthy widows,

merchants, gentlemen— and do not necessarily reflect the habits of the

population as a whole. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether many

Philadelphians shared the upholsterers* high estimation of the latest

styles. Even allowing for depreciation due to age, few of the inven­

toried hed curtains approached in value the prices charged by Plunket

Fleeson for fashionable, custom-made hed hangings. Despite advertise­

ments for fringes and fabric covered cornices, only two inventories

actually recorded these fashionable appurtenances. Since many

householders owned hed hangings and coverings specifically described as

old, these items certainly could not have been in the latest taste.

The numerous families who passed bedding materials from one generation

to another must have been more concerned with the continued economic

and practical utility of these goods than with their lack of style.

Significantly, the phenomenon of bequeathing bedding to younger gener­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

ations was limited almost entirely (87 *8 2percent) to rural house­

holders, who generally accounted style less important than did their

city neighbors.

Status

The role of bed coverings as expressions of taste and style

related closely to their function as indicators of status— both public

and private. The quantity, quality, and style of one*s bed coverings

and other fabric furnishings immediately signaled one's social and

economic position to all household visitors. Bed furnishings also

helped define the status of individual members of the household.

Gradations in the importance of beds within the household, from the

most valuable and well furnished best bed through several grades of

lesser beds, allowed one's position in the household— or the status of

a guest— to be keyed to the bed in which one slept. The better beds

possessed certain physical as well as symbolic advantages. They

afforded their occupants greater privacy because they were more likely

to be fully curtained and less likely to share chambers with other beds.

Low status members of the household were generally assigned

scanty or poor quality bedding. Four inventories recorded bedding for

Negroes and another included bedding for servants. Thomas Iawrence

provided his servants with three sets of beds and bedding worth a total

of £ 7.1 0 .0 , or s 2 .1 0 .0 each, while the family beds were all appraised 169 at i> 12.0.0 or more each. y Negroes* beds were generally even less

substantial. In 1775 Samuel Schuller's appraisers valued a "Negroe

Bed &c” at 7s.6d., and John Chappell's appraisers recorded "negroes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

Beds & Bedding" vorth 15s. 170

References to sleeping equipment designed specifically for

children and infants appeared rather infrequently. Only fifteen inven­

tories (^ .6 3 percent) listed cradles, and two-thirds of these references

occurred in 1750-1751 or 1775. Two other inventories listed cradle 171 quilts and another included a child* s blanket. Some children un­

doubtedly slept on the trundle or pallet beds listed in eleven inven­

tories, while others used the small beds and bedsteads recorded in some

estates. Taken together, however, these references do not approach the

number of children in the population. Although many decedents were

middle-aged or elderly individuals and so more likely to have had

grown families, many others specifically mentioned dependent children

in their wills. The general lack of differentiated sleeping equipment

may have reflected the low status held by children in colonial

Philadelphia households.

The intertwined style and status bearing functions of bed hang­

ings declined in importance as the eighteenth century progressed. In

England, the Restoration period had marked "the great advance in up­

holstered beds," with State Beds covered by elaborate hangings made of 172 rich fabrics and trimmed with heavy fringe. Some early Philadelphia

Quakers strongly disapproved of late seventeenth century fashions,

while others clearly indulged in elaborate and ostentatious bed hangings.

In I69S the Yearly Meeting of Women Friends urged "that no superfluous

furniture be in your houses, as great fringes about your valances, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

double curtains, and many such like needless things. An arnbi-

•* valent attitude toward ostentatious fabric furnishings persisted in

Philadelphia throughout the colonial period. As late as 1770,

William Kart in advertised upholstered goods in "the newest fashion, 174 both elegant and plain." Even at their most elegant, however*

Philadelphia bed coverings rarely approached in richness and ostentation

the great State 3eds illustrated in English design books.

As the eighteenth century progressed, the status and style

bearing role of bed hangings diminished, and appraisers omitted from

their listings details that were no longer needed to distinguish stylish

or high status goods. As bed coverings declined in importance, however,

bedsteads began to emerge as style and status bearing objects. In

England as in America, the mid-eighteenth century marked the emergence

of the bedstead from the enclosing folds of fabric.Homor has

aptly described the early eighteenth century Philadelphia bedstead: 176 "Posts were immaterial, simply serving to hold the draperies.”

After 1750* however, the increasing number of bedsteads made of mahogany

and with carved or decorated posts indicated that the bedstead had taken on an importance of its own and was intended to be seen more fre­

quently.

No other type of fabric furnishing approached in importance the

practical, economic, or psychological position of the bed in the colo­

nial Philadelphia household. Provision of beds, covers, and hangings—

both ready- and custom-made— also constituted the mainstay of -fee up­

holsterers* trade in the colony. Throughout the eighteenth century,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115

Hiiladelphians had easy access to a thriving trade in imported fabrics

and upholstery goods, which they utilized in their bed coverings to

fulfill very basic physical and psychological needs. Other types of

fabric furnishings— table, seating furniture, window, and floor cover­

ings— consistently echoed the patterns of use exhibited by bed cover­

ings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER III

*¥-341, 1725.

2Curomings, Bed Hangings, p. 4n.

3 ¥-ll4, 1703. 4 Cummings, Bed Hangings, p. Jn.

^Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

Pennsylvania Chronicle, June 5, 1769, Prime, Colonial Craftsmen, p. 13.

7Straw ¥-41, 1701; ¥-72, 1702; ¥-93, 1702; ¥-137, 1775; wool ¥-85, 1702; ¥-147, 1704; cattail ¥-98, 1702; ¥-139, 1704; ¥-78, 1775; ¥-140, 1775. ^-32, 1700. o Pennsylvania Chronicle, August 7, 1769, Prime, Colonial Craftsmen, p. 13 .

"^Nathan 3ailey, Dlctionarium Britannicum; Or a more Coarpleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than' any Extant (London: T. Cox, 1730); Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary!

■ ^ W ^ , 1727; ¥-75, 1727. 12 JaEes A.H. Murray, et al,, eds,, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 10 vols. ""(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1888J. Hereafter cited as O.E.D. 13 John Kersey, Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum: Or. A General English Dictionary (London: J. Wilde, 1715).

^Pallet heds ¥-54, 1701; ¥-238 , 1750; chaff hags ¥-84, 1775; ¥-180, 1775; straw hags ¥-256, 1751; ¥-168, 1775; ”2 old lin: flock heds" ¥-1 0 5, 1702; flock and feather hed ¥-9 7, 1702.

15Sea heds ¥-20, 1700; ¥-121, 1703; ¥-359 , 1725; ¥-20, 1726; flock sea hed ¥-9 8, 1702; cabin hed ¥-93 , 1702.

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

^Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, p. 4.

17Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum.

lS¥-46, 1701j ¥-54, 1701; ¥-79, 1702; ¥-5, 1726; ¥-23, 17 26; ¥-1 5 6, 1750; ¥-238 , 1750; ¥-150, 1775. 1 9 ^Pennsylvania Gazette, September 23» 1742, Prime, Arts and Grafts, pp. 201-2; also Goyne, "Hiiladelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 7 6, I67n.

20W-64, 1727.

21¥-?9, 1702.

i^or example, see John Jason's advertisement of "best super­ fine Flanders tickens” in the Pennsylvania Chronicle. October 28, 1771* Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 209.

23 ¥-19, 1700; ¥-41, 1701; ¥-42, 1701; ¥-345, 1726; ¥-238, 1750.

2\- 106, 17 02; ¥-8, 17 26; ¥-239, 1750; ¥-141, 1775: ¥-153 , 1775.

25¥-121, 1703; ¥-139, 1704; ¥-203, 1750; ¥-211, 1750; ¥-257, 1751; ¥-116, 1775; ¥-153 . 1775. 26 Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

27¥-133» 1704; ¥-204, 1750.

28Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum.

2^Cotton sheets ¥-98, 1702; ¥-64, 1727; ¥-70, 1727; wool sheets ¥-119, 1703; flannel sheets ¥-343 , 1725; ¥-353 , 1725; ¥-24, 1726; ¥-6 7, 1727; ¥-204, 1750; cotton pillowcases ¥-85, 1702.

3°Canvas ¥-48, 1701; tow ¥-94, 1775; flaxen ¥-85, 1702; ¥-98, 1702; Holland .¥-111,. 1702; Scotch cloth ¥-79, 1702; ¥-121, 1703.

'^Checked pillowcases ¥-52, 1701; blue cattail pillow ¥-98, 1702; brown sheets ¥-46, 1701.

32Yellow blanket ¥-93 , 1702; striped blanket ¥-6 3 , 1727.

33W-42, 1701; ¥-345, 1725.

^Flannel ¥-85, 1702; cotton ¥-98, 1702. 35 Burnham and Burnham, Keen Ke ¥arm. pp. 105-19; Iandis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles. In 1702 Elizabeth Fox owned an old blanket made of kersey, a worsted fabric; see ¥-79, 1702 and Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts, p. 241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

^Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary. The Lexington Historical Society. Lexington, Massachusetts, possesses a white wool blanket (# 43^4) that bears the mark of King George H I and is said to have been left in Boston during the Revolutionary War by evacuating British troops. It is coarsely woven with a heavy nap and narrow blue stripes at the ends.

^ - 86, 1775.

38 S-4l, 1701; tf-42, 1701; W-342, 1725. 3 0 Upholsterers Plunket Fleeson, John Housman, and White and Lawrence all advertised ready-made blankets; Pennsylvania Gazette. August 1, 1739, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 201; American Weekly Mercury, June 14, 1722, Ibid., p. 205; Pennsylvania Gazette. January 22, 1756, Ibid., p. 217. **°W-97, 1702; W-341, 1725; W-3, 1726; W-166, 1750; W-108, 1775.

4lW-4l, 1701; w-42, 1701; W-342 , 1725; W-345 , 1725; W-238 , 1750.

42 W-54, 1701; W-93 , 1702; W-10 8, 1702; W-5 , 1726; W-ll, 1726; w-35 , 1 7 2 6; W-239, 1750; W-103 , 1775; w-124, 1775.

^Wadsworth Atheneum, 3ed Ruggs/ 1722-1833, with Introduction and Essay by William Lamson Warren (Hartford, Conn.: Wadsworth Atheneun, 1972), pp. 10-3; also Marion Day Iverson, "The Bed Rug in Colonial America," Antiques 85 (January 1964): 108. 44 Wadsworth Atheneum, Bed Ruggs, pp. 10-3. be ■^Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum. 46 Wadsworth Atheneum, 3ed Ruggs, p. 11.

4 ?Ibid., pp. 12-3. ^W-97, 1775.

^ W - 79, 1702; W-97, 1702; W-98, 1 7 02; W-lll, 1702; W-99, 1775.

5°?ox W-79, 1702; Wheeler W-lll,1702.

^Wadsworth Atheneum, Bed Ruggs, pp. 12-3. 52 See White and Iavrence*s advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette, January 22, 1756, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 217.

53W-41, 1701.

^W-27, 1700; W-58, 1701; W-142, 1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

^Wadsworth Atheneum, Bed Ruggs, pp. 11-2.

^Dych

58Green ¥-178, 1750; calico ¥-139, 1704; cotton ¥-23, 1726; linen ¥-132 , 1775: tow W-245, 1751: feather ¥-74-, 1775.

59¥-93, 1702.

6°¥-132, 1704.

^Landis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles; Rita J. Adrosko, "18th-century American Weavers, their Looms, and their Products," Imported and Domestic Textiles, pp. 108, 116-22.

^^Pennsylvarn* Chronicle, October 28, 1771* Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 209.

63 W-19, 1700. 64 See p. 72 above.

^^Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

^Cooper, Copp Family Textiles, p. 3.

^Bezanson, Gray, and Hussey, Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania, pp. 265-92; Jensen, Maritime Commerce, pp. 114-29. 68 Campbell, London Tradesman, p. 213.

^Pennsylvania Gazette. August 1, 1739, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 212.

^Patricia Chapin, "Whole Cloth Quilt," Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976), p. 20. "^See advertisements of John Housman in American Weekly Mercury, June 1 4 , 1722, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 2 0 5 , and John Mason in Pennsylv^niaChronicle, October 2 8 , 1771* Ibid,, p . 209.

72¥-42, 1701.

"^Homor, Blue Book, p. 65.

7\-248, 1750.

75Davis, W-95, 1775: Cash ¥-150, 1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

^ - 9 3 , 1702.

1701.

?®Green ¥-79, 1702; dark-colored ¥-54, 1701; sad-colored W-79, 1702; calico ¥-163 , 1775; India ¥-84, 1702; yellow taffeta ¥-113, 1775; silk ¥-23, 1726; ¥-178, 1750; ¥-238, 1750.

^9Berlekamp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis), p. 41. SO Cummings, Bed Hangings.p. 9.

^Cotton ¥-7 2, 1702; ¥-166, 1750; ¥-81, 1775; ¥-121, 1775; calico ¥-139 , 1704; white ¥-99, 1775; printed ¥-60, 1727.

^Pennsylvania Chronicle, October 28, 1771, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 209.

83¥-121, 1775.

^Coverings ¥-98, 1702; ¥-136 , 1704; ¥-139, 1704; ¥-166, 1775; old cloths ¥-98, 1702; ¥-106, 1702; blue cotton cloth ¥-93 , 1702.

85¥-97, 1702. R6 ¥-98, 1702.

^ - ^ o , 1703 .

88Thomas Sheraton, The Cabinet Dictionary (London: ¥. Smith, 1803), plate XV,reproduced in Cummings, Bed Hangings, fig. 3. 8q Kersey, Dictionarium Anglo-Britannlcum; Bailey, Dictlonarium Britannicum; Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

9°Morris ¥-13, 1726; Stillfield ¥-160, 1750.

91Dyer ¥-9 8, 1702; Gibbins W-6 5, 1702.

9^Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

^American ¥eekly Mercury, September 19, 173^. 04 For John Martin see ¥-93, 1702; for discussion of bed screws see HcELroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," p. 24.

95Field ¥-150, 1775; high post ¥-174, 1775; standing ¥-143, 1704; board bottom ¥-168, 1775; wheeled ¥-256, 1751; bed stocks ¥-28, 1700.

96¥-l6 6, 1750.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

97¥-37, 1700; ¥-121, 17031 ¥-1 8, 1726; ¥-64, 1727* ¥-166, 1750* ¥-178, 1750* ¥-195, 1750* ¥-225, 1750* ¥-106, 17751 W-138 , 1775.

^ - l O S , 1702.

■^Baumgarten, "The Textile Trade in Boston, 165O-I7OO," Arts of the Anglo-American Community in the Seventeenth Century, Winterthur Conference Report 197^, ed. Ian K.G. Quimby (Charlottesville, Va,: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1975)» P» 258. Hereafter cited as Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts.

100Green ¥-41, 1701* ¥-72, 1702* ¥-75, 1702* ¥-79, 1702* ¥-93, 1702* ¥-98, 1702* green and white and red, green, and white W-98, i?02.

l0lBlue ¥-46, 1701* ¥-54, 1701* ¥-111, 1702* ¥-121, 1703* ¥-64, 1727* ¥-142, 1775* Blue and white W-166, 1750; ¥-80, 1775* blue and white checked ¥-6 0, 1727.

102Eed ¥-79, 1702? ¥-225, 1750* ¥-238 , 1750* sad-colored ¥-75, 1702; W-7 9, 1702* cinnamon-colored ¥-111, 1702.

10\ - 2£, 1701.

10V-60, 1727.

^■^Cummings, Bed Hangings, pp. 12-3, 19-20, 37-8.

106Kuslin ¥-225, 1750* linen ¥-121, 1703* Scotch cloth ¥-121, 1703* ¥-139 , 1704* serge ¥-79, 1702* ¥-121, 1703* linsey woolsey ¥-93 , 1702* shalloon ¥-353 , 1725* cheyney ¥-64, 1727.

107Hornor, Blue Book, pp. 25-8, 67-71, 157-8, 167-72; Matzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories," pp. 42, 117-8; Kathleen M. Catalano, "Textiles Used for Bed, Window, Floor and Seat Coverings in Eighteenth Century Philadelphia" (paper written for Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, n.d., Technical Library, Winterthur Museum), pp. 2-4, 12. Hereafter cited as Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor and Seat Coverings."

108W-42, 1701. 109 Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts. p. 245.

^"^American Weekly Mercury, June 14, 1722, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 205.

^ ^ Pennsylvania Gazette. October 19, 1769, Ibid., p. 276 .

^ ^Pennsylvania Packet, Philadelphia, September 5,• 1774, Ibid., p. 200.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^ 3 Martin, Pennsylvania Chronicle, October 8, 1770, Ibid., p. 20 6; Taylor, Pennsylvania Journal, Hay 31» 17751 Ibid., p. 212.

^ ^Pennsylvania Chronicle, July 13, 1767* Ibid., p. 208.

^ ‘'’Receipted Bill, Plunket Fleeson to William Armstrong, April 29, 1762, 52.74 DMM3.

^^Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 82-3.

^■^Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor and Seat Coverings," Chart 5» p. 12; Homor, Blue Book, pp. 28, 71. 118„ m See p. 57 above.

n 9W-2l4, 1750. 120 W-132, 1775.

121W-362, 1726.

122W-l6 8, 1775. 123 Landis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles.

12^Lloyd W-34, 1727; Jones W-47?, 1727; West W-366 , 17 26; also W-I6 9, 1750; W-196, 1750; W-160, 1775.

^23 Catalano, "Bed,Window, Floor and Seat Coverings," p. 2; Homor, Blue Book, p. 28; Cummings, Bed Hangings, pp. 4-5.

Cummings, Bed Hangings, p. 5«

• ^ W o m W-24, 1726; very bad W-72, 1702; moth-eaten W-153 , 1775 burnt W-93 , 1702.

128W-9, 1726.

129W-54, 1727.

13 °W-128, 1775.

131 W-87, 1775.

132W-124, 1775.

133 W-79, 1775. 134 ^Horaor, Blue Book, p. 150.

1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

136W-139, 1775.

137W-257, 1751.

^3^For a discussion of women’s legal rights sis property owners during the colonial period, see Mary Sumner Benson, Women in Eighteenth Century America, A Study of Opinion and Social Usage, Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public law, no. 405 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935)» pp. 234-41.

139W-141, 1775.

1^°W-120, 1775.

3AlW-234, 1750? W-237, 1750? W-257, 1751? »-98, 1775.

l42 W-69, 1702.

l43 w-l65, 1703. Ih4 W-39 , 1727.

145 if-79t 1702? also W-48, 1727? W-182, 1750. 146 Pennsylvania Journal, October 3, 1771, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 200. 147 'Pennsylvania Chronicle. June 1 3 , 1768, Prime, Colonial Craftsmen, p. 12.

^ ^Pennsylvania Journal, July 19, 1770, Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 208-9. 149 See William Martin's advertisement in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, October 8, 1770, Ibid., p. 206,

^^Giedion, Mechanization lakes Command, pp. 389-508.

^TJoynton, "Bed 3ug," pp. 22-3.

^3 ^Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," p. 6 7.

153 W-205, 1750.

15V-100, 1775? W-168, 1775.

155W-90, 1775.

156W-58, 1701.

157W-25, 1726.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12k

v%-6a, 1702. 159 Pennsylvania Journal. October 3» 1771. Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 200.

^^White, Pennsylvania Gazette, July 4, 1?54, Ibid., p. 219; Ross, Pennsylvania Journal. February 24. 1773* Ibid., p. 211.

^ ^Pennsylvania Chronicle. October 28, 1771* Ibid., p. 209.

l62W-79, 1702. l63W-98, 1702. l6V 6 4 , 1727.

l65V-75, 1727; W-166, 1750; ¥-86, 1775; w-113 , 1775; W-121, 1775; ¥-138 , 1775; ¥-163 , 1775.

l66¥-l66, 1750.

l67W-138, 1775.

l68¥ -98, 1702; ¥-166, 1750.

l69¥-86, 1775.

1?0Schuller ¥-84, 1775; Chappell ¥-126, 1775, also ¥-182, 1750; ¥-253, 1751.

171Cradle quilts ¥-98, 1702; ¥-153 , 1775; child's blanket ¥-124, 1703.

“^^English Furniture U-pholstery, p. xi. 173 Tolies, Meeting House and Counting House, p. 128. 174 Pennsylvania Chronicle. October 8, 1770, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 206.

•^^English Furniture Upholstery. p. xiii; Homor, Blue Book. pp. 157-67.

^7^Homor, Blue Book, p. 70.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

TA3LB COVERINGS

Table coverings constituted the second most common type of

fabric furnishing used in Philadelphia homes prior to 1775. Of the 324

inventories studied, 3 8 .5 8 percent included some type of table covering,

compared to 89.81 percent with some type of bed covering (see Thble l).

The frequency of table coverings varied considerably for each time

period studied, dropping from 42.50 percent in 1700-1704 to 35.37 per­

cent in 1725-1727 and 28.05 percent in 1750-1751 (see Table 2). This

decline probably reflected both the slightly lower levels of estate

valuations recorded during the 1720's and 1750*s and a trend toward

less specific inventory listings of fabric furnishings. In 1775 the

frequency of table coverings rose sharply to 48.75 percent of the inven­

tories. During the third quarter of the century, total estate valua­

tions also rose considerably over the 1725-1727 and 17 50-175 1 levels,

but the trend toward less detailed listings persisted. The higher

percentage of table coverings in the 1775 inventories probably re­

flected a slight increase in actual use.

Despite their importance in the colonial home, table coverings

have rarely commanded the attention of antique collectors or students

of material culture. Technical studies of textiles commonly include

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

the linen fabrics which composed most table coverings, hot few works

consider the latter's forms, functions, and meanings. Grace Rogers

Cooper's catalog of the Copp family textile collection is quite unusual

in Its discussion of utilitarian table and bed linen s— tablecloths,

napkins, towels, sheets, pillowcases, bed ticks. ^ The Landis Valley

catalog of Pennsylvania German textiles also includes examples of 2 table linens used by that cultural group. Needlework studies, such

as Margaret Schiffer's Historical Needlework of Pennsylvania.

occasionally mention embroidered tablecloths and decorative show

towels.

Like other fabric furnishings, table coverings fulfilled both

physical and psychological needs. Because mealtime has long been an

occasion for social intercourse, table coverings were closely asso­

ciated with social life and entertaining. Table coverings were most

useful— both practically and symbolically— whenever one's life style,

social position, geographic location, or occupation made the presence

of guests at dinner a frequent occurrence.

Possession of table coverings, like bed coverings, increased

substantially as total estate valuations and total investments in

household goods rose (see Tables 3 and 4). A comparison of urban and

rural inventories indicates that Philadelphia households owned table

coverings almost twice as frequently as households outside of the

city (see Table 5). Over the entire seventy-five year period studied,

5 6 .2 5 percent of the urban inventories listed table coverings, com­

pared to 3 0 .0 0 percent of the rural inventories. The higher frequency

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

of table coverings in Philadelphia homes probably reflected the

increased number of social and business contacts concomitant with

urban life. The relative frequency of table coverings in rural house­

holds rose slightly during the third quarter of the century. In

170O-l?0^f 1725-1727# and 1750-1751# table coverings consistently

appeared in urban inventories at least twice as often as in rural

ones, but in 1775 this ratio decreased substantially. Perhaps

increased settlement, population growth, and improved transportation

had made social contacts easier and more frequent in the rural areas

of Philadelphia County, thus heightening the demand for table coverings.

Occupational pursuits also influenced the use of table cover­

ings (see liable 6 ). Individuals whose economic welfare depended

largely upon the regard of others, the establishment of business and

social contacts, and the maintenance of reputations as successful

businessmen owned table coverings much more frequently than those

whose living revolved more closely upon their own personal efforts.

Yeomen, traditionally a rather independent class, owned table coverings

least of ten-only 2 9 .1 1 percent of their inventories listed such goods.

Only slightly.more (35.71 percent) of the craftsmen owned table

coverings. In contrast, table coverings appeared in 50.00 percent

or more of the inventories belonging to tradesmen, merchants, and

widows.

Tablecloths

Table coverings included five main types of objects: table­

cloths, carpets, napkins, towels, and case furniture coverings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

Tablecloths were the most common type, appearing in over three-

fourths (77.60 percent) of all inventories with table coverings (see

Table 17). Their actual occurrence was probably somewhat higher,

since throughout the colonial period some appraisers grouped together it all table or "Houssal" linens.

Colonial Philadelphia tablecloths were made almost exclusively

of linen fabrics; no inventory specifically listed any other fiber.

Some appraisers identified specific types of linen tablecloths—

diaper (nineteen inventories), damask (seven), huckabuck (four), * C "hoted" (one), and homespun (one). Diaper (a figured linen, slightly

less fine than damask and woven with an allover pattern of small

flowers or geometric designs) appeared in 1 5 .2 0 percent of the inven­

tories with table coverings and seems to have been considerably more

popular than damask (a linen with large figures, often floral, formed

by contrasting areas of satin and taffeta weave) or any other weave.^

Appraisers sometimes distinguished between coarse and fine weaves but

almost never indicated decorative motifs. The 1727 inventory of

Philadelphia widow Catherine Griffing was exceptional in listing "a 7 Table Cloth Callico Printd" worth 5s. This unusual entry probably

described a tablecloth made of cotton calico or of linen printed in

calico fashion.

The value of unspecified tablecloths generally ranged between

3s. and 10s. each, much less than the average valuations assigned all

bed coverings except blankets and coverlets. Damask tablecloths

ranged between 10s. and 12s., slightly more than the average values of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

6s.-10s. for diaper tablecloths. Old tablecloths might be worth as

little as 6d. each, while in 1775 shopkeeper Henry Robinson of

Hiiladelphia owned four tablecloths worth an exceptionally high sum of fc 1.16.6 each.8

Most householders who owned any tablecloths possessed several

of them, and some inventories distinguished between large and small

tablecloths. 'Ibis practice suggests that tablecloths were used on a

variety of tables and, consequently, for a variety of types of meals—

from large, formal dinners to small, intimate teas. The John

Cadwalader family in 1771 possessed specialized tablecloths for o breakfasting, dining, and eating oysters. James Morris, Philadelphia

merchant, owned "6 Breakfast Cloaths" when he died in 1750, and some

of the "small tablecloths" listed in several inventories may also have

been used on breakfast or tea tables.^ H o m o r cites references to

cloths for dining tables, tea tables, and breakfast tables.^ The use

of breakfast cloths in colonial Philadelphia reflected important

changes in the nature of the morning meal. As fashionable eighteenth

century English households shifted their main meal back from noon to

late afternoon or early evening, they correspondingly breakfasted later

in the morning. From a simple and unsophisticated first meal,

breakfast evolved to a more elegant and sociable repast of spiced 12 breads, cakes, or buns served with coffee, tea, or chocolate.

Especially after 1750, at least a few wealthy Philadelphians apparently

had the leisure, desire, and equipment to ceremonialize their morning

meal, and this phenomenon reflected the city's growing sophistication

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

and Interest in worldly fashions.

Carpets

The almost total absence of entries describing decorative de­

tails suggests that most tablecloths were white linens distinguished

only by weave. Early in the eighteenth century, however, table carpets

added a colorful note to the furnishings of the table. Prior to 1750,

carpets used in colonial homes served almost exclusively as table cov- l*a erings rather than as floor coverings. In 1?01 John Roades's ap­

praisers recorded among his possessions "one Table with a drawer & lit Carpett" worth h 1.5.0. In the same year, Margaret Jenner, a widow

living in Kingsessing Township, died possessed of "1 Cedar table . . .

1.0.0/ 1 old box 1 old water 1 old Carpit . . . 0.^.0. The custom

of using carpets as table coverings persisted in at least one Phila­

delphia household as late as 1775* when Francis Bouchier's appraisers

recorded "1 Mahangany dineing Thble & Carpet" worth a total of

h 3.O.O.16

Table carpets were never extremely common in Philadelphia

households, however, appearing in only nine inventories for the entire

seventy-five year span studied. In 1700-170h>, the period of their

greatest popularity, table carpets appeared in only seven inventories, 17 or 20.59 percent of the inventories with table coverings. Even in

this early period, several of the inventories described the carpets

as old, suggesting that the fashion had already begun to wane. By 18 1725-1727* only one inventory listed a carpet. Throughout the pre-

Revolutionary period, carpets remained distinctly luxury items. Only

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

three inventories listed more than one carpet per household. ^

Eight of the nine estates with table carpets had invested over £ 50.0.0

in household goods; eight of them also had total estate valuations of

more than S 200,0.0, Two-thirds of the carpets appeared in urban in­

ventories. Despite their concentration in prosperous, urban house­

holds, however, table carpets consistently received low valuations—

ranging from 2s.-10s.— less than the average values assigned to table­

cloths. Perhaps aesthetic or symbolic considerations were more deci­

sive than economic value in determining the elitist appeal of table

carpets.

Unfortunately, only two inventories described the appearance of

table carpets. In 1?00 John Bolt, Philadelphia butcher, owned "a

Calico Carpett 3s. a Small table 5s.," while in 1702 widow Susannah

Elton of Philadelphia died possessed of "two old green carpetts" 20 worth Mrs. Elton's green carpets may, in fact, have been

green baize table covers rather than true carpets. During the eight­

eenth century, table covers of green wool baize, placed underneath the

linen tablecloth, often served to protect the table from spills and hot 23. dishes. In 1726 William Bowel's appraisers specifically distinguished 22 between tablecloths and table covers.

Rankins

Napkins constituted the second most common type of table cover­

ings; slightly over one-half (52.00 percent) of all inventories with

table linens specifically listed napkins. Available evidence suggests,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132

however, that the popularity of napkins actually declined between 1?00

and 1775. Their frequency dropped steadily and sharply from 6 7 .6 5

percent of the inventories with table coverings in 1700-17C& to 35.90

percent in 1775. This trend was not merely the result of less specific

listings, however, for the relative frequency of napkins to tablecloths

dropped correspondingly. In 1700-170^ tablecloths and napkins

appeared with almost equal frequency, while from 1750 on, inventories

listed tablecloths almost twice as often as napkins. Presumably most

inventories taken in sufficient detail to record tablecloths would also

have recorded napkins had they been present.

Napkins extended the physical function of the tablecloth from

the communal level to the individual level. From the late medieval

period onward, books of manners admonished diners to wipe their fingers,

mouths, and eating utensils on their napkins in order to spare the

clean tablecloth.^ In the eighteenth century, tablecloths retained

communal implications; their presence implied the existence of a suffi­

cient and self-contained household. Napkins played a dual role be­

cause they could function both as household linens and as personal

accoutrements. The 1775 inventory of Dr. Alexander Martin of St.

Thomas, Jamaica, "now Sojourning in the City of Philadelphia," included

only his personal effects, brought with him on the voyage to Pennsyl- 2iL vania. Since Dr. Martin intended to remain in the city only tem­

porarily, he did not establish a residence nor accumulate household

goods. His inventory was entirely devoted to a listing of his per­

sonal belongings, including "10 old Hankerchiefs" and "3 Napkins of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133

old Unnen"— the latter valued together at 2s. 6d. Dr. Martin clearly

considered napkins essential to his life style and took no chances on

their availability in Philadelphia. The concept of providing one's own

napkin nay have descended from the earlier custom of carrying a per­

sonal service of eating implements when traveling.^

Like tablecloths, napkins were made almost exclusively from

linen fabrics: diaper (fourteen inventories), damask (five), hucka­

back (four), oznabrigg (one), holland (one), dowlas (one), and unspe­

cified linen (two).^ Once again, diaper seems to have been the most

popular type of linen. As with tablecloths, appraisers sometimes dis­

tinguished grades as well as types of linen; at least four inventories 27 mentioned coarse linen napkins. The inventories rarely suggested

any type of decoration, although in 1702 the estates of two wealthy 28 widows each included sets of fringed napkins. Napkins often appeared

en suite with tablecloths of the same fabric. In 1725 Randolph

Spakeman, Philadelphia tobacconist, owned "1 Dozen of Old Diaper Nap­

kins and 1 ould Diaper Table Cloath" worth l*ts. together. ^ Mary

Badcock's 1727 inventory included "1 Damask TableCloth . . . 0.10.0/

6 Do. Napkins @ 2/6 . . . 0.15.0.^ Elizabeth Fox's estate in 1702

included an even more complete set of table linens: "1 dozen of

Diapr Knapkins, Table Cloath & Towel & Chest of Drawr Cloath . . .

2.0.0."^ In 1701 the appraisers of Lydia Wade's estate simply noted

”1 Suite of Table limning" valued at i> 3*0.0.^^ These entries demon­

strate the acceptance of the idea of matched sets of table linens by

the beginning of the eighteenth century.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

Although individual napkins were worth relatively little—

generally "between Is. and 3s. each— a set of them often represented a

fairly substantial economic investment. Most households that owned

napkins had enough of them to serve the needs of an entire family—

usually a half-dozen to a dozen; prosperous households sometimes

accumulated several dozen napkins.

Towels

The last two types to "be discussed were not, strictly speaking,

table coverings. However, towels and cloths for case pieces logically

extended the functions of napkins and tablecloths. In addition, in­

ventories commonly listed tablecloths, napkins, towels, and case

furniture coverings together, suggesting that these goods were com­

monly stored together and thought of in similar terms.

Towels appeared in 41.60 percent of the inventories with table

coverings— somewhat less frequently than napkins (52.00 percent). The

slight decrease observed in the occurrence of towels between 1700-1704

(44.12 percent) and 1775 (38.46 percent) probably reflected the trend

toward less specific listings rather than a significant decline in

actual use.

The distinction between towels and napkins is not entirely

clear, and some appraisers may have used the terms interchangeably.

Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum of 1730 defined a towel as "a Cloth

to wipe Hands on, &c.," while Dyche and Pardon* s dictionary of 17^5

defined a napkin as "a small table-cloth, or piece of linen used to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

spread on a stool or snail table, for one or two persons to eat upon,

or to put into a person’s lap, or before their clothes, to prevent

their being greased, &c. Cooper has classified the Copp family

table linens as napkins and towels according to shape and weave.

Those identified as napkins are almost square with a fine diaper pat­

tern to match a tablecloth; those identified as towels are long, thin

rectangles with a coarser weave.

Both towels and napkins served similar functions in wiping

clean the user’s hands; both were made of similar linen materials and

valued at approximately equal sums. In general, however, napkins seem

to have been intended almost exclusively for table use, and towels for

more utilitarian use elsewhere in the house. In 1775 Thomas Wallace’s

inventory specifically listed "six Table Napkins" worth £ 1.0.0 and

"five Course Towels at z /” worth 10s. together. Napkins commonly

appeared in large, even-numbered sets, often en suite with matching

tablecloths, while towels appeared more often in smaller, odd-numbered,

and possibly unmatched groups. The latter* s absence from the table

decreased their status and display value— towels did not need to be as

fine as the more visible tablecloths and napkins. Appraisers generally

valued towels at 6d.-2s. each, slightly lower than the range of Is.-3s.

each for napkins. Towels generally employed the coarser grades of

linen. At least five inventories mentioned coarse towels, and two 36 specified oznahrigg (a coarse, strong linen fabric). Only two in­

ventories listed diaper towels— both at the beginning of the century- 37 and none recorded damask towels. Perhaps the use of coarse linen

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136

for towels enhanced their function "by increasing their absorption rate.

Bailey's dictionary of 1730 specifically associated towels with

coarse linen fabrics in suggesting as the etymological derivation for

the word towel the old Saxon word for tow, "the hard or coarser Bart

of Hemp or Flax . . . Towels being usually made of coarse Idnnen."^®

The distinction between napkins for table use and towels for

generalized household use cannot be considered a hard and fast rule.

Earlier appraisers seem to have been more specific in their use of

the two terms to distinguish clearly between functionally different

types of linens possessed by the same estate. Occasionally, however,

they lumped both types together in single entries: "28 Towels &

knapkins at 8d. each . . . 0.18.8" or "Saeventeen napkins & towells

I8d. p. . . .1.5.6. As the eighteenth century progressed, inven­

tory listings of linens became generally less specific.

Germanic households apparently used the term hand towel to

describe a particular type of household textile that served the func­

tions of both the napkin and the towel in English households. At

least eight inventories dating from 1750-1751 and 1775 used the term

hand towel, and none of these recorded napkins. The context of these

hand towels, often closely associated with tablecloths, suggests that

they were used as napkins. In 1775 Anna Sybilla Kline of Lower Salford

Township owned "8 Table Cloths and 3 Hand Towls" worth L 2.9.9# and in

1750 Mathias Johnson of Hatfield Township possessed "8 beed sheets and ho 5 tabel Cloaths and hand towels” worth L 2.10.0. At least six of

the eight estates listing hand towels belonged to, or were appraised

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

by, persons of Germanic origin. The Landis Valley catalog of Pennsyl­

vania German textiles includes several hand towels— both plain and

dec orated— but does not mention napkins; the latter were apparently

not part of the German textile tradition, at least in Pennsylvania.

The catalog illustrates a plain, rectangular hand towel with the

accompanying captions

One of the most common, but useful, textiles found in the house was the hand towel. It was generally made of a medium- or f ine-grade tow, bleached or unbleached, and it had one or two tabs for hanging.

Towels for bathing, rather than simply for wiping the hands,

were conspicuously absent or at least unidentifiable in colonial

Pennsylvania household inventories. Limited bathing facilities no

doubt greatly restricted demand for bath towels in the modem sense.

Case Furniture Coverings

Case furniture coverings represented the last main variety of

table linens. Cloths for chimney pieces, chests, cupboards, and other

case pieces extended the concept of the tablecloth to other hori­

zontal furniture surfaces. Case furniture cloths had only

practical significance and served primarily as decorative indicators

of status and style. A very few inventories, all very early in the

century, listed linen cloths for the tops of cupboards (three examples),

chests of drawers (three examples), and chimney pieces (one example).^

These "Chests of Drawer Cloth," "Chimney cloath," and "Cubbord Cloths"

were not of great intrinsic monetary worth, for appraisers consistently

valued them at under 6s. each. Nonetheless, available evidence sug-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138

gests that these goods were very such luxury items limited to an

elite segment of the population in colonial Ihiladelphia County. Only

six inventories, or 7.32 percent of the total number of inventories

studied for the period 1700-170^, actually recorded cloths for cup­

boards, chests, or similar pieces. Four of these six estates had

total valuations of over k 900.0.0; five possessed over h 120.0.0

worth of household goods; and four represented the holdings of urban

households. This evidence strongly suggests the concentration of case

furniture coverings in wealthy, style conscious, upper class, urban

households. Distribution of cupboard and chest of drawer cloths was

certainly less widespread than Homor has claimed: "Wherever one

encountered the niceties in a home, there always were to be seen a

'carpett* or * drawer cloth. * The various sorts of low chests were

never permitted to remain bare." Furthermore, the fashion for case

furniture coverings apparently declined after the first quarter of the

eighteenth century; no inventories dating from 1725 or later recorded

cloths for cupboards or chests of drawers.

Fabric draped dressing tables, which became fashionable in

England during the first half of the eighteenth century and were com­ mit monly called toilette or toilet tables, were rarely identifiable in

colonial Philadelphia inventories. In 1775 Henry Bobinson, Phila­

delphia shopkeeper, had "1 Toilette Table" worth 15s. in his back

chamber; this piece may have been draped with textiles. Although

dressing tables of comparable value listed in other inventories may

also have been fabric covered, no firm distinctions are now possible.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139

In addition to the cloths for cupboards, chimney pieces, chests

of drawers, and dressing tables that appeared in the inventories

studied for this paper, several other types of case furniture coverings

also appeared in colonial Philadelphia homes. H o mor has cited refer- hf, ences to sideboard cloths, chest of drawer cloths, and bureau scarves.

Procurement of Table Coverings

Despite many similarities in material, form, function, and

meaning, table coverings differed from bed coverings in at least two

important respects. Bed linens were sometimes made of cotton or wool

fabrics as well as linen; table linens, in contrast, were almost in­

variably made of linen fabrics. Unlike bed coverings, table coverings

apparently did not constitute a part of the upholstery trade. Phila­

delphia upholsterers regularly advertised all other types of fabric

furnishings— bedding, bedsteads, bed hangings, upholstery, window cur­

tains, floor coverings, and even wall hangings— but not table coverings.

Colonial Philadelphians apparently procured most table linens directly

from merchants or shopkeepers. John Bettle's "two home spun Table

Cloths," inventoried in 1750* demonstrate that some householders owned

table coverings made of domestically produced linen. However, the

extreme rarity of such listings suggests that non-imported table

linens were the exception rather than the rule.

Merchants and shopkeepers supplied their customers with a wide

range of imported linens— both as yard goods and as finished cloths.

Ihroughout the colonial period, shop inventories included large

quantities of the linens commonly used in making table coverings—

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140

diaper, damask, holland, oznabrigg, huckaback, dowlas. In 1701

James Fox's shop goods included "2 Course Dyaper Tablecloths at 6/8

. . . 0.13.4"; in 1750 Abraham Claypoole's stock included substantial

yardages of both damask and diaper tablecloths. Household inventories

also document the practice of buying large yardages of linen fabric,

then cutting it down and finishing it to the proper size for individual

table coverings. Numerous estates included remnants or substantial

unused pieces of the linens used for table coverings— -diaper, holland,

oznabrigg, huckabuck, dowlas. A few appraisers specified the intended

function of these unused linens. In 1750 Thomas Burgess's appraisers

recorded "4-3A yds. Naptking diaper" .amongst his household goods. ^

In 1775 spinster Patience Lewis owned "9 napkins ll/6 & a rent, of do.

l/," and in the same year Anna Kline's estate included "17 yards of

Diaperd Linnen for Table Cloths" worth h 2.11.0,^"

Table coverings occasionally appeared in wills, although not as

frequently as did bed coverings. Like the latter, bequests of the for­

mer usually benefited widows or daughters. In 1701 wealthy merchant

Richard Hoskins willed his four daughters,

four Beds and all Appurtenances to them and my late Wife's and Daughter's Wearing Apparels . . . and so much other Linnen, as Sheets and Table Linnen, as my Executors in Pennsylvania hereafter mentioned shall direct, 52

In 1704 James Kill left to his stepdaughter Lydia Cornish, "all my

Wives wearing cloths, with a Tablecloth and Set of Napkins of Diaper, 53 and a large Silver Cup mark'd with her Name. Kargaret Hendricks in

1775 considered "a Diaper Table Cloth" sufficiently important to

include it in her selection of h 5,0,0 worth of household goods left

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. l*n

Clt her by her husband's will. This data suggests that table coverings,

like bed coverings, were often considered feminine possessions even

though they were legally controlled by the husband.

Function and Meaning of Table Coverings

Cleanliness

The concept of table coverings derived from a practical need

for clean tables and uncontaminated food as well as from a psycholo­

gical need to ritualize the biological activity of eating. Medieval

lords set their tables with cloths and napkins by the fifteenth cen-

tury.^ As time progreseed, the psychological meaning of the table­

cloth and its accessories began to eclipse its practical function.

Cleanliness, once the reason for using a tablecloth, became an end in

itself. Individual napkins developed to protect the communal table­

cloth. By the seventeenth century, vessels for table service had been

developed specifically to protect the clean tablecloth. Thomas

Blount's Glossographia of 1661 defined a salver as "a new fashioned

piece of wrought plate, broad and flat, with a foot underneath, and is

used in giving Beer or other liquid thing to save the Carpet or 56 Cloathes from drops." Clean table linens became important status

symbols because they implied substantial initial investments in sur­

plus stock to replace soiled cloths and also required costly continued

maintenance.

Status and style

By 1700 the psychological roles of table coverings outweighed

their physical functions. Table carpets and case furniture coverings

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142

had almost no practical value hut served to decorate other furnishings

and to convey status and good taste. The differentiation of table­

cloths for specific purposes— -dining tables, tea tables, breakfast

tables— no doubt reflected growing complexity and formality in

eighteenth century dining customs. The nineteenth century prolifera­

tion of dining equipment represented the continuation and expansion of

an earlier trend to ritualized dining.

Wealthy householders in colonial Hiiladelphia often accumulated

dozens of tablecloths, napkins, and towels, and even moderately pros-

perous Philadelphians sometimes possessed far more table linens than a

desire for physical cleanliness would have required. The estates of

three wealthy Philadelphians throughout the colonial period illustrate

the upper limits of textile accumulation. In 1701 James Fox owned

ten tablecloths, ten towels, and sixty napkins? nearly half a century

later, merchant Thomas Burgess possessed seventeen tablecloths,

twenty towels, and thirty-five napkins; and just before the Revolution,

Thomas Iawrence*s estate included fifty-two tablecloths, thirty-six en towels, and eighteen napkins. These unusually large accumulations

certainly exceeded the practical surplus needed to ensure a supply of

clean linen; they served primarily to indicate the social and economic

status of their owners as successful businessmen.

The arrangement of entries listing table linens in inventories

also supports the conclusion that status outweighed practical concerns

in the accumulation of these goods. Inventories commonly listed

tablecloths, napkins, and towels together, often with surplus bed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143

linens, rather than with the tables on which they would have "been used.

Appraisers occasionally listed tables and carpets in the sane entry,

or in close conjunction, suggesting that the carpets were actually in

use on the tables at the tine of the appraisals. However, the table*

cloth, which presumably would have been placed over the carpet to pro­

tect it at mealtimes, did not appear with or near the table and car­

pet entries in any of the inventories studied. The consistent separa­

tion of entries for tables and table coverings suggests that the latter

were accumulated and kept in storage more frequently than they were

integrated into daily household routines. In 1771 Mrs. John

Cadwalader's "list of linen for House .Use" distinguished carefully

between "1 dozen dinner tablecloths for common use" and "1 2 very fine Cg damask dinner cloths to be used upon particular occasions."

Some inventories implied storage by recording a chest, press,

or trunk immediately above or below the listings of bed and table

linens; others specifically linked the storage unit and its contents.

In 1704 James Kill's appraisers described "A parcell of Linen put up

in an Apron taken out of a Chest c given by the Mother to the

children. When Thomas Potts, tanner, died in 1726, his household

goods included "A Clock & Case Valnutt Table, Couch, & Cippurt with

Towels & Table Cloaths

suggest that surplus table coverings, like bed coverings, were com­

monly stored in the same chamber as the best bed— traditionally a high

status room.

Considerations of style influenced the use of table coverings

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. much less than they did the selection of hed hangings. The few

observable fashions in table coverings included the preference for fine

diaper or damask tablecloths, the introduction of small, differentiated

cloths for breakfast and tea tables, and the use of table carpets and

case furniture coverings at the beginning of the century. With the

exception of a calico printed tablecloth and two sets of fringed nap­

kins, the inventories studied did not record any decorative features

that might have distinguished stylish tablecloths, napkins, or towels.

The appraisers did, however, note variations in quality and condition.

Sinfce interest in quality suggests concern with status and interest in

decoration suggests concern with style, the appraisers* omission of

decorative details indicates that table coverings served primarily as

indicators of status rather than of good taste and stylishness.

As with bed coverings, the inventory listings of table cover­

ings grew progressively less descriptive after the 1700-17C& period,

suggesting that the psychological importance of these goods declined.

Concurrently, the tables themselves developed and became finer, more

diversified, and increasingly stylish. Ceramic, glass, and silver

tablewares also became more elaborate and abundant. As finer tables

and tablewares emerged, householders removed the carpets that had

served to conceal and decorate crude, early board and trestle tables.

Cloths for case pieces disappeared as the Queen Anne and Chippendale

styles introduced curved and pitched pediments that had style and

status of their own and did not require the additional ornamentation

and status value provided by early cupboard and chest of drawer cloths.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the eighteenth century progressed, the status hearing role of early

table coverings shifted to other types of household goods.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

^Cooper, Copp Family Textiles, pp. 25-34. 2_ .Landis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles, plates 39-40, 42-4, 47-8, 89-97.

Margaret B, Schiffer, Historical Needlework of Pennsylvania (New York: Bonanza Books, 1958), pp. 148-53.

V ? 9 , 1702.

5Dacask W-54, 1701; ¥-139 , 1704; ¥-18, 1726; ¥-60, 1727; ¥-166, 1750; w-225, 1750; W-238 , 1750; huckabuck ¥-9 8, 1702; ¥-105, 1702; ¥-333, 1725; ¥-341, 1725; "hoted" ¥-42, 1701; homesoun ¥-178, 1750.

3anmgarten, "3oston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts. p. 238 ; Brightman, "Boston, and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 114-9.

7W-64, 1727.

8W-113, 1775. o 'Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 57.

10Morris ¥-225* 1750; small tablecloths ¥-52, 17 01; ¥-343, 1725; ¥-179» 1750; W-225, 1750; ¥-81, 1775; ¥-86, 1775.

^Hornor, 3lne Book, pp. 134, 141. 12 Gerard Brett, Dinner is Served. A Study in Manners (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 19^9 pp. 96-101; Frederick W. Hackwood, Good Cheer. The Romance of Food and Feasting (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1911; reprint ed., Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1968), pp. 146, 167-8; Arnold Palmer, Movable Feasts, A Reconnaissance of the Origins and Consecnences of Fluctuations in Ileal-Times (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), pp. 10-2; C. Anne Wilson. Food and Drink in Britain from the Stone Age to Recent Times (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1974), pp. 265-6. 13 JRoth, Floor Coverings, p. 4; Little, Floor Coverings, pp. 3*4. l4W-58, 1701.

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14?

15¥-51, 1701.

l6¥-81. 1775.

1?¥-37, 1700* ¥-51, 1?01» ¥-58, 1701| ¥-75, 1702; ¥-84, 1 7 02; ¥-97, 17 02! ¥-13 9 , 1704 .

18¥-23, 1726.

19¥-37, 1700i ¥-84, 1702i ¥-97, 1702.

203olt ¥-37 , 1700; Elton ¥-97, 1702. 21 Louise BelcLen, "Setting the Early American Dinner Table," Ninth Annual Cincinnati Antiques Festival Catalogue (Cincinnati, Ohio: Association of Volunteers, Convalescent Hospital for Children, 1974), P. 53.

22¥-23, 1726. 2*3 ^The Boke of Curtasye. c. 146*0, published in Frederick J. Furnivall, ed., Early English Meals and Manners. Early English Text Society Series, No. 32 (.London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1904), pp. 179-80; also Francis Seager, The Schoole of Vertue And booke of good Nourture for chyldren. and youth to learn theyr dutie by (London: Wyllyan Seares, 1557;;reprinted in Furaival. Early English Keals and Manners, p. 232; and Thomas ¥right, The Homes of Other Days. A History of Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1871; reprint ed., Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1967), pp. 179-80. 2V?6, 1775. 2%erbert Brunner, Old Table Silver. A Handbook for Collectors and Amateurs, trans. Janet Seligman (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc., 1967),pp. 56-61.

26Danask ¥-54, 1701; ¥-139, 1704; ¥-343 , 1725; ¥-60, 1?27; ¥-225, 1750; huckabuck ¥-98, 1702; ¥-343, 1725? ¥-24, 17261 ¥-166, 1750; oznabrigg ¥-41, 1701; holland ¥-42, 1701; dowlas ¥-41, 1701; linen ¥-338, 1725* ¥-7 6, 1775.

27¥-46, 1701; ¥-52, 1701i ¥-18, 1726; ¥-24, 1726.

28¥-79, 1702; ¥-98, 1702.

29¥-343, 1725.

3°¥-60, 1727.

31¥-79, 1702.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148

32W-54f 1701. 33 Bailey, Dictionarimn Britannicum; Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary. 34 ^Cooper, Coop Family Textiles, pp. 30-4.

35¥-121, 1775.

36Coarse ¥-5 0, 1701; ¥-121, 1703; ¥-338 , 1725; W-341, 1725; W-121, 1775? oznabrigg ¥-42, 1701; W-9, 1726; for descriptions of ozna- brigg see Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts. p. 243; also Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 83-4.

37¥-4l, 1701; ¥-121, 1703. OQ 3ailey, Dictionarium Britannicum.

39¥-79, 1702; ¥-97, 1702.

^ELine ¥-116, 1775s Johnson ¥-196, 1750s hand towels ¥-194 , 1750; ¥-203, 1750s ¥-206, 1750; ¥-220, 1750; ¥-84, 1775; ¥-108, 1775. 41 Iandis Valley, Pennsylvania German Textiles, plate 40.

^Cupboard cloths ¥-42, 1701; ¥-54, 1701; ¥-79, 1702; chest of drawer cloths ¥-41, 1701; ¥-79, 1702; ¥-84, 1702; chinney cloths ¥-119, 1703. 43 JHornor, Blue 3ook. pp. 29-30. 44 English Furniture Upholstery, pp. xix-xxi.

45 w-113, 1775.

^ H o m o r , Blue Book, pp. 19, 29, 6l, 6 9, 112-3, 116, 136 .

47¥-l?8, 1750. hp. ¥-41, 1701; ¥-42, 1701; ¥-50, 1701; ¥-98, 1702; ¥-342, 1725; ¥-345, 1725; ¥-7 5, 1726; ¥-l?9, 1750; ¥-238 , 1750.

^9?ox ¥-41, 1701; Claypoole ¥-238, 1750.

5°¥-l66, 1750.

^Lewis ¥-153 , 1775; ELine ¥-116, 1775.

52¥-117, 1701.

53¥-139, 1704.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149

^ W-96, 1775.

~^The Boke of Curtasye, c. 1460, published in Fumivall, Ea.r>y English Neals and Manners, op. 179-80; also Wright, Homes of Other Days, PP. 33, 174, 179-80.

^Thomas Blount, dossograohia. 1661, quoted in Pales, Early American Silver, p. 78.

^ F o x W-41, 1701; Burgess W-166, 1750; Lawrence W-86, 1775.

58Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 57.

59W-139, 1704.

60W-9, 1726.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

SEATING FURNITURE COVERINGS

Coverings for seating furniture constituted the third major

type of fabric furnishing used in colonial Philadelphia County, appear­

ing in almost one-fourth (24.07 percent) of the 324 inventories

studied. Since references to upholstery occurred in only seventy-

eight estates, however, conclusions on the use of seating furniture

coverings must remain tentative and subject to confirmation by further

research. Despite the limited data available, analysis of the inven­

tory references to seating furniture coverings does provide several

new insights and suggest a re-evaluation of currently held assumptions.

Seating furniture coverings are probably the most elusive and

difficult to document type of fabric furnishing. The accessory nature

of fabric furnishings is most apparent here. Bed, table, window, and

floor coverings were all essentially appurtenances to functional sur­

faces composed of other materials, but these types of fabric furnish­

ings also possessed independent existences. They could be separated

from the surfaces they covered and still remain physically whole and

formally intact. In contrast, coverings for seating furniture could

not generally be separated from their underlying surfaces without

losing their form and identity as objects. Seating furniture coverings

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151

did not, in general, possess independent identities as objects bat

were wholly defined by the surfaces they covered. As a result, chair

coverings had. to be custom-made to fit particular chairs more often than

did other types of fabric furnishings. Because they did not possess

independent identities,chair coverings were less easily interchange­

able than bed, table, window, and floor coverings.

The accessory nature of chair coverings clearly— if subcon­

sciously— influenced eighteenth century appraisers as they recorded the

contents of Philadelphia households. As noted above, functional

characteristics consistently provided the primary means of identifying

household objects. The simple word chair described the function of

seating furniture just as the single word bed or the phrase bed and

furniture indicated the function of that item. And just as most

appraisers did not bother to describe the type of bed— feather, flock,

chaff, cattail— or the material composition of its coverings and hang­

ings, so the majority did not bother to indicate the type or material

composition of chairs. The term bed inherently implied the presence of

fabric furnishings, however, while the term chair did not. A chair

could be composed entirely of wooden parts, with no textile coverings.

Early wainscot chairs, with board backs and seats, were completely made

of wood, as were most later Windsor chairs. At the beginning of the

eighteenth century, Margaret Beardsley of Philadelphia owned one

"Large Wooden" chair worth 3s. while Elizabeth Dyer of New Castle

possessed "one old Wood Chaire" at the time of her death in 1702.^ As

late as 1775, Evan Morgan of Philadelphia owned "3 wooden bottom

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 5 2

2 Chairs** valued together at less than 5s. Numerous inventories during

the latter part of the colonial period included references to Windsor

chairs. Throughout the period 1700-1775, however, a great many

appraisers simply recorded chairs with no additional identification*

in these cases it is almost impossible to determine the original

composition.

Our knowledge of eighteenth century chair coverings is dependent

on the precision of the appraisers to a greater degree than for any

other type of fabric furnishing. Seventy-eight inventories contained

specific references to coverings for seating furnitures of these inven­

tories thirty-two (^1 .0 3 percent) also contained room by room itemiza­

tions of household furnishings or at least designations as to the room

locations of many objects. In comparison, the overall ratio between

total inventories and those with room by room listings or room designa­

tions was only 15.7^ percent, suggesting that those appraisers who took

time to itemize listings according to room location were also more

likely to identify different types of chairs.

Even when the appraisers did provide descriptions of chairs,

they did not necessarily indicate the types of coverings employed.

There were several ways to satisfactorily distinguish between different

types of seating furniture— by form (common chair, elbow chair, arm

chair, couch, comer chair, easy chair, close-stool chair, child’s

chair), by size (low, high-backed, large, small), by wood framing

(walnut, mahogany, maple), by color (green, black, red, blue, brown),

by condition (new, old), by style or decoration (old fashioned, painted,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

carved) as well as by covering material.

As a result of these several factors, underreporting of chair

coverings in surviving inventories was probably more severe than for

any other type of fabric furnishing. Although only 2^.07 percent of

the estate inventories specifically recorded chairs with coverings of

fibrous materials, leather, cushions, or textiles, actual possession

must have been higher. Some of the chairs described only by wood,

form, or other attributes— especially those valued at over 10s. to

£ 1.0,0 each— must have had leather or textile upholstery or slip

seats. On the other hand, there is at present no reason to suppose

that one type of chair covering would have been more underreported than

any other, and no way to accurately determine the original materials of

chair coverings that are not described in the inventories. Even the

valuations attached to undescribed or underdescribed chairs are of

little assistance, for each valuation was dependent upon a number of

unknown— and largely irretrievable— variables: size, condition, age,

stylishness, aid type and quality of wood, workmanship, and coverings.

Material and Constructional Types

of Seating Furniture Coverings

The seventy-eight inventories that did identify coverings for

seating furniture reported the use of four major types of goods:

fibrous materials, leather, loose upholstery (cushions), and textiles.

Fibrous seating materials— including rush, cane, flag, mat, and straw—

were structurally quite closely related to ordinary textiles. In Ihe

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15^

Primary Structures of Fabric. Irene Emery distinguishes carefully "be­

tween the terms "fabric" and "textile":

. . . fabric (from the Latin fabricare. to make, to build, to "fabricate") as the generic term for all fibrous constructions; textile (from the Latin texere. to weave) to refer specifically to woven (i.e. interlaced varp-weft) fabrics.3

According to this definition, all fibrous seating materials could be

classified as fabrics, while the many types formed by interlacing or

weaving, on a large scale, rush, flag, cane, or other fibers could

even be considered textiles. Leather, the tanned skin of an animal,

was mot woven, however, and related to the other types of chair cover­

ings only in function and general form. Despite their technical

differences from the textiles generally implied by the term upholstery,

fibrous and leather seating furniture coverings were functionally and

conceptually inseparable from those made of cloth.

In addition to their classification by material composition,

seating furniture coverings can also be divided according to their

construction and degree of integration with the underlying surface—

the furniture frame itself. Seating furniture coverings ranged from

directly attached caning or tacked-down, over the rail upholstery

through indirectly attached slip seats and semi-attached rush seats to

detachable slip covers and completely unattached cushions. Each of

these constructional types wan conceptually quite different and repre­

sented a particular level of elaboration of seating furniture coverings.

Cushions, being completely unattached to the seating surface, were the

least integrated with the piece of furniture they covered. Unlike the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155

other types of chair coverings, cushions possessed an independent

identity and could easily "be removed and interchanged for use on

numerous surfaces. They did not have to be custom-made to fit a speci­

fic piece of furniture. Slip covers, as detachable furniture cover­

ings, were more integrated with the underlying surface than were

cushions. Slip covers had to he made to fit particular pieces of

furniture; their form depended almost entirely on the shape of the

underlying surface and disappeared when they were removed from it. On

the other hand, slip covers could he removed easily and so were not

fully integrated with the underlying surface. Slip covers were also

interesting because they were generally fashioned of fairly durable

materials to cover and protect finer or more delicate textiles uphol­

stered directly or indirectly onto the furniture below. Conceptually,

slip covers represented a covering placed over another covering placed

on a piece of seating furniture.

The three remaining constructional types of seating furniture

coverings were at least partially attached to the underlying surface.

Rush seats were generally wrapped over the seat lists but not actually

affixed to the chair frame in any permanent way; they were only semi­

attached. Although rush seats could be applied or removed with no

risk to the chair frame itself, they were more integrated with it than

were cushions or slip covers. Slip seats, in which the covering

material was fastened onto a separate, secondary frame that fit inside

the structural seat frame, were entirely dependent on the underlying

surface for their shape and identity as objects. Removed from its

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156

frame, the material of a slip seat was merely a shapeless, non­

functional piece of cloth or leather. Slip seats had to he custom-made

to fit particular chairs or sets of chairs, hut they could he removed—

frame and all— and another covered frame substituted fairly easily to

provide a change of accessory furniture coverings. In contrast,

directly attached seating furniture coverings— cane and over the rail

upholstery in leather or textiles— were fully integrated with the

piece of furniture itself. Coverings of this type had to he custom-made

for individual pieces of furniture. Cane chair seats and hacks re­

quired the drilling of holes through the chair frame itself, while

leather and textile upholstery was tacked or nailed directly onto the

frame. These types of coverings were rather permanently affixed to

the underlying surfaces and could he removed and changed only with

considerable time, effort, and risk. Unlike slip covers and slip

seats, which could generally he interchanged between similar items in

the same set, directly attached chair coverings were completely and

exclusively integrated with a single, specific piece of seating furni­

ture.

The constructional types of seating furniture coverings did not

necessarily correspond with the material classifications. Most fibrous

chair coverings were semi-attached, hut cane had to he directly attached.

Leather coverings could he either directly or indirectly attached, and

textile coverings could he made in any of four constructional variants—

unattached cushions, detachable slip covers, indirectly attached slip

seats, or directly attached upholstery.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157

The distinction between unattached, detachable, semi-attached,

indirectly and directly attached seat coverings is not a purely

arbitrary or imaginary analytical construct, for the terms used by

eighteenth century appraisers clearly indicated at least a subconscious

recognition of these basic constructional types. Although this paper

ust the term covering to refer to all types of seating materials

(largely to indicate the accessory nature of these items and to main­

tain consistency with discussions of other types of fabric furnishings),

eighteenth century appraisers consistently distinguished between

cushions, covers, bottoms, and other types of seating, Dyche and

Pardon*s dictionary of 1765 defined a cushion as "a soft and handsome

pillow, for persons to sit or lean on.” Appraisers commonly employed

the terms "bottomed" or "with bottoms" to designate chairs with rush,

flag, straw, leather, or textile covered seats. In contrast to the use

of these terms to describe attached seating materials, Philadelphia

appraisers used the term "covers" almost exclusively to designate

textile coverings that slipped over a piece of seating furniture but

were not affixed to it. The term covers almost always appeared in con­

junction with the term bottoms to describe chairs with textile slip

covers over upholstered or slip seats. The estate of Thomas Burgess, a

Philadelphia merchant who died in 1750» included six mahogany chairs

"with bottoms & Covers.

Finally, the consistent absence of the words bottomed, bottoms,

or covers from descriptions of cane chairs suggests recognition of a

fundamentally different constructional type. Appraisers consistently

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158

described these chairs as simply "cane chairs." Since the cane for

cane hades and seats had to pass through holes drilled into the chair

frame* it became an integral part of the chair Itself. Similarly* the

use of the term "leather chair" may have designated chairs with directly

attached and fully integrated leather backs and leather seats upholstered

over the rail rather than slip seated ones. Several factors support

this hypothesis. The term leather chair appeared consistently in the

periods l?00-170h and 1725-1727* when most leather covered chairs in

the William and Kary style would have had over the rail upholstery.

After 1750* however, the terms "leather bottomed" and "with leather

bottoms" became common and the term leather chair gradually disappeared.

In 1750 Abraham Glaypoole's appraisers described his ”11 leather

Chairs" as "Old Fashion.

Analysis of the inventory data suggests several insights into

the use, physical function, and psychological meaning of the various

material and constructional types of chair coverings. Throughout the

period, the different types of chair covering materials appeared in

consistent proportions, with fibrous materials by far the most popular,

leather upholstery second, and textile cushions and upholstery very

uncommon (see Table l). Between 1700 and 1775*overall use. of seating

furniture coverings increased by about 10.00 percent (see Thble 2).

Only cushions, which disappeared from the inventories after 1727, de­

clined in popularity during the colonial period.

Overall use of seating furniture coverings also varied directly

with economic prosperity* rising substantially as total estate and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

household valuations increased (see Tables 3-**-). The patterns of pos­

session of these goods according to time and economic prosperity

clearly illustrated the slow, gradual spread of simple, then more

elaborate types from higher to lower economic levels. Prior to 1?50,

none of the inventories for estates worth under £ 5 0.0.0 listed .any type

of seating furniture covering. The inventories for the next range of

estate valuation, £ 5 0*0 *0 to £ 100.0,0, did not include such goods

until 1?25» and then only mentioned the least evolved type— fiber

bottomed chairs. The figure of £ 1000,0,0 in total estate valuation

marked a significant watershed in the possession of seating furniture

coverings. Eoving across this dividing line from lower to higher

valuations, the frequency of directly, indirectly, or semi-attached

fiber, leather, and textile covered chairs also rose substantially,

while possession of unattached cushions remained confined to estates

worth under £ 1000,0,0. Although fiber bottomed chairs appeared in all

ranges of estate valuation, they were most common among wealthy

estates. Only 1 6 .0 3 percent of the estates worth less than £ 1000.0,0

owned fiber bottomed chairs, compared to 38.10 percent of the estates

worth £ 1000.0,0-£ 2000.0.0 and 57.1^ percent of those valued at over

£ 2000.0.0,

Comparison of the data according to time and household valuation

further illuminated the evolution and spread of different types of seat­

ing furniture coverings from their introduction into wealthy households

to their appearance in poorer ones. Individuals who invested less than

£ 20 .0 .0 in household goods owned only fiber bottomed chairs, generally

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160

the least evolved or sophisticated type, and even these goods did not

appear until the mid-century group of inventories. Households with

20.0 .0 -6 40.0.0 worth of household goods owned no textile covered

chairs and did not invest in leather chairs until 1750. Householders

in the next range, 6 40.0.0-S 80.0.0, did not invest in textile covered

chairs until 1775.

Like "bed and table coverings, possession of seating furniture

coverings also reflected the influence of geographical residence pat­

terns (see Table 5). A H types of chair coverings appeared in urban

inventories sore frequently than in rural ones. In addition to being

physically less common, these goods were indubitably less psychologi­

cally or symbolically important to rural appraisers, and so appeared

less often in inventories taken outside the city of Philadelphia it­

self. Almost one-half (45.54 percent) of the urban inventories listed

some type of seating furniture covering, compared with only 1 3 .0 0 per­

cent of the rural inventories. Rural householders rarely invested in

any but the least sophisticated type of seating furniture covering.

None of the two hundred rural inventories read listed textile covered

chairs, and only nine recorded cushions or leather upholstery. Fibrous

materials comprised the vast majority of seating furniture, coverings

mentioned in rural inventories.

Finally, comparison of holdings according to occupational

background completes the discussion of general trends in the possession

of seating furniture coverings (see Table 6 ). Both overall use and

ownership of individual types of chair coverings declined steadily

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161

from a high frequency in the inventories of merchants and tradesmen to

a low one among yeomen. Widows and spinsters and craftsmen consistently

owned chair coverings more frequently than the latter group. The mer­

chants, tradesmen, and widows and spinsters possessed all types of

chair coverings; they were ihe only groups that owned textile covered

chairs. In contrast, the yeomen’s inventories studied listed only

fiber or leather "bottomed chairs, and none of the latter type appeared

in these estates until 1?75«

Fibrous Materials

The Philadelphia inventories studied listed five types of

fibrous materials used as seating furniture coverings: cane, rush,

flag, mat, and straw. These fibrous materials represented the only

type of seating furniture covering used by all economic, geographic,

and major occupational groups. Despite their acceptance by lower

economic and social groups, however, fiber bottomed chairs remained

very popular in wealthy, stylish, urban households.

Rush, flag, mat, and straw

A total of fifty-seven inventories listed chairs with rush,

flag, mat, straw cr similar bottoming— almost as many as listed chairs

with cane, leather, cushioned, or textile covered seats combined. The

fifty-seven inventories with rush, flag, mat, and straw seats repre­

sented 17.59 percent of all inventories studied or 73.08 percent of

the seventy-eight inventories listing any type of seating furniture

covering.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

The terns rush, flag, mat, and straw commonly designated the

same general type of seating material. Only one inventory employed

more than one of these terms to describe furniture in the same house­

hold, suggesting that rush, flag, mat, and straw were alternate names 7 for essentially the same type of bottoming.' Dyche and Pardon's dic­

tionary of 1765 defined mat as "a useful, flat, broad piece of weaving,

made of rushes or straw," and rush as "a plant or tall grass used for

many purposes, especially for the weaving of mats for floors, and the

Q seats of chairs. Kersey's dictionary of 1715 defined "Flag or Sedge" o as 7a sort of Rush." Furniture described specifically as bottomed

with rushes accounted for by far the greatest proportion of references

to fibrous materials; fifty-one inventories recorded rush bottomed

furniture, compared to only four households with flag bottomed chairs,

two with matted chairs, and only one reference to a straw bottomed

chair.^

Rush bottoming was generally the least expensive type of

seating furniture covering. Common inventory valuations ranged from

Is. 3d.-3s. for a common rush bottomed chair, 4s.-6s. for an armchair,

and about 12s.. for a couch. In addition to these three forms, rush

bottoms also appeared occasionally on stools.^

Unlike more expensive chair coverings of cane, leather, cushions,

or textiles, rush bottoms appeared in all ranges of estate and house­

hold valuation. Like other types of fabric furnishings, however, rush

bottomed chairs appeared most frequently at upper economic levels.

Both city dwellers and rural householders invested in inexpensive rush

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163

■bottomed chairs, as did all occupational groups. Like other types of

chairs, rush bottomed ones commonly appeared in sets of six, sometimes

accompanied by one or two armchairs and/or one couch. Fifteen room by

room inventories with rush bottom chairs indicate that Philadelphia

householders used this type of inexpensive seating furniture in almost

all parts of their dwellings. Nine of these inventories recorded

rush seated furniture used in chambers; eight, in front or back parlors

or equivalent rooms; two, in garrets; and one, in the hall.

Several factors contributed to the low cost and widespread use

of rush seated furniture. Rushes or flags could be easily and cheaply

gathered from native grasses on local marshes. The wooden frames used

for these types of chairs were commonly turned and so could also be

produced quite quickly, easily, and cheaply. Finally, the application

of rush seats to chair frames was a rather simple practice that did

not involve any risk to the assembled chair frame. To make a rush

seat, the chairmaker simply wrapped rush fibers over rounded or

slightly flattened seat lists, plaited them,and fastened them securely

together. Since the rush seats were not permanently affixed to the

wooden frame itself, .they could be removed and repaired without great

difficulty or wear on the frame. Some rush bottomed chairs, like the

"Six high Chairs, rush Bottom, framed" owned by Christian Lehman of

Germantown in 1775, had a thin, shaped strip of wood nailed over the

rush-wrapped seat lists to simulate the appearance of a more expensive, 12 integrated type of seating.

The construction of rush bottoms required much less skill and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164

training than the fabrication of cane seating, leather or textile up­

holstery, or cushions. Production of rush bottomed furniture generally

constituted a part of the chaimaking trade rather than a province of

the upholsterer. In 1747 the Maryland Gazette carried the following

advertisement:

WILLIAM HAYES, Chair-maker from Philadelphia, now lives in Annapolis, and hereby gives notice, that he will furnish any Gentlemen, or others, with all sorts of Rush-bottom Chairs, made in the best and neatest manner and at the most reasonable Rates. ^3

In his study of the chairmaking trade in eighteenth century Boston,

Jobe concluded that:

Chairmakers may be divided into two major categories accord­ ing to specialization; those who provided chair frames and bedsteads to upholsterers, and those who produced inexpen­ sive slat-back or banister-back chairs without upholstered seats for both local consumption and export.

Similar trade practices may have prevailed in colonial Philadelphia,

although the subject has not yet been systematically investigated.

Several Philadelphia furniture craftsmen— including Solomon Fussell,

William Savery, Daniel Jones, William Davis— made the production of

large quantities of rush bottomed chairs a major portion of their

businesses.^ Solomon Fussell's account book, dating from 1738-1750*

included many references to rush bottomed chairs, a few to cane chairs,

and only "a handful to chairs of walnut or mahogany." Arthur Leibund-

guth commented on this phenomenon: "Because these references are so

few and the type of wood is included, the conclusion can be drawn that

these were high-style chairs and not of Fussell's usual production."^

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cane seating, which became popular in England during the late

1600* s and persisted in Philadelphia well into the following century,

was conceptually and structurally quite different from rush and similar

seat bottoms. While the latter type of seating was simply wrapped

around the seat lists, cane chairs required full integration of frame

and seating material.

Only a very small proportion of Philadelphia's colonial popu­

lation owned cane seating furniture. Of the 32k total inventories

studied, 12 (3.?0 percent) recorded cane seating furniture. Compared

to the seventy-eight inventories listing seating furniture coverings of

any type, the twelve households with cane seating represented but

15.38 percent. These twelve inventories recorded only four forms of

cane seating furniture: common chairs, arm or elbow chairs, couches,

and a single stool. Common chairs usually appeared in sets of six,

but a few individuals owned groups of seven or eight. Although pos­

session varied considerably, an average assemblage of cane seating

furniture in a single household generally included six to twelve

common chairs,- perhaps one or two armchairs, and, less frequently, one

couch. Only three inventories listed cane couches and only one 17 included a stool. Richard Anthony, Philadelphia merchant, owned an

unusually large assortment of cane seating furniture. At his death in

1727, Anthony's appraisers recorded among the contents of his estate

twenty-nine common cane chairs, five elbow cane chairs, and one cane

couch.u 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166

The Inventory references demonstrated the introduction of cane

chairs as a stylish furnishing among the urban upper classes, followed

"by their later spread to less sophisticated groups. These references

also helped to date the popularity and wane of the style in the Phila­

delphia area, although in this context it must he remembered that in­

ventory data was often out of phase with current production. Many

estates belonged to elderly individuals or included goods several

years old, so that inventories reflected what was in common use at a

given time rather than what was in production. The temporal distribu­

tion of inventories containing cane seating (one in 1700-170^, six in

1725-1727, five in 1750-1751, none in.1775) indicates that cane chairs

appeared in Philadelphia homes slightly before 1700 and advanced

rapidly in popularity during the first quarter of the eighteenth cen­

tury. After peaking about 1725, their popularity remained almost

steady until mid-century, when the style declined and disappeared from

use by 1775. Other studies of early Philadelphia furniture have

reached similar conclusions in dating the popularity of cane chairs in

the area. In her study of Philadelphia County inventories dating

1682-1710, Xatzkin located references to cane chairs as early as 1685

but noted that they became much more common after 1699, ^ McELroy's

perusal of Philadelphia inventories for her thesis on pre-1730

Philadelphia furniture also located several references to cane chairs

prior to 1700, as well as many references dating after 1730. She

noted that cane chairs, in quantity, variety, and several price 20 ranges, appeared "regularly in inventories well after 1730 ."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16?

Throughout the period of its use, cane seating remained con­

fined to the upper economic levels of society. No cane chairs appeared

in estates valued at less than £ 100.0.0, or in households worth less

than the median household investment of £ 42.0.0-£ 45.0.0. Host of the

householders who owned cane seating furniture had invested over

£ 120.0.0 in household goods; 20.59 percent of this wealthy group owned

cane chairs, compared to 6.06 percent of the households worth £ 80.0.0-

£ 120.0.0 and only 1.41 percent of those valued "between £ 40.0.0 and

£ 80.0.0.

During the first two quarter centuries of their use in Phila­

delphia homes,cane chairs appeared only in the inventories of city

dwellers— gentlemen, merchants, tradesmen, widows, and prosperous

mariners and craftsmen. By 1750, cane seating furniture had spread to

non-ur"ban areas, appearing in two rural inventories "belonging to an 21 Oxford Township yeoman and a Germantown "blacksmith. The other three

inventories that listed cane chairs in 1750-1751 "belonged to wealthy

Philadelphia merchants— James Morris, Abraham Claypoole, and William

Clyroer— suggesting that, even in urban areas, these goods were not yet

/ 22 completely passe.

The valuations assigned to cane seating furniture generally

exceeded those for other types of fiber bottomed chairs. However, the

average valuations for cane dropped substantially during the first

quarter of the century. In 1702 appraisers rated William Bighton, Jr. 's

cane couch at £ 3*0.0 and his six cane chairs at 16s. each.^ During

1725-1727 and 1750-1751* however, the common valuation for cane chairs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

ranged 'between ^Vs.-lOs. each.

Six of the twelve inventories with cane seating furniture con­

tained roon by room listings of household goods, and these references

provided information on contemporary use and arrangement of cane

chairs. All six of these inventories listed cane seating used as

chamber furniture, while three also recorded cane chairs used in par­

lors or halls.

Several factors contributed to the sophistication, stylishness,

and* high valuation of cane seating furniture. Unlike rush, flag, and

leather, cane could not be produced in the American colonies. like

fine furnishing fabrics, cane had to be imported, and it therefore

symbolized a direct link with the cosmopolitan centers of European

culture. Cane furniture not only marked access to popular imported

goods, however, it also represented the exotic, novel influence of the

Orient. The cane fiber itself came from rattan palms native to the

East Indies, and so had to be imported first to Europe, then to the 25 colonies. Despite cane's accepted status as a stylish, exotic

material, however, cane chairs generally cost less than textile covered

ones. Cane chairs were commonly about as valuable as leather chairs

and may have been used interchangeably during the former's period of

peak popularity. The inventories taken during the 1725-1727 period,

which contained the largest number of references to cane chairs, con­

tained the smallest number of households with leather chairs.

In addition to the economic and symbolic value of the cane it­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169

self, the manner of construction also contributed to the cost of the

cane chair. Like early leather and textile upholstery, which was nailed

or tacked directly onto the seat frame, cane seating had to be directly

affixed to the frame itself. Die process of drilling holes into the

chair frame for the cane to pass through obviously required greater

skill, care, and time, and entailed greater risk to the entire piece of

furniture, than did the process of attaching a simple rush or flag seat

over the lists. Mistakes in drilling the holes for the cane could ruin

an entire chair, so that the application of a cane seat or back entailed 26 workmanship of risk, while the application of a rush seat did not.

The unique problems involved in cane chair-making limited its prac­

tice to a small group of specialized craftsmen. In his research on the

colonial Boston chairmaking trade, Jobe found that: "The most specialized

branch of the chairmaking industry was chair caning." While Jobe lo­

cated only one artisan who "identified himself solely as a chair caner,

some ^chairmakers7 occasionally made or mended cane seats. Cane chair­

making seems to have been similarly uncommon in colonial Philadelphia.

Nicholas Gale's advertisement of 173^ is exceptional: "Cane Chairs of

all Sorts made after, the best & newest Fashion? old Chairs caned or Holes 28 mended (if not gone too far) at reasonable rates." In researching

pre-1730 Philadelphia furniture, IfcElroy located few examples of locally

made cane chairs but found considerable evidence for the importation of 29 sizable quantities of all types of tables, case pieces, and chairs. In

173^, perhaps in competition with Gale's notice of the same year, Phila­

delphia merchant Peter Baynton advertised "Cane Chairs of many sorts and

Couches, red Leather Chairs and fine Bush-Bottom ditto," among his stock

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170

of goods "IAtely Imparted from London, and elsewhere.

Leather

After the general category of fiber "bottoming— including "both

rush seats and exotic caned ones— leather upholstery constituted the

second most popular type of seating furniture covering. Twenty-seven

inventories (8.33 percent of the total inventories studied and 34.62

percent of those listing any type of seating furniture covering) re­

corded chairs with leather upholstery. Leather covered chairs occurred

in slightly less than one-half as many households as possessed rush,

flag, matted, or straw "bottomed seating furniture, "but they appeared

over twice as frequently as caned chairs. Ownership of leather

covered chairs held steady at 11.25 percent of the total inventories at

"both the "beginning and end of the period studied, with a decline in

1725-1727 and 1750-1751 probably occasioned by the particular con­

figuration and lower estate valuations of inventories read for those

years (see Table 2).

Ownership of leather covered chairs varied rather dramatically

according to economic level (see Thbles 3 and 4). These goods appeared

in only 3.53 percent of the estates worth under £ 600.0.0, Their fre­

quency climbed steadily from one-sixth (1 6 .6 7 percent) among estates

worth £ 600.0.0-£ 1000.0.0 to one-third (33.33 percent) among those

worth £ 1000.0.0-£ 2000.0.0 to 42.36 percent of the wealthiest estates

valued at £ 2000.0.0 or more. Furthermore, leather covered chairs

appeared only in households worth at least h 20.0.0-£ 40.0.0, 4.92

percent of whom owned such goods. In comparison, over three-fourths

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171

(?6.92 percent) of the inventories of households worth over £ 200.0.0

included leather covered chairs— slightly more than listed fiber bot­

tomed chairs. Chairs with leather upholstery apparently represented

an almost exclusively urban phenomenon during the colonial period,

appearing in 19.64 percent of the Philadelphia City inventories and

only 2 .5 0 percent of those from outlying areas.

Surviving examples of seventeenth and eighteenth century chairs

with leather upholstery fall into two distinct constructional types.

Early examples, generally associated with the Cromwellian and Restora­

tion style and the William and Kary style, had leather covered backs

and bottoms attached directly and visibly to the stiles and seat frames

by means of double or single rows of brass nails. In later leather

covered chairs, commonly said to be in the Queen Anne or Chippendale

styles, wooden banisters (back splats) replaced the earlier leather

covered backs, and leather covered slip seats substituted for the 31 earlier brass-tacked upholstery over the rail, Philadelphia appraisers

commonly distinguished between the two types,calling the earlier type

"leather chairs" and the later type "leather bottomed chairs" or

"chairs with leather bottoms." The first description connoted chairs

whose upholstery was an integral, inseparable part of the object* the

second two descriptions evoked chairs whose upholstery was a necessary

but distinct and separate adjunct to the object.

References to leather chairs concentrated in the early part

of the century, disappearing after the 1750-1751 period. Of the fifteen

inventories that recorded leather chairs, nine belonged to the 1700-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172

1704 period, while two dated from 1725-1727, and four appeared in

1750-1751. In contrast, references to leather 'bottomed chairs did

not appear prior to the 1750-1751 group of inventories, supporting the

later evolution of this type, thirteen inventories recorded leather

hottomed chairs, four dating from the mid-century period, and nine from

the period just prior to the Revolution. The mid-century inventories

documented the still on-going displacement of the older, over-upholstered

leather chair by the newer, slip seated leather bottomed chair. During

this period, seven inventories recorded chairs with leather upholstery,

divided evenly between the two types: four households owned leather

chairs and four owned leather bottomed chairs, wealthy merchant

Thomas Burgess owned both types in 1750; appraisers valued his nine

leather chairs (probably some years old) at £ 3.7.6 (7s.6d. each) and

his eight "black Wallnut chairs wth Leather. Bottoms" at £ 10.0.0

(£ 1.5.0 each). Although still in use, leather chairs were generally

considered out of date by mid-century. In 1750 Thomas Jackman's

appraisers recorded "7 Old Leather Chairs" worth £ 1.0.0, while

Abraham Claypoole's inventory of the same year included "11 leather

Chairs Old Fashion" valued at i 2.0,0.^

Valuations and patterns of possession also illustrated the

evolution and relative position of the two types of leather covered

chairs. The valuations assigned to leather chairs declined from an

average range of 6s.-12s. each in 1700-1704 to a range of 3s.-8s. each

in 1725-172? and 1750-1751. Leather bottomed chairs averaged between

3s.-7s. each for ordinary examples and 10s.-£ 1.5.0 each for those made

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173

of finer woods— walnut and mahogany. The earlier leather chairs repre­

sented an almost exclusively urban phenomenon, appearing in only two

non-Philadelphia inventories. In 1?01 Lydia Wade, widow of Robert

Wade, who had settled in Chester in 1675 and had entertained William

Penn at his "Essex House" upon the latter* s arrival in the colony in

1682, owned nine leather chairs. ^ !he following year, the estate of

another wealthy widow, Elizabeth Dyer of New Castle, included two old

leather chairs used as parlor furnishings. Both of these estates

have already been recognized as atypical of the usual rural patterns.^

In addition to being city dwellers, the owners of leather

chairs were also generally substantial householders. Only one estate 3 7 valued at less than £ 100.0,0 included leather chairs, and 53.33 per­

cent of the references to these goods appeared in estates worth over

L 60 0.0 .0 . Similarly, only one individual with less than L 70.0.0 OQ worth of household goods invested in leather chairs, and 40.00 per­

cent of the references to them appeared in extremely wealthy households

valued at over £ 200,0.0. Finally, no craftsmen's or yeomen's inven­

tories included leather chairs; these goods appeared only in the

estates of merchants, tradesmen, wealthy widows, and one prosperous

mariner.

In contrast, leather bottomed chairs occurred in a much wider

range of households. Rural estates comprised over one-fifth (23.08 per­

cent) of the inventories with leather bottomed chairs. Although wealthy

estates still comprised a large proportion of those owning leather

bottomed chairs, three references (or 23.08 percent of the inventories

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17^

listing these goods) appeared in estates worth Si 100.0.0 or less.^

Several craftsmen and yeomen, as well as merchants, tradesmen, and a

mariner, possessed leather "bottomed chairs.

Both types of leather upholstered chairs apparently served

similar functions, appearing consistently in room by room listings in

both front and back parlors as well as front and back chambers. Like

other types of seating furniture, leather covered chairs appeared most

commonly in sets of six. Only two inventories specifically recorded |iQ leather covered armchairs— both after mid-century. «

Unlike caned and rush bottomed chairs, generally produced by

chairmakers, leather covered chairs constituted a part of the uphol­

sterer’s trade. According to Jobe, in eighteenth century 3oston,

chairmakers and consumers sent "even the simplest leather slip seat" 41 to the upholsterer to be covered. The shop records of Boston uphol­

sterers Thomas Pitch and Samuel Grant record their production of leather

covered chairs— both over-upholstered and slip seated— during the 1720* s,

1730’s, and rp^O’s.^2

Thanks to a lively export trade, Philadelphians had access to

leather covered chairs produced in Boston and England in addition to

those produced in their own colony. Boston-made leather chairs with

over-upholstered seats and backs remained popular export items through­

out the third, fourth, and fifth decades of the eighteenth century.

That city’s predominance in the production of this type of seating

furniture led to their popular designation as simply "Boston chairs,"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175

just as later in the century, Windsor chairs cane to be known as

"Philadelphia chairs." Several newspaper advertisements documented

the importation of English and Boston leather chairs into Philadelphia,

as well as the upholsterer* s role in this trade. During the decade of

the 1730* s, merchant upholsterer Peter Baynton regularly advertised

imported leather chairs. In 1734 he offered for sale fabrics, cane

chairs and couches, fine rush bottomed chairs, and red leather chairs, W i, "lAtely imported from London, and elsewhere." In 1738/1739 he 4*5 advertised "New England Red Leather Chairs. '* At the same time, other

Philadelphia upholsterers probably made leather chairs in their own

shops. In 1732, "Job Adams, Upholder, lately arrived from London,"

listed "Russia Leather Chairs” among the goods made and sold at his 46 shop in Front Street. During the early 1740's, Plunket Fleeson under­

took an energetic campaign to discourage the importation of leather

chairs and encourage local production. In September 1742 he advertised:

Several Sorts of good Chair-frames, black and red leather Chairs, finished cheaper than any made here, or imported from 3oston, and in Case of any defects, the Byer shall have them made good; an Advantage not to be had in the buying Boston Chairs, besides the Damage they receive by the Sea.

Two years later, Fleeson announced that:

. . . Knowing that People have been often disappointed and impos'd upon by raster Chair Kakers in this City, to the Prejudice of his Part of that Business, by Encouraging the Importation of 3oston Chairs, /he/ Has ingaged, and for many Months, employed several the best Chair-makers in the Pro­ vince, to the End he might have a Sortment of Choice Walnut Chair Frames; Gives Notice that he now has a great Variety of the newest and best Fashions, ready made, whereby all Persons who want, may be supply*d without Danger of Disap­ pointment or Imposition, at the most reasonable Rates; and Maple Chairs as cheap as from Boston. 48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176

Philadelphia craftsmen also produced slip seated, leather 'bot­

tomed chairs, as documented by upholsterer Edward tfeyman’s advertisement

of 1755. He announced to the public that,he "makes all Kinds of Up­

holsterer’s Work, viz. . . . easy chairs, couches and chair bottoms, ZtQ either of silk, worsted or leather."

Cushions

The final two categories of chair coverings— cushions and tex­

tile upholstery— appeared in far fewer inventories than any of the

other types. Although cushions were also made of fabrics, they differed

from textile upholstery primarily in the degree of integration with

the chair frame. Cushions were completely unattached, while textile

upholstery was affixed either to the structural seat frame itself (in

over the rail upholstery) or to a slip seat frame that fit inside the

structural seat frame. Consequently cushions could be more easily re­

moved and interchanged than could textile upholstery. Cushions and

squabs appeared in ten inventories, seven dating from the 1700-17C&

period and three from 1725-1727.^ Dyche and Pardon’s dictionary of

1765 distinguished between a pillow and a cushion as follows:

Pillow . . . a piece of furniture belonging to a bed, for a person to lay his head on, which, when it is put into a chair, to sit on, or a pulpit, to lean on, is called a cushion, with only this difference, that pillows are com­ monly stuffed and filled with feathers, and cushions with hair, &C.51

According to Bailey’s Dictlonariun Britannicum of 1730, the term squab <2 designated "a soft-stuffed Cushion or Bolster for a Couch or Window.

In 1726 Thomas Armitt, a Philadelphia cooper, owned a "Couch Squab &

9 rush bottomd Chairs" valued together at h 1 .1 0 ,0 .-''' Cushions gener-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

ally ranged in value from lOd. -Is. 8d. each, almost as much as some

rush ’bottomed chairs. Room by room inventories listed cushions in

use in halls as well as in cham bers.^

Possession of cushions concentrated in the middle ranges of

estate valuations (see liable 3 ). No references to cushions appeared in

estates worth less than £ 100.0 .0 or more than £ 1000.0 .0 , and they

were most common in estates worth £ 600.0 ,0-£ 1000.0 .0 , 1 6 .6 7 percent

of whom owned cushions. Only one householder with less than the

of £ ^2 .0.0-£ 4 5 .0,0 invested in household goods possessed cushions,

and these were specifically described as old, ^ References to cushions

divided evenly between rural and urban households, with five each • (see

Table 5)» and occurred in the inventories of merchants, tradesmen, wi­

dows, craftsmen, and mariners. Yeomen constituted the only major oc­

cupational group that did not own cushions (see Table 6 ).

Unlike the other types of seating furniture coverings, references

to cushions declined in frequency from 8 .7 5 percent in 1700-170^ to

3.66 percent in 1725-1727, then disappeared entirely (see Table 2).

Although references to cushions did not appear in the 1750-1751 or

1775 groups of inventories, however, Philadelphia upholsterers*

advertisements document their continued production during the 1730 *s.

In 1732 Job Adams advertised "Squabs and Couches, Window-Seat

Cushions. Two years later, William Atlee included cushions in his

list of "Opholsterers Work.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178

Textiles

The Philadelphia County inventories studied produced fever

references to textile upholstery than to any other type of seating

furniture covering; only eight inventories (or 2.b? percent of those

read) recorded such goods. This figure may underestimate actual use,

however. In 1775 the estate of prosperous Philadelphia merchant

Thomas Lawrence included several sets of mahogany chairs valued at 58 15s.-20s. each. Although they probably had upholstered slip seats,

it is currently impossible to determine whether these chairs— and

others like them— would have been fabric or leather covered. Use of

textile covered chairs apparently increased during the colonial period.

Inventory references rose slightly in frequency from 1 .2 5 percent of

the estates in 1700-1704- to 5.00 percent in 1775 (see Table 2). Pour

of the eight references to textile covered chairs occurred in 1775.

Although the few specific references to textile upholstery

obviously do not provide sufficient grounds for sound conclusions, they

are nonetheless worth recording. In 1701 Margaret Beardsley's Great

Chamber contained "3 Green Cover" (probably slip covered) chairs worth

6s. each. ^ In 1727. Catherine Griffing, another Philadelphia widow,

possessed six "Serge Chairs" valued at Is. 3d. each.^ Thomas Burgess,

a wealthy Philadelphia merchant who died in 1750, owned two sets of

textile covered chairs. Appraisers valued six mahogany chairs "with

bottoms & ^slipZ Covers" (possibly blue and white to match nearby bed

and window curtains) at £ 2.5.0 each and six "Vallnut Chairs with blue

damask Bottoms & /slip/ Covers" at £ 1.5.0. each— the same value

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179

assigned to Burgess's eight "black allnut chairs wth Leather

Bottoms."^" James Morris, another Philadelphia merchant who died in

1750, kept in his "front Room upStairs . . . 8 Chair Damask Bottom"

worth B 1.0.0 each. He also owned "one Easy Chair Damask" worth Cn B 5.10.0. In 1775 the "Kiddle Room upstairs” at the house of Henry

Robinson, Philadelphia shopkeeper, included six "Walnut Chairs with

Canvas bottoms," worth 7s,6d. each. In the same year, Evan Morgan

of Philadelphia owned seven "Walnut Chairs (worked Bottoms)" worth 15s. 6h each. Widow Hester Delage of Philadelphia owned "one Easy Chair"

worth 10s. in 1775.^ Finally, Ihomas Cash, Philadelphia shopkeeper,

furnished his back chamber with "6 walnut chairs 1 Easy Do Sc 1 C o m e r 66 Do," valued together at B 5.0.0. Although the easy chairs recorded

in the last two estates were probably textile covered, the inventories

suggest no clues to the specific fabrics used.

In summary, the Philadelphia County inventories provided two

specific references to damask bottoms and one each to serge, canvas,

and worked upholstery. The term damask technically described the type

of weave, not the type of fiber, used in a piece of cloth. A damask

pattern employed contrasting satin and taffeta weaves to form a re­

versible figured design, often floral. Although the appraisers did not

specify the fiber content of Thomas Burgess's and James Morris's

damask upholstery, wool was more likely than silk or linen, the other 67 fibers commonly used in damask fabrics. Throughout the American

colonies, householders made widespread use of wool furnishing fabrics, 68 while silks remained extremely rare. In her research on Philadelphia

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180

textiles. Cox found that merchants ordered worsted damasks much more 69 frequently than silk ones. Consequently, it seems logical to assume

that upholstery damasks listed in Philadelphia inventories were of

wool unless specifically stated otherwise.

Serge was a twill-woven fabric with a worsted warp and woolen

weft, produced in the west of England, and commonly used for furnishings

as well as clothing. Although sometimes fulled, serge was generally

not as dense or heavy as broadcloth, an all woolen cloth with no

worsted fibers. Serge was apparently most popular in the seventeenth 70 century, although references persisted into the eighteenth. The

canvas used on Henry Robinson's walnut chairs were probably one grade

of open weave linen fabric, while Evan Morgan's worked bottoms,

possibly embroidered by his wife hary, may have had a similar linen 71 ground.

Even in this small sample, the upholstery fabrics used in

Philadelphia chairs followed patterns observed in other parts of the

American colonies. In general, serge and various types of worsteds—

cheyney, moreen,harateen, camlet, calamanco— predominated before 1750,

but were gradually displaced by washable cottons and linens during 72 the remainder of the century. Surviving bills from Philadelphia

upholsterer Plunket Fleeson indicate that the back sides of easy

chairs and French chairs were often upholstered with a different,

probably less fine or highly figured fabric than the fronts. In 1765

and 1767 Fleeson provided Colonel George Croughan with an easy chair

and two French chairs upholstered with green damask on the fronts and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181

green harateen on the backs.^ In 1773-1774, wealthy merchant

Stephen Collins furnished one chamber room with an easy chair uphol­

stered with "copperplate Furniture cotton" on the front and "callico 74 for Back." Other sources— both documentary and pictorial— demonstrate

that similar practices prevailed in colonial Boston as well as in more

cosmopolitan centers in eighteenth century England and France. ^

Even allowing for considerable underreporting, the extreme

scarcity of references to textile covered chairs suggests very limited

use of such goods. Indeed, only a very small proportion of Phila­

delphia’s colonial population seems to have invested in textile uphol-

stery. Textile covered chairs appeared only in urban inventories be­

longing to merchants, tradesmen, or widows (see Tables 5 and 6). Hester

Delage, owner of an undescribed easy chair, was the only person with a

total estate valuation of less than £ 100.0.0 who invested in fabric 76 upholstery. Mrs. Delage* s inventory listed only household goods,

however, so perhaps a more sizable estate belonging to her deceased

husband, Peter, had already been dispersed, leaving her with only

£ 47.17.0. Four of the eight inventories with textile upholstery be­

longed to individuals worth over £ 1000.0,0. No one with less than the

median investment of £ 42.0.0-£ 45.0.0 in household goods owned textile

upholstery, and three-fourths of the references to such goods appeared

in rich households worth over £ 120.0.0.

Other researchers of Philadelphia furnishings— notably Catalano,

Homor, Hatzkin, Cox, NcELroy, Goyne, Wainwright— have located more de­

tailed and descriptive references to textile upholstery than emerged

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

77 from this study. In addition to the fabrics already named, these

authors have documented the use in Philadelphia of chair seats made of

worsted moreens and harateens, cotton calicoes and chintzes, hair

cloth, and, much more rarely, silk satins and damasks. However, the

references cited by these authors derive almost exclusively from records

of prominent, wealthy, urban families of high social and economic

standing— not from the ranks of common yeomen, craftsmen, or even small

tradesmen. Although possession of fabric chair coverings in Phila­

delphia probably increased slightly after 1?50, use of these goods re­

mained almost exclusively confined to the upper classes throughout the

colonial period.

like leather seating, fabric upholstery could be attached

directly to the chair rail or to a slip seat frame, and this task was

clearly the province of the upholsterer. In January 1755 the Pennsyl­

vania Gazette carried an announcement that:

EDWARD WEYMAN, Upholsterer, At the sign of the Royal Bed, the C o m e r of Chestnut and Second Streets, Philadelphia, . . . stuffs all kinds of settees, and settee beds, easy chairs, couches and chair bottoms, either of silk, worsted, or leather. 78

By the 1770*5, upholsterers* advertisements listed a much greater

variety of seating furniture. Charles Allen offered in 177^ "to "stuff

sofas, settees, couches, French elbow, easy, c o m e r and backstool 7 0 chairs." The following year, upholsterer William Martin announced

the sale of:

Part of his stock and Household Furniture, consisting of twelve stuffed back and seat chairs, three sofas and three easy chairs in canvas, six mahogany Gothic back chairs covered with hair cloth and brass nailed, one French elbow ditto. 80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183

Surviving "bills "by Flunket Fleeson record the production of

textile covered seating furniture for John Cadvalader, John Reynolds, 81 George Crougban. These pieces commonly required substantial economic

investments. On fey 15» 17^5* Fleeson hilled Croughan 11.4-. 6 for an

easy chair;

lb a fehogany Easy Chair frame 3.00.00 To 7y yds. green Damask for Do. © 7/ 2.12.06 To girth 2/6— 8 yds. Canvis 12/ Tax 4/ 0.18.06 To 8 lb. Curled hair © 2/ 0.16,00 To 1-i- yd. ticken © 3/ 0.04.00 To 3^ lh. feathers © 3/ 0.10.06 To 1-| yd. green Harateen © 4/ /forthe back/ 0.06,00 T- "*8 yds. best Silk Lace © lOd. 0.15.00 • s;_lk Thred & Cord 0.02.06 vc

As with beds, the cost of the materials usually far exceeded the uphol­

sterer's charges for making and attaching textile seating furniture

coverings. In 176? John Mason offered to reduce his charges for labor

to 15s. for "Making a easy Chair," and to 6s. for "Making a Cover for

Ditto."83

Function and Meaning of

Seating Furniture Coverings

In addition to economic costs for purchase and maintenance,

considerations of comfort, cleanliness, status, and style also exerted

direct influences on the use of seating furniture coverings in colonial

Philadelphia homes.

Comfort

A desire for increased physical comfort prompted the use of

unattached cushions to soften hard wooden seats and provided impetus

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18k

far the development of stuffed-seated furniture in seventeenth century 8k England, Siegfried Giedion has commented that to earlier periods,

the new "softly upholstered seats would have seemed sections cut from

a "bed. ”8^ Stuffed-seated chairs, and especially easy chairs, served

mainly as chamber furniture until well into the eighteenth century.

Bailey’s Dictionarium Britannicum of 1730 implied a close association

between comfortable beds and stuff ed-seated furniture in its definition 86 of the upholsterer as "one who makes Beds and Chamber-Fumiture.

Four room by room inventories from Philadelphia County listed textile

upholstered chairs, and all four placed this furniture in chambers.

Homor concluded from his work with Philadelphia inventories and other

documents that easy chairs were always used as "bedroom, sick, or com- 88 mode chairs, and were rarely found outside of the bedchamber." How­

ever, in 173k Philadelphia upholsterer William Atlee advertised "Settee

Beds and Easie Chair 3eds, Commodious for lower Rooms (models of which

may be seen)."8^

Hie development of two forms— the couch and the easy chair—

clearly indicated the function of upholstered furniture as comfortable

resting surfaces in wealthy colonial Philadelphia households. Both of

these forms were often reserved as special conveniences for the use of

aged, ill, or invalid persons, and many easy chairs were equipped with

chamber pots.^ In 1765 Byche and Pardon's dictionary defined the

couch as "a long seat or bolster, a sort of moveable bed for lame or 91 sick people to rest on.

Twenty-eight Philadelphia County inventories (8.6k percent of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185

the total number studied or 3 5 .9 0 percent of those with some type of

chair covering) included references to couches. Although only one

household in the 1700-170^4- period possessed a couch, ^ the form

increased rapidly in popularity and remained in use throughout the

colonial period. Ten inventories in the 1725-1727 period contained

couches, compared with five dating from 1750-1751 and twelve from 1775.

Rush constituted the most popular "bottoming material for couches,

appearing in six inventories (twice as many as specified cane).^ In

most cases, however, the appraisers did not identify any "bottoming

material. Kost couches ranged in value from 10s.-20s. each, although Ql in 1702 appraisers rated Killian Rignton, Jr.*s cane couch at e 3 .0.0 ,"

william Bowel, Philadelphia tallow chandler, was the only householder

whose inventory recorded possession of two couches— one cane, the other °5 unspecified. Kost householders kept their single couch in the parlor

or similar main floor room, although two couches appeared in chambers qc and two in garrets. Hornor called the couch (or daybed) one of the 97 early eighteenth century’s "few real comforts in parlour furniture."

During the early part of the century, inventories recorded

couches equipped with long squabs and smaller cushions or pillows for

headrests. By 1750, the term squab had disappeared, and appraisers re­

corded beds, flock beds, pallet beds, cots, and pillows in use on 98 couches. These terms may have been simply alternative names for

essentially the sane type of long, rather flat cushioning. Couches may

have provided auxiliary nighttime bed space as well as a surface for

informal daytime lounging or resting. In 1775 Samuel Schuller, yeoman

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

of Karlborough Township, equipped his couch with three chaff hags and a OQ sheet, all valued together at 10s."

Couches seem to have heal valued primarily for their practical

function of providing physical comfort? their distribution in a very

wide range of households suggests that they had little symbolic'value

as indicators of status and taste. Couches appeared in all ranges of

total estate valuation and all hut the lowest range of household

valuation. Estates worth over i 2000.0.0 had the highest frequency of

couches (3 5 .7 1 percent of the seventy-eight inventories with seating

furniture coverings) followed hy estates worth h 1000.0 .0-t 2000.0 .0

(19.05 percent). The third major concentration of couches occurred in

3 rather modest estates worth is 100.0 .0-r 200.0 .0 ; in this category, 1 2 .5 0

percent of the estates with seating furniture coverings recorded such

pieces. In all other ranges of estate valuation, couches appeared in

under 7 .0 0 percent of the inventories with seating furniture coverings.

The frequency of couches rose in direct proportion to investment in

household goods, increasing from 6 .5 6 percent among households (with

seating furniture coverings recorded) worth h 20.0 .0-n 40.0.0 to 32.35

percent of those households valued at over £ 120.0.0. Unlike textile

covered chairs, couches did appear in 5 .5 6 percent of the rural inven­

tories with seating furniture coverings, hut they were over twice as com­

mon (13.39 percent) in urban estates. A wide spectrum of high and low

status occupational groups invested in couches— merchants (2 5 .0 0 percent

of those with seating furniture coverings owned couches), craftsmen

(1 2 .8 6 percent), yeomen (1 0 .1 3 percent), tradesmen (8 .7 0 percent), as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187

well as single examples of possession by a widow, a mariner, a gentle­

man, a professional, and a laborer. In contrast, however, couches made

of cane may have possessed some status value. Cane couches were

generally more valuable than other types, and all three references

located to cane couches appeared in prosperous urban estates.

Couches no doubt represented the production of the craftsmen

who produced chairs with the same bottoming material— rush bottomed

couches from common chairmakers, cane couches from specialized cane

chairmakers, and sacking bottomed and leather or textile covered

couches from upholsterers. Philadelphia upholsterers regularly adver­

tised their production of both couches and easy chairs.

Philadelphia appraisers recorded easy chairs much less fre­

quently than couches; only three inventories (0 .9 3 percent of the total

number studied or 3 *8 5 percent of those with chair coverings of any

type) mentioned such furniture. Although Homor located references

to easy chairs in Philadelphia as early as 171?, the references lo­

cated in this study dated from 1750-1751 and 1775* The American easy

chair, like most American furniture forms, evolved from English proto­

types. Like the high chest, the easy chair persisted in America well 102 after it had ceased to be fashionable in England during the 17**0 *s.

Homor concluded from his study of Philadelphia furniture that that

colonial city produced fewer easy chairs prior to the Queen Anne period 103 than did either Boston or New York. Unlike couches, the three refer­

ences to easy chairs located in this study all occurred in Philadelphia

City inventories, suggesting that this form represented an urban pheno-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188

menon during the colonial period.

Cleanliness

Concern for cleanliness and ease of maintenance encouraged use

of certain types of seating materials. Cane chairs absorbed less dirt I Q l t and attracted fewer moths and vermin than cloth covered ones. Lea­

ther upholstery was durable, relatively impermeable, and therefore

especially suitable for dining room use.^0^ The use of slip covers,

however, reflected concern for cleanliness more clearly than any other

phenomenon. Although only 2 of the 32*f inventories studied mentioned

slip covers, upholsterers' bills and advertisements help document and 106 explain their use. In 1767 John riason included "raking a Cover" for

an easy chair among the list of tasks that he would undertake at a re- 107 duced rate. In 1770-1771 Plunket Fleeson made several sets of slip

covers for John Cadwalader, including "6 chair cases red & white

fringed," "a Sofa & 12 cases" of "fine blue Cotton Check," and "Cases of

3 Sopha's & 76 Chair Cases" of "fine Saxon blue Fr. Chk." Fleeson's

bill to Cadwalader also included charges for "finishing in Canvis" four 108 sofas, thirty-two chairs, and one easy chair. In this instance, the

checked materials used for the slip covers were probably finer than the

canvas chair coverings they supposedly protected. Perhaps Cadwalader

intended his slip covers to allow frequent decorative changes rather

than to protect expensive upholstery. More logically, perhaps the can­

vas upholstery served only temporarily— until the imported silk damasks 109 Cadwalader had ordered arrived from London later in 1771. In

January of the following year, upholsterer John Webster billed Cadwalader

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189

for making silk damask window curtains and upholstery for three sofas

and twenty chairs, possibly the same pieces that Fleeson had earlier

covered in canvas. Finally, an advertisement of 17&2 documents the

common, practical function of slip covers as protectors against dirt

and stains; Rebecca Weyman, widow of former Philadelphia upholsterer

Edward Weyman,announced in Charleston’s South Carolina Gazette that

"she still continues to carry on the business of making a n kinds of

beds or window-curtains, either festoon or otherwise, easy chair cases

for washing, After 1750, most slip covers were made of

washable cottons and linens— dimities, furniture checks, and prints— n 7 instead of the worsted fabrics used earlier.

Status and style

like bed and table coverings, seating furniture coverings

often served as status symbols. During the early years of the eight­

eenth century, possession of any type of chair represented an important

indication of status. Prior to 1720 armchairs retained much of the

ceremonial significance that was their medieval heritage, and McBlroy

concluded that, during this early period in Philadelphia, chairs were

"representative of the property of a comparatively small group of 113 wealthy people." Although chairs subsequently became widespread

in the Philadelphia area, certain types retained status associations.

Possession of cane, leather, and textile upholstered chairs indicated

higher social and economic position, while ownership of common rush

bottomed chairs did not. Slip covers, although not necessarily fine,

expensive, stylish, or attractive in themselves, indicated status by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190

implying the possession of fine upholstery fabrics in need of protec­

tion. Conversely, couches and easy chairs, often rather expensive

and elaborate pieces of furniture, apparently did not commonly serve

as status symbols. They were valued mainly for their practical func­

tions. Korrison Heckscher has suggested that easy chairs, in fact,

functioned as negative indicators of status: "The connotation of age

and illness was so great that the easy chair was almost never used as

background material in English and American portraiture."^*’

Throughout the colonial, period, however, even the finest uphol-

stery rarely challenged the preeminence of the bed and its furnishings

as an indicator of social and economic status. Decedents specifically

mentioned seating furniture in their wills much less frequently than

bed coverings, and even when they did so, they rarely indicated the

type of seat coverings. In 1770 Christian Lehman, conveyancer of

Germantown, left his wife Elizabeth "One Table and Six Chairs," together

with bed coverings and other furniture. At his death in 1775*

Andrew Hannis, yeoman of Koyamensing Township, provided for his wife to

have, during her lifetime, "the Use of three feather 3eds and Bedding,

Six black Walnut Chairs and one Arm Chair, together with the Use of Two

Windsor Chairs. In the same year, Margaret Hendricks included "2

chears" in her choice of h 5.0.0 worth of household goods due her by 117 her late husband*s will. In contrast to these very general references

to chairs, Griffith Miles wrote an unusually specific bequeathal in

1727; he itemized a "half dozen of Painted Flagg'd Bottomed Chairs c 118 one Turkey worked Chair" to be given to his wife Sarah. In 1702

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191

Elizabeth Fox left her daughter Elizabeth "one dozen of Leather HQ Chairs c one Table" in the Lower Room. At least two other testators 120 bequeathed, rush bottomed chairs. In summary, these references sug­

gest that Philadelphia testators bequeathed chairs more for their

economic value and practical functions than for their symbolic signi­

ficance.

Finally, stylistic concerns also influenced the use of seating

furniture coverings in Philadelphia area homes. Style provided the

major impetus for the declining use of cushions and cane seating after

the second quarter of the century. Upholsterers' advertisements re-

peatedly emphasized their familiarity with the latest styles.. In 1756 8 White and Lawrence offered the public "all sorts of upholstery work, in 191 the newest fashion, as in London." In 1?5^ James White advertised

"household furniture, after the newest taste, either in the Chinese or

1 9 9 Venetian."

Seating furniture coverings provided numerous decorative options.

Some householders owned brightly painted rush bottomed chairs— blue,

brown, black. Merchants and upholsterers sold leather dyed red as

well as the more somber black. When made of fine fabrics and trimmed

with tassels and heavy braid or lace, cushions provided quite elegant

decorative accents. Katzkin reported Philadelphia inventories with 123 cushions made of silk and turkeywork, English style-setters— like

Thomas Chippendale— generally advised that upholstery be made to match 12k bed and window hangings, and the records of wealthy Philadelphia

families— like the Cadwaladers, Collinses, Norrises, Logans, Paschalls,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192

Dickinsons, and others— document this practice in the colony.

In 1756 Benjamin Franklin sent home to his wife Deborah

56 Yards of Cotton, printed curiously, from Copper Plates, a new Invention, to make Bed & Window Curtains; and 7 yards Chair Bottoms, printed in the same Way, very Neat. These were my Fancy; but Krs. Stevenson tells me I did wrong not to buy both of the same Colour. 126

The Philadelphia inventories studied here, however, suggested that the

practice of matching-bed coverings, window hangings, and upholstery was

not widespread among the colonial population. Ownership of fabric up­

holstery was itself very restricted, and the few inventories that re­

corded such goods rarely suggested furnishings en suite. The 1750 in­

ventory of Thomas 3urgess, Philadelphia merchant, presented a possible

exception to this generalization; his "blue and white4bed" may have

matched his "6 Wallnut Chairs with blue damask Bottoms & Covers" or

his other set of 6 mahogany "Chairs with bottoms and Covers.

The evolution of new constructional types constituted by far

the most important stylistic trend in eighteenth century seating furni­

ture coverings, both in Philadelphia and elsewhere. Decorative arts

scholars have long discussed and debated the origins and characteristics

of the Queen Anne style. Many would certainly choose the introduction

of the cabriole leg and other curved lines as the most important fea­

ture that distinguished the William and Kary style from the Queen Anne

and Chippendale styles. While this judgment may be true for case

furniture, it overlooks the interrelationship of covering and frame in

the composition and appearance of a piece of seating furniture. Impor­

tant changes in the English textile industry as well the woodworking

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193

crafts worked together to produce new styles In seating furniture.

Eighteenth century householders conceived of an upholstered rfiair as

an entity, not as two separate; categories of objects. Unfortunately,

modem divisions of labor between textile historians and decorative

arts historians have greatly impeded our understanding of the economic

and technical changes that allowed increased production of leather and

fabric upholstered side and armchairs in Philadelphia and the other

American colonies.

The seventeenth century witnessed important changes in the

English textile industry, as emphasis shifted from the production of

heavy woolens to lighter worsted fabrics, sometimes called "the new

draperies." Heavy woolens— especially broadcloth— had formed the staple

of the English export trade since the fifteenth century. Woolen cloth,

woven of carded, short-staple wool fibers, received a heavy fulling

treatment to shrink the weave close together. Pulling gave the fabric

a felted character, increased its warming capacities, and prevented

raveling. According to Berlekamp, "Some English broadcloth was so

heavily felted that it had a tendency to crack at folds or points of

wear." Several factors influenced the development of lighter worsted

fabrics during the seventeenth century. The sixteenth century enclosure

movement, which turned many of England*s common lands over to sheep-

grazing, produced better nourished sheep with longer fibers. In addi­

tion, the volume of England's export trade shifted in the early seven­

teenth century. Sales of woolens to traditional markets in northern

Europe dropped but were balanced by increasing demands from markets in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19^

Spain and other Mediterranean countries. These new markets, located in

more temperate climatic zones, preferred the lighter worsteds that

resulted from using the longer wool fibers of England's increasingly

well fed sheep. In contrast to the earlier woolens, worsted fabrics—

including serge, stuff, say, camlet, calamanco, shalloon, moreen, hara-

teen, cheyney— used the new long-staple wool fiber, combed rather than

carded. The worsteds did not generally receive the fulling treatment

given woolens, nor did they have a napped surface like woolens. In

general, worsteds were lighter, less dense, and more easily managed 128 than woolens.

The development of worsted fabrics represented, a great boon to

the evolution of upholstered furniture, for they provided an important

alternative to the turkeywork, woolens, silks, and velvets previously 129 used as upholstery. Lighter and more manageable than woolens, and

less expensive than silks and velvets,worsteds encouraged the spread

of upholstered furniture from the very limited ranks of the English

nobility into the homes of well-to-do gentry and prosperous mercantile

classes in both England and America. During much of the eighteenth

century, worsteds constituted the most popular upholstery fabrics for 130 American and non-noble English homes. J The increasing mechanization

of the English textile industry during the eighteenth century— which

increased production and decreased prices slightly— also encouraged the

spread of upholstered furniture into lower socio-economic groups.

Technical innovations in-the upholstery trade— particularly in

the-method of affixing seat coverings— also provided major impetus to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

increased production of leather and fabric covered seating furniture.

Colonial furniture buyers of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth

centuries who desired seating finer and more stylish than common rush

bottoming could choose from cane chairs or chairs with leather or

textile coverings upholstered over the rail and tacked down (as in

Cromwellian and Boston leather chairs). These three types of seating

all required direct attachment of the covering to the chair frame.

Since stuffing was either absent from, or minimal in, these early 131 chair seats, comfort was also limited. Separate stuffed cushions

served as adjuncts to early side and armchairs. Because these cushions

were completely independent of the chair frame, they could be easily

interchanged among many chairs. This factor lowered9 the cost of own­

ing cushions, since a householder did not have to purchase a cushion

for every chair he owned, nor did he have to pay a craftsman to attach

stuffing to individual chairs. Significantly, cushions appeared in

the middle economic ranges of Thiladelphia estates— not in the wealthi­

est estates. The latter apparently invested in cane, leather, or

textile upholstered chairs, all of which, prior to the 1720’s, required

full integration of seating material and chair frame. This construc­

tional type was more expensive because it required increased workman­

ship, The craftsman had to apply a covering to eact? individual chair

frame, and because the point of application between covering and frame

would be completely visible on the finished chair, he had to be ex­

tremely careful and skillful at the task. The application of cane

and over the rail upholstery implied risk to the otherwise completed

chair frame; sloppy workmanship by the upholsterer could spoil the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196

appearance of the entire piece.

The indirectly attached slip seat represented a "blending of

the unattached cushion and the directly attached over the rail uphol­

stery. Significantly, Boston upholsterer Samuel Grant, whose shop

records have helped to document the introduction of the Queen Aiine

style into that city during the late 1720*s, described the new slip

seats as "Cush/ioTn Seats. This term clearly implied that the slip

seat marked the integration and attachment of cushions to chair frames.

Grant first recorded the production of cushion seats in January 1732,

and similarly furnished chairs probably appeared in Philadelphia at 133 about the same time. Because the upholstery of a cushion seat was 9 affixed to the bottom of an inner frame that fit inside the structural

seat frame, the jointure between seat covering and frame did not show.

Covering a cushion seat required less careful workmanship and involved

less risk to the wooden chair frame. An upholstery shop could make

cushion seats for an entire set of chairs at once from a single pattern

and in much less time than would be required to fit, apply, and nail

down over-upholstered seats onto individual chair frames. The early

cushion seated chairs produced by Grant's shop in Boston were no less

expensive— and often slightly more expensive— than his over-upholstered

models. However, factors other than the method of applying the uphol­

stery’ may easily have accounted for this differential— use of more

expensive woods, unfamiliarity with the new style, lack of stock­

piled parts, retooling to make carved rather than turned stiles and 134 legs. By the late eighteen-til century, slip seated chairs had be-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197

cone significantly less expensive than over-upholstered ones.

Benjamin Lehman*s "Price List," issued in 1786 hut considered repre­

sentative of earlier Philadelphia craft practices, documents the

relative cost of cushion and over-upholstered seats. After listing the

prices to he charged for various types of cushion seated chairs, in

walnut or mahogany, and with leather or textile coverings, Lehman

notes, "For any Chair as above Stuffed over the rail & Brass nails add

8 Shillings."1^ Throughout the eighteenth century, Philadelphia

upholsterers continued to make over-upholstered chairs for wealthy

clients. In 1775 William Martin advertised for sale "six mahogany

Gothic hack chairs covered with hair cloth and brass nailed. Five

years earlier, Plunket Fleeson had charged John Cadwalader L 13.13.0

for "covering over rail finish'd in Canvis 32 Chairs. "^37 The relative

infrequency of over-upholstered examples among surviving Philadelphia

chairs, however, demonstrates the overwhelming preference for

cushion seated chairs. The several shillings thus saved on the uphol­

stery could have been spent on the carving for which eighteenth cen­

tury Philadelphia chairs are noted.

In addition to the economic advantages of cushion seats, they

also allowed old coverings to he removed and new ones applied fairly

easily and with a minimum of risk to the chair frames. In contrast,

each new set of nail holes driven into the structural seat frame for

over the rail upholstery weakened the wood slightly. Finally, cushion

seats could he interchanged fairly easily to provide occasional

decorating changes. This practice was widespread in fashionable

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198

V*Q French houses and sometimes occurred in English ones, hut was

probably quite rare in colonial Philadelphia households.

Indirectly attached cushion seats presented many advantages

over earlier directly attached seat coverings upholstered over the

rail. Most importantly, they were less expensive and so allowed an

increased proportion of the population to purchase fashionable seating

furniture— first with leather and later with textile upholstery— in

addition to traditional rush bottomed chairs. Perhaps as much as any

other factor, the development of the cushion seat allowed the Queen

Anne and Chippendale styles to become the first truly popular styles—

exceeding in widespread distribution in America and other provincial

areas even the cheap cane chairs of the William and Mary period.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER V

Beardsley W-42, 1?01; Dyer W-98, 1702.

^-138, 1775. 3 Irene Emery, The Primary Structures of Fabrics, An Illustrated Classification (Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum, 1966), p. xvi. if. Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

5W-l66, 1750.

6W-238, 1750.

?¥-^2, 1701.

®Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary. o 'Kersey, Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum.

10Flag bottomed W-37, 1700; W-133, 170^; W-168, 1750; W-25^-, 1751* matted W-42, 1701; W-52, 1701; straw bottomed W-86, 1775.

1:LW-72, 1727.

^Tf-168, 1775; see Homor, Blue Book, p. 292.

“^ Maryland Gazette, Annapolis, Maryland, September 22, 17^7, Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 171-2. 14 Brock William Jobe, "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1725-1760" (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1976), p. 103. Hereafter cited as Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry" (thesis).

■^Nancy Goyne Evans, "Unsophisticated Furniture Made and Used in Philadelphia and Environs, ca. 1750-1800," Country Cabinetwork and Simple City Furniture, Winterthur Conference Report 19&9» ed. John D. Morse (Charlottesville, Va.: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1970), pp. 165-6 .

^Arthur W. Leibundguth, "The Furniture-Making Crafts in Philadelphia, c. 1730-c. 1760," p. 59. Hereafter cited as Leibundguth, "Philadelphia Furniture-Making Crafts."

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200

17Coaches ¥-84, 1702; ¥-23, 1726; ¥-53, 1727; stool ¥-75, 1727.

l8¥-53, 1727. IQ 'JfeLtzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories," p. 19. 20 KcELroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," pp. 7-8, H » 39, 100.

^ - l S Z , 1750; ¥-184, 1750,

^Morris ¥-225, 1750; Claypoole ¥-238 , 1750; Clymer ¥-253, 1751.

23 ¥-34, 1702.

2\-84, 17 02; ¥-23 , 1 7 2 6; ¥-53 , 1727; ¥-75, 1727; ¥-182, 17 50; ¥-225, 1750.

23 ,'Caning," The Dictionary of English Furniture from the Middle Ages to the late Georgian Period, ed. Percy Kacquoid and Ralph Edwards, rev. ed., 3 vols fLondon: Country Life Ltd., 195*0, 1:202. 26 For a theoretical discussion of the workmanship of risk, see David Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1971), pp. 7-10. ’*

27Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry" (thesis), pp. 104-5.

^Pennsylvania Gazette, June 27, 173**-, Prime, Arts and Crafts. pp. 167-8.

2^KcSlroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," pp. 64, 105-6. 30 American ¥eekly Mercury, June 13, 1734. 31 ■?or a discussion of seventeenth century usage of the term "leather chair," see Forman, "Seventeenth Century and William and Kary Style Furniture," section 4; for descriptions of leather covered chairs used in the American.colonies,see Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, pp. 38-47; Katzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories," pp. 17-3.

323urgess ¥-166, 1750; other mid-century inventories with leather chairs ¥-167, 1750; ¥-225, 1750; ¥-238, 1750; other mid-century inventories with leather "bottomed chairs ¥-186, 1750; ¥-218, 1750; ¥-253, 1751.

33Jackman ¥-167, 1750; Claypoole, ¥-238, 1750. 34 ¥-5 4 , 1701; for further information on Robert ¥ade, see Ashmead, History of Delaware County. Pennsylvania, pp. 13-5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201

35W-98, 1702.

3^See p. 23 above.

37W-l6?f 1750.

38ld* 39W-186, 1750; ¥-78, 1775; ¥-95, 1775. hf) ¥-225, 1750; ¥-113, 1775. 41 Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry" (thesis), p. 183. if.2 Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," 3oston Furniture, pp. 38-47.

^3Ibid., pp. 5, 40. ifif. American Weekly Mercury, June 13, 1734.

^Pennsylvania Gazette, February 1, 1738/1739, cited in Leibundguth, "Philadelphia Furniture-Making Crafts," p. 37 . 46 American Weekly Mercury, Kay 18, 1732, Prime, Arts and Crafts. p. 199. Ifn Pennsylvania Gazette. September 23, 1742, Ibid., pp. 201-2.

Ibid., June 14, 1744, p. 202. 4Q Ibid., January 28, 1755* pp. 215-8.

5°W-54, 1701; ¥-58, 1701s ¥-84, 1702; ¥-97, 1702; ¥-99. 1702; ¥-127, 1703; ¥-141, 1704; ¥-5 , 1726; ¥-53, 1727; ¥-64, 1727.

3^Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary. 52 Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicun.

53¥-5, 1726.

^¥-58, 1701; ¥-84, 1702; ¥-141, 1704; ¥-53, 1727.

55¥-127, 1703.

^ American Weekly Mercury. May 18, 1732, Prime, Arts and Crafts, P. 199.

57Ibld., September 19, 1732*. 58¥-86, 1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202

59W-42, 1?01. 60W-&-, 1?27.

6l¥-l6 6, 1750.

62¥-225, 1750.

63 V-113, 1775.

^ - 138 , 1775.

65W-106, 1775.

6V i 5 0, 1775.

^Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts, p. 238; Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 114-6; Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 128-9; Cummings, Bed Hangings, pp. 23-^.

F l o r e n c e M. Montgomery, Printed Textiles. English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700-1850, A Winterthur Book ^New York: Viking Press, 1970), pp. 51-2; Rothstein, "Silks Imported into America in the 18th-Century, An Historical Survey," Imported and Domestic Textiles, p. 21. 69 Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 129, 205n.

^°Berlekamp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis), pp. 33-4-» 72; Cummings, Bed Hangings, p. 71 Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts, p. 237. "^Montgomery, Printed Fabrics, pp. ^9-52.

^Receinted hills, Plunket Fleeson to George Croughan, 17&5- 1767, Ph 988-9, ~DKKC.

"^Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," p. 83 .

-'Tn the late 1720*s and early 1730's, Boston upholsterer Samuel Grant made several easy chairs using 7 to 7a yards cheyney to cover the fronts and 1 to if yards printed fabric to cover the hacks; see Samuel Grant, Account Book, 1728-1737, pp. 32, 106, microfilm copy K-1526 DKMC, original at Massachusetts Historical Society. I am grateful to Benno M, Forman for sharing this information with me. In England, a large set of seating furniture made for Lord Irwin of Tem­ ple Newsam House, Leeds, in 1735, had fronts covered with crimson damask and hacks with crimson harateen; see Christopher Gilbert, "The Temple Newsam Furniture Bills," Furniture History 3 (19^7): 18-9. la

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203

1784- the Gillow firm of cabinetmakers and upholsterers, of Lancaster and London, produced for Lord Gray a mahogany sofa covered in Morocco leather on the front and tammy (a worsted fabric) on the back; see Gillow Cabinetmakers, Estimate Sketch Book, 1784-1787, p. 82, microfilm copy, reel 44-, Gillow Archives, K-1467, DMMC, original at Gillow Archives, Westminster City Libraries, London. An eighteenth century French print entitled, Le Billet Doux (Winterthur 6O.383 .l8), after a water color by N. lavereince, depicts a Louis Seize armchair with fine tapestry or needlework upholstery on the front and a checked fabric on the back.

1775.

^Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor and Seat Coverings,” p. 4; Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 141-57; Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 7 8, 80, 83 , l83n; Hornor, Blue Book, pp. 25-7, 44, 6 7, 153-8, 168-70, 198, 212-4, 225; NcElroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," pp. 8, 16, 28, 35, 38, 42, 107; Katzkin, "Philadelphia County Inven­ tories," pp. 22-3, 104-5; Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-3, 51-2. 78 r Pennsylvania Gazette, January 28, 1775, Prime,Arts and Crafts, pp. 215-6.

^'Pennsylvania Packet, September 5, 1775, Ibid., p. 200. OA Ibid., March 13,- 1775, pp. 206-7. 81 Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-1; Plunket Fleeson, Account with John Reynolds, 1754-1755, Ph 1073, DXMC; Receipted Bill, Plunket Fleeson to George Croughan, 1765-1767, Ph 988-9, DHMC.

Receipted Bill, Plunket Fleeson to George Croughan, 1765- 1766, Ph 988, DKMC.

^ Pennsylvania Chronicle, July 13, 1767, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 208. 84 English Furniture Upholstery, pp. iv-vi.

^Giedion, Mechanization, p. 261. 86 Bailey, Dictionarium Britannicum.

87W-42, 1701; W-225, 1750; W-113, 1775; W-150, 1775.

88Homor, Blue Book, pp. 30, 228.

^American Weekly Mercury. September 19, 1734.

^Morrison H, Heckscher, In Quest of Comfort: pie Easy Chair in America (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1971), p. 10; Homor, Blue Book,p. 228.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 7 Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

92¥-84, 1702.

93Rush ¥-337 , 1725* ¥-5, 1726; ¥-178, 1750; ¥-185, 1750; ¥-223, 1750; ¥-113, 1775; cane ¥-84, 1702; ¥-23, 1726; ¥-53, 1727. ^¥-8^, 1702.

95¥-23, 1726.

^Chambers ¥-84, 1702; ¥-113, 1775; garrets ¥-225, 1750; ¥-131, 1775.

^Horaor, Blue Book, pp. 57-9, 155-7.

98Squab ¥-5, 1726; Beds ¥-64, 1727; ¥-103, 1775; ¥-118, 1775; ¥-168, 1775; ¥-169, 1775; flock Bed ¥-107, 1775; pallet Bed ¥-238 , 1750 cot ¥-75, 1727; Bed and pillows W-I6 3 , 1775.

"w-84, 1775.

100w-225, 1750; ¥-1 0 6, 1775; ¥-150, 1775.

"^Homor, Blue 3ook, p. 18, 102 Morrison H. Keckscher, "Form and Frame: New Thoughts on the American Easy Chair," Antiques 100 (December 1971): 558.

^9^Homor, Blue Book, pp. 30-1. ■tnk R.W. Symonds, "English Cane Chairs— Part I," The Connoisseur 126 (March 1951): 13-4.

^■^IAnda R. Baumgarten, 'Upholstery Materials Used in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1750-1800" (paper written for Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, 1971, Technical Library, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum), p, 4. Hereafter cited as Baumgarten, "Suf­ folk County Upholstery."

1o6W-42, 1701; ¥-166, 1750.

^^Pennsylvania Chronicle, July 13, 1767, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 208.

^■08Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-1.

109Ibid., pp. 52-69. 110 Ibid., pp. 51-2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

111The South Carolina Gazette. Charleston, South Carolina, September 18, 1762. Prime. Arts and Crafts, p. 217.

^^Florence M. Montgomery, "Eighteenth-Century English and American Furnishing Fashions," Antiques 97 (February 1970): 271. Hereafter cited as Montgomery, "Furnishing Fashions."

^^McElroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," pp. 12, 38-9. 114 Heckscher, In Quest of Comfort, p. 10.

n 5 W-l68, 1775.

n V l 3 1 , 1775.

n 7 W-96, 1775.

n 8 W-54, 1727.

79, 1702. 120W-195, 1750; V-139, 1775.

Pennsylvania Gazette, January 22, 1756, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 217.

122Ibid., July 4, 1754-, P. 219.

^2^Katzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories," p. 105. 124 Thomas Chippendale, The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker * s Director; Being a large Collection of the Most Elegant and Useful Designs of Household Furniture, In the Most Fashionable Taste, 3^d ed] (London: By the Author, 1762; reprint ed., New York; Dover Publications, Inc., 1966), explanation to Plates IX-XIV; also Montgomery, Printed Textiles, p. 48.

^2^tfainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 4-0-3, 52; Coyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," po. 6 9, 83; Homor, Blue Book, pp. 44, 6 7, 155, 158, 168, 213-4-. l?6 Montgomery, Printed Textiles, p. 29.

127W-l66, 1750.

■^^Berlekamp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis), pp. 7-9, 34-5. also W.E. Kinchinton, "Introduction," and Ralph Davis, "English Foreign Trade, 1700-1774-," English Overseas Trade, pp. 5-6, 18-20, 110-1.

129English Furniture Upholstery, pp. v-vii.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206

v ?0 Ibid., p. viij Baumgarten, "Suffolk County Upholstery," pp. 7-15* Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," p. 152; Jobe, "Boston Furniture Industry," Boston Furniture, pp. 3*1—9•

^ ^Snglish Furniture Upholstery, p. v. 132 Johe, "Boston Furniture Industry," 3oston Furniture, p. 42,

13W , leibundguth, "Philadelphia Furniture-Making Crafts,” PP. 30-7; McElroy, "Philadelphia Area Furniture," pp. i, viii, 64; Hornor, Blue Book, pp. 34, 196.

^■^Samuel Graint, Account Book, 1728-1737. 13*5 -^Benjamin Lehman, "Prices of Cabinet & Chair Work,” January 1786, reproduced in Harrold S. Gillingham, "Benjamin Lehman, A Germantown Cabinetmaker," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 54 (1930): 296.

• ^ Pennsylvania Packet, March 13, 1775, Prime, Arts and Crafts. pp. 206-7.

"^Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 40.

^ ^English Furniture Unholstery, p, ix.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI

WINDOW AND FLOOR COVERINGS

AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES

The remaining types of fabric furnishings— window, floor and

wall coverings— covered architectural elements of man's interior

space. Although these types of fabric furnishings did possess some

functional value— primarily as insulators against cold drafts, noise,

and unwanted spectators— they were generally less closely integrated

to daily living routines than were bed, table, and seating furniture

coverings. As a result, the symbolic value of window and floor

coverings as status indicators usually exceeded their functional

value. Although rather lavish window hangings and Oriental carpets

have figured prominently in many modern restorations, window and

floor coverings were actually quite rare in colonial Philadelphia.

Between 1?00 and 1775$ less than one inventory in ten listed window

coverings, and floor coverings did not appear in the estates studied

until the third quarter of the century.

Window Coverings

The relatively low functional and high symbolic value of win­

dow curtains limited their use to a snail proportion of Philadelphia

homes. Unlike bed and table coverings, whose use dated back several

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208

centuries prior to Philadelphia* s founding, window coverings had just

"begun to develop in England during the seventeenth century and especially

during the post-Restoration period.^ Their relatively recent innovation

makes window coverings particularly useful indices for investigating

patterns in the introduction and dissemination in a society of new

elements of material culture.

Less than one-tenth (9.88 percent) of «-ll inventories studied

specifically recorded curtains vised at windows, and these references

concentrated in the households of wealthy, urban merchants, tradesmen, 9 and widows. Similarly, Brightman's study of Suffolk and Essex County,

Massachusetts, probate records dating between 1700 and 1760 has shown

that "window curtains were not widely used in the homes of the Boston 2 and Salem colonists." Although they were never widespread among the

general population in colonial Philadelphia either, possession of win­

dow coverings almost doubled between 1700 and 1775* In 1700-17#*,

8.75 percent of the inventories studied contained window coverings,

compared to 15.00 percent just before the Revolution (see Table 2).

Window curtains were extremely rare at the lower economic levels but

increased sharply in frequency as estate and household valuations rose

(see Tables 3 and 4). Window hangings appeared in only two inventories

with household goods worth less than the median investment of h hZ. 0.0-

L 45.0.0. These goods represented an almost exclusively urban pheno­

menon throughout the colonial period, appearing in over one-fourth

(2 6 .7 9 percent) of the Philadelphia City inventories but in only two

wealthy and exceptional rural estates (see Table 5). ^ The concentra­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209

tion of window hangings among high status occupational groups clearly

reflected their symbolic value (see Table 6). One-half of the inven­

tories listing window curtains belonged to tradesmen and merchants,

and 4 5 .7 1 percent of these two occupational groups owned such goods.

Widows and spinsters comprised the only other major occupational group

owning a significant number of window curtains; one-sixth (1 6 .6 7 per­

cent) of these women’s inventories listed such goods. Window coverings

also appeared in the inventories of two mariners, one gentleman, and

three craftsmen, but not at all in the inventories of yeomen, husband­

men, or laborers. Finally, use of window curtains in Philadelphia

throughout the first half of the eighteenth century consistently

lagged behind that in the older colonial settlement of Boston. In a

study of window curtains in inventories from Boston and Salem,

Brightman reported the following proportions of Suffolk County

inventories with references to window curtains: 17 percent in 1700-1710,

12 percent in 1720-1730. and 12 percent again in 1?40-1750.^ These

figures compare to 8.75 percent in Philadelphia in 1700-1704, 10.98

percent in 1725-1727, and 4.88 percent in 1750-1751 (see Table 2).

Window blinds

Colonial Philadelphians had access to two basic types of non-

architectural window coverings— curtains and blinds. Although the exact

date for the introduction of Venetian window blinds has not yet been

established,^ these items were available in Philadelphia by the third

quarter of the eighteenth century. At least three upholsterers—

Charles Allen, George Haughton, and John Webster— advertised "Venetian

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210

"blinds made. Thomas Harper offered, in 1775* " A H sorts of Venetian

and other "blinds made on the newest construction." The earliest of

the advertisements for window "blinds dated from 1767* when John

Webster offered to the public t "the newest invented Venetian sun

"blinds for windows, on the "best principles, stain'd to any colour, O moves to any position, so as to give different l i g h t s . . Despite

Webster's description of them as new inventions in 1767, window Hinds

of some sort were available in Philadelphia as early as 1750. The shop

inventory of merchant Thomas Burgess, taken in that year, included o "2 Window blinds'* worth 3s. 9d. each. Although Philadelphia uphol­

sterers and merchants clearly stocked window blinds prior to the

Revolution, only one of the inventories studied listed them among

household goods. In 1775 Samuel Bryan, a wealthy shipwright of

Philadelphia, used one window blind worth 3s. in his back parlor,

while he also had at least two sets of window curtains in other rooms.

Window curtains

Curtains clearly constituted the most popular type of interior,

non-architectural window covering. Unfortunately, the thirty-two

inventories that specifically identified window curtains rarely pro­

vided any descriptions of their physical appearance, suggesting that,

as with other fabric furnishings, the appraisers considered function

and meaning more important than form or material. Printed or painted

cotton calicoes (two examples) and chintzes (one example) were the only

fabrics and blue and white (one example) the only color combination

specifically associated with window hangings in the inventories studied!

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211

these references all occurred in 1?50 or later. ^ In comparison, un-

piblished research by Kathleen M. Catalano on "Textiles Used for Bed,

Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings in Eighteenth Century Philadelphia,"

located one reference each to muslin (a napped cotton) and garlick (a

fine, white linen) window curtains in 1720-1723; two references in

1750-1753 to calico; two to harateen and one each to muslin, cotton, 12 damask, and worsted in 1770-1773* For the earliest period of settle­

ment in Philadelphia, Matzkin's study of inventories dated 1682-1710

documented window curtains made of homespun, linen, linsey woolsey,

painted, striped, and calico fabrics, with the last type the most f re- 13 nuently mentioned. Homor located references to window curtains made

of chintz, calico, copperplate print, worsted damask, cheyney, hara- 1^ teen, mohair, taffeta, quilted, and embossed fabrics. In addition

to these inventory references, the records of merchants and upholsterers

also indicate the use of worsted window curtains in Philadelphia prior

to 1750. Eargaret Beardsley's shop inventory, taken near the end of

l699» included twenty-four pieces of "Curtaine Stuff" worth ls.8d. per

piece.^ During this period, the term stuff could refer to all kinds

of woven fabrics in general or to a specific type of lightweight worsted

fabric, with both warp and weft made of combed, long-staple wool fibers.^

In 1722, upholsterer John Housman advertised "Stuffs for Curtains," 17 possibly for windows as well as beds.

Although the data on fabrics used in Philadelphia window cur­

tains Is still too sparse and random to form a firm basis for reasonable

conclusions, it is interesting to compare these references with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212

Brightman’s findings on early eighteenth century window curtains in

Boston and. Salem, Massachusetts. Her study of 22h> Suffolk and Essex

County inventories with window curtains during the periods 1700-1710,

1720-1730* and 17^0-1750 revealed calico to he the most popular single

fabric. Linen window curtains— made of diaper, holland, kenting, or

other unspecified linens— ranked second, followed by window curtains

made of fine worsteds like camlet, cheyney, and harateen. The latter

group of fabrics appeared primarily during the 17**0* s and exceeded the

number of references to calico during that decade. Brighto n also

located a few references to window curtains made of muslin, chintz,

damask, mohair, serge, stuff, printed, plaid, striped, and embroidered 18 fabrics. Her research led to the conclusion, however, that "not all

the home furnishing textiles available in the first half of the eight- 19 eenth century were used for window curtains."

Window curtains listed in Philadelphia inventories appeared in

a rather wide range of valuations. Many were worth only a few shil­

lings— Is.-3s. for single curtains, 3s.-10s. for pairs. Other house­

holders owned window curtains worth as much as l6s.-20s. for single

curtains and L 1.0.0-h 3.0.0 for pairs. The variety of terms used to

enumerate window curtains makes it extremely difficult to determine

how many were used per household, per room, or even per window.

Appraisers frequently recorded groupings of two, four, six, eight

window curtains and one, two, three pairs of window curtains, as well

as occasional sets, suits, and parcels. Others simply listed window

curtains, with no indication of number. Most householders who did own

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. f i 213

window curtains possessed between four to six of them, although in

1775 merchant Thomas Lawrence possessed an exceptionally large number

of seventeen window curtains, used in his second and third story cham- 20 hers, nursery, and front and bat* parlors.

Even when the number of window curtains is recorded, it is

often difficult to interpret this figure. Perhaps a reference to a

pair of curtains meant two curtains for the same window— one on each

side— while a reference to two curtains designated single curtains used

on two windows. In 1775 John William Hoffman's appraisers recorded two 21 examples of single window curtains worth 10s. and 20s, each. The con­

text of the entries indicated that these single curtains were actually

hanging rather than in storage. Since Hoffman was a wealthy merchant,

with at least two pairs of - window curtains hung elsewhere in his home,

his use of single curtains must have been a matter of taste rather than

of economic necessity, Brightman also encountered a number of refer- 22 ences to single window curtains used in Boston and Salem homes.

A single curtain, composed of only one width of fabric, could

have been treated in several ways. It could have been attached to the

top of the window or to a wooden cornice and then simply tied off to

one side. For a more stylish, formal appearance, it could have been

equipped with tape and rings sewn to the back side to allow it to be

drawn straight up in puffs for a Venetian curtain or diagonally to one

upper corner for a festooned effect, with swags of fabric hanging down

the side of the window frame. Single curtains could also have been

hung more simply from metal rings or tape loops sewn to the top edges

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22&

of the curtains and then passed over metal or wooden bars; these

treatments would have allowed them to he slid or tied hack to one side

of the window to admit light. Bairs of curtains could also have heen

hung from rings or tape loops, tied hack to hoth sides, or gathered

into double festoons.^ The relatively low valuations assigned.to most

Philadelphia area window hangings suggest that very simple treatments

predominated, with single curtains outnumbering double ones and rings

or tape loops over curtain rods the usual method of attachment. Several 2It household inventories listed hoth bed and window curtain rods, and

James Pox's shop inventory of 1?01 included "1150 Curtain Rings" worth 25 a total of i> 1.3.0. Only one inventory recorded a window curtain

valance, and none mentioned window curtain cornices. 26 Since hoth of

these more stylish, decorative appurtenances did appear in conjunction

with bed curtains in Philadelphia inventories— valances rather fre­

quently— their absence from window curtain entries suggests a real

absence rather than simply carelessness on the part of the appraisers.

Chambers represented the primary location of window curtains

in colonial Philadelphia homes. Twelve (85.71 percent) of the fourteen

room by room inventories with window curtains placed them in chambers.

Several inventories without room designations listed window curtains 27 en suite with bed curtains, implying that hoth were used in chambers.

Occasionally, and especially during the early part of the century,

appraisers grouped window hangings together in collective entries with

other household linens, suggesting that at least some of the former may

have been in storage and making it impossible to determine where they

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215

would have "been used. The four room "by room inventories listing win­

dow curtains in front or back parlors also had chamber window curtains,

indicating that the first floor, public rooms of the house were 28 generally not the first recipients of window curtains.

As with bed and seating furniture coverings, upholsterers pro­

vided most of the window curtains used in colonial Philadelphia. Dry

goods merchants stocked the imported fabrics used in making window cur­

tains, but there were few references to ready-made window curtains im­

ported from England as finished goods. During the 1750* s, 1760* s, and

1770's, several Philadelphia upholsterers— James White, Thomas Hewes,

Edward Weyman, John Eason, George Hichey, and Charles Allen— advertised 29 to make plain, festooned, and Venetian window curtains. 7 Interest­

ingly, upholstery advertisements specifically mentioning window cur­

tains rarely predated 1750, suggesting an upsurge in popularity during

the third quarter of the eighteenth century. During the 1760*s and

1770's, Plunket Fleeson custom-made window curtains for several

wealthy clients, including William Armstrong,John Cadwalader, Stephen 30 Collins, Charles Norris, Steven Paschall, and John Reynolds. If

most window curtains- in colonial Philadelphia had to be custom-made

rather than imported ready-made (as were some bed, table, and seating

furniture coverings), the additional cost of colonial labor and the

chore of personally selecting style and fabric could have helped

limit possession of window curtains to a financially prosperous and

materialistically sophisticated elite.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I Function and meaning of window coverings

As with other fabric furnishings, window coverings clearly

reflected colonial concerns for cleanliness and convenience, privacy,

style, and status. By the third quarter of the century, some Phila­

delphians had come to recognize that window coverings— especially the

newly invented and rather inexpensive Venetian blinds— could actually

help protect and maintain more expensive fabrics used on beds, tables,

chairs, and floors. In 1767 John Webster announced that his "newest

invented Venetian sun blinds for windows" would screen "the scorching

rays of the sun"; he lauded them as "the greatest preserver of furniture

of any thing of the kind ever invented.

Window coverings have commonly been associated with an increas­

ing desire for privacy, arid, indeed, Webster*s advertisement cites as

an additional benefit of the Venetian blind, its capacity to prevent

"being overlooked."-' However, the rarity of window coverings in

ground floor parlors, where one could be most easily seen by passersby

on the street, casts doubts on this otherwise plausible theory. Window

curtains consistently appeared first, and in many households, only in

upper story bed chambers, Perhaps window curtains shrouded the interi­

ors of these rooms from the view of occupants of upper story chambers

on the opposite sides of narrow city streets. More plausibly, perhaps

psychological needs overshadowed physical ones in determining the

placement of window curtains in colonial Philadelphia homes. Psycho­

logically, window curtains extended the intimacy, status, and ceremonial

dignity of the curtained bed to the entire chamber. Hie subsequent in-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217

crease in window hangings and decline in "bed hangings during the nine­

teenth and twentieth centuries substantiates this theory.

Brightman has suggested the alternative use of interior

wooden shutters as an explanation for the low occurrence of colonial

window hangings:

One possible explanation for the lack of window hang­ ings may lie in the increase in paneled rooms during this era and the use of interior shutters which were designed as a part of the paneling scheme. The use of shutters would have eliminated the need for window curtains to maintain privacy or to keep out cold drafts.33

She* suggests that the presence of shutters especially limited the use

of window curtains in parlors and other main floor living rooms:

"These are the rooms most likely to have had fine wood paneling if it

was used.

Although interior wooden shutters may have limited the use of

window curtains, this explanation is as yet unsubstantiated by any

reliable primary data. The limited evidence currently available on

the subject of interior shutters in Philadelphia homes is insufficient

to either disprove or confirm the theory. The Philadelphia Contribu-

tionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire has preserved a

full series of household inventories dating back to the society* s

inception in 1752. These surveys, taken by the society's representa­

tives for the purpose of determining a householder's fire insurance

premium, commonly listed all of the major architectural features of a

dwelling and described its interior woodwork. These surveys provide

rather full descriptions of interior paneling, stairways, chimney

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218

■breasts, roofing, flooring, plastered walls and partitions, but window

shutters almost never appear in inventories taken prior to 1775. In

contrast, after the 1790*s surveys of new buildings and resurveys of

old buildings frequently list interior window shutters Two ex­

planations of this phenomenon suggest themselves: either the later

surveyors were more thorough, or interior window shutters represented

a post-colonial development in domestic architecture. Thus, although

the relationship between window shutters and curtains is still unre­

solved, the suggestion that the popularity of the former eliminated the

use’ of the latter seems an oversimplification that ignores possible

psychological factors favoring the use of textile window coverings.

The discussion of interior shutters leads directly to the re­

lationship between window -hangings and architecture in general. As

coverings for an architectural element, window curtains were clearly

more directly influenced by changes in architectural styles than were

other fabric furnishings. Unfortunately, there are currently few

opportunities to link window curtains and architecture from specific

dwellings. The probate records do not include architectural informa­

tion, and rarely do the original structures— or even architectural

records of them— survive for households with descriptive inventories

listing window curtains. The number of windows per house and per room

obviously limited the number of window curtains that could be used.

Perhaps the popularity of conjoined city houses in Philadelphia— with

long windowless side walls— limited use of window curtains by re­

stricting windows to short end walls. In general, developments in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219

domestic architecture during the eighteenth century would have

logically encouraged gradually increased use of window coverings. The

small, leaded casement windows typical of seventeenth century colonial

homes admitted little light or air, and fabric coverings were neither

necessary nor particularly desirable. During the eighteenth century,

however, window curtains became more useful as windows gradually in­

creased in size and the clarity of the glass improved slightly.

Window curtains also reflected the colonial Philadelphia

householder's concern with style and status. Montgomery has very

ably utilized a large body of contemporary evidence— much of it

pictorial— to. document the major styles of eighteenth century window

curtains: straight-hanging, Venetian, and festoon. English design

books and prints clearly document the introduction of these styles in

the mother country. Straight-hanging and Venetian curtains became

popular in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when

Daniel Karot, court designer to King William and Queen Mary, prepared

engravings of four lavish Venetian curtains. Festoon curtains came

into fashion in England about the middle of the eighteenth century.

Ey 1800 a fourth major style had evolved. French curtains had two

panels of fabric made to draw horizontally across the windows on curtain

rods equipped with rings, cords, and pullies. These rapid changes

and innovations in fashion suggest that window curtains were eminently

style bearing throughout the late seventeenth and early eighteenth cen­

turies, at least in London, the style center of the Anglo-American

culture.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220

The style hearing role of window coverings is much less evident

in Philadelphia, however, than in London. Colonial Philadelphia up­

holsterers were certainly capable of producing curtains in the contem­

porary fashions. In the mid-1750's both Janes White and Edward Weyman ¥7 advertised "window curtains, either festoon or plain. f In 1771 up­

holsterer George Richey offered "all sorts of window curtains, in the

newest fashion, such as festoon, Venetian, long and short drapery, OQ with or without cornices." However, references to such stylish cur­

tains rarely appeared in Philadelphia inventories prior to the

Revolution. In the inventories studied, the appraisers recorded only

one window curtain valance and did not mention any window cornices or

describe the designs of any window curtains. Apparently, they did not

consider style a critical, distinguishing characteristic of the window

curtains they inventoried.

The low valuations assigned to window curtains in Philadelphia

homes— rarely rising over fi 1.0.0 per curtain— suggest either small

windows, inexpensive fabrics, or simple treatments. The 1725 inven­

tory of Randolph Spakeman, Philadelphia tobacconist, did include "1

Sett of Small Window Curtains." Assuming that the appraisers were

reasonably accurate in their appraisals, the valuations assigned most

Philadelphia window curtains would not have paid for the labor of

making stylish hangings, much less the cost of the materials. In

1767 John Kason offered a one-third reduction on his services, bring­

ing the cost of making "Venetian Curtains for Windows" to ?s.6d. A rt each. Plunket Fleesott commonly charged 7s. for making festoon window

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221

curtains, 12s. 6d. for a pair of window curtains, and 15s. for Venetian 41 window curtains. In December 1763 Fleeson billed Charles Norris

D 12.3.8 for labor and materials for three Venetian window curtains of

crimson china (a fine, often watered, worsted fabric). This charge

included h 4.4.0 for twenty-four yards of crimson china at 3s. 6d. per

yard, h 2.2.0 for tassels, £ 2.5.0 for labor, and B 3.12.8 for lace,

line, sewing silk, tape, rings, iron hooks, brass pins, pulley rails.

Judging by their valuations, most colonial Philadelphia window cur­

tains did not approach this level of elegance or ostentation. Despite

the*influence of current English fashions, apparently not all colonial

Philadelphia window curtains were style bearing. Brightnan reported a

similar situation in 3oston during the period 1700-1760:

The types of fabrics which were recorded in the inventories, and the few fabrics, valances, and curtains which have sur­ vived indicated that the lavish and sumptuous window hangings of the English Early Georgipa style were not achieved in the colony /of Massachusetts/.

Another facet of fashionable window treatments was the vogue 45 for matching bed and window curtains. One-fourth of the inventories

with window hangings listed bed and window coverings en suite. Seven

of these eight inventories occurred in 1750 or 1775* suggesting that

matching hangings became more popular, or at leant more widely attain­

able, during the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Unfortunately,

only a few of these inventories indicated the appearance of the matched

hangings. Wealthy Philadelphia merchant Thomas Burgess owned two

matched sets of bed and window curtains at his death in 1750: "1

Callico bed with Cover’d cornish & 1 pair Window Curtains with bed rod

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. & window Curtain rod" worth i 9.0.0 together and "1 "blue & white "bed

with "bed holster & pillows Blankets & Sheets with window curtains"

worth 5 30.0.0. The latter set nay have also matched his textile k6 hottomed and covered chairs. A quarter century later, Evan Morgan’s

appraisers recorded "1 Suit of Calico bed & window Certains” worth

h 5.0.0.^7

Finally, window curtains served as important status indicators,

as is evidenced by their very restricted use, their concentration among

high status groups, and their corresponding rarity among low status

groups. Window curtains provided especially important status symbols;

because they hung at highly visible transition points between- interior

and exterior spaces, they could seen by visitors and passersby,

friends and strangers alike. In addition, they represented a particu­

larly ostentatious consumption of material; their constant exposure

to strong light entailed certain disintegration and implied built in

replacement costs. Their psychological significance as status symbols

may have provided the primary motive for the use of window coverings

in colonial Philadelphia. Kany of the window coverings recorded in

Philadelphia inventories were not exorbitantly expensive, indicating

that lack of economic means was not a major factor in limiting use.

The overall low occurrence of window curtains in colonial Philadelphia

inventories, combined with an unexpectedly slight increase in use dur­

ing the period 1700-1775» suggests that subtle but nonetheless strong

social controls operated to restrict possession of these luxury goods.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223

Floor Coverings

Floor coverings appeared in colonial Philadelphia estates even

less frequently than did window coverings.; only 9 (2.73 percent) of the

total 32 ^ inventories studied contained references to this type of

fabric furnishing. Floor coverings did not appear in the inventories

studied until the 1775 period, although H o mor has located references 48 to painted floorcloths used in Philadelphia as early as 1723.

Eight inventories from the earlier part of the century did list carpets,

but these were either specifically designated as table carpets or

listed in close conjunction with tables. In her research on Philadel­

phia bed, window, floor and seat coverings, Catalano located references

to table carpets in the first quarter of the eighteenth century, but 4 q none to floorcloths or carpets until 1770-1773. This data indicates

that, although a few exceptional Philadelphia householders nay have

possessed fabric furnishings for their floors prior to 1750, floor­

cloths, carpets, and mats did not achieve any sort of general use until

the third quarter of the century. This suggestion agrees in general

with the results of other research on the use of floor coverings in

America. Both Hina Fletcher Little and Rodris Roth have dated the

transition of carpets from table coverings to floor coverings at the

middle of the eighteenth century, with the introduction of painted

floorcloths coming only slightly earlier.^

Floor coverings were not only rarer than window coverings in

colonial Philadelphia, they also represented a much more recent inno­

vation in interior furnishings. Even in England, the use of floor car-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224

pets generally did not precede the eighteenth century*

To what extent carpets were used /in England/ in the seventeenth century has not teen satisfactorily determined, and there is frequently a doubt whether the entry refers to a cover for the floor or for a piece of furniture. Carpets, in the modem sense of the word, did not become common even in the homes of fairly wealthy people until the first quar­ ter of the eighteenth century.51

As late as 1730, Bailey's Dictionarium Britannicum defined a carpet 52 as "a covering for a table." The relative novelty of fabric furnish­

ings for the floor made them important bearers of style and status in

colonial Philadelphia, and consequently, they provide important evi­

dence of the patterns of introduction and dissemination of new elements

of material culture.

The use of floor coverings in Philadelphia apparently grew

rather rapidly during the third quarter of the eighteenth century (see

Table 2). None of the 82 inventories studied from the years 1750-1751

contained references to any kind of carpet, and Catalano reported the

same finding for 302 inventories dating 1750-1753. ^ This evidence

suggests that, by mid-century, the vogue for table carpets had declined

in Philadelphia, but that the fashion for floor coverings had not yet

taken hold. In 1775» however, the nine inventories with floor coverings

constituted 11.25 percent of those read. Window coverings, an older

and more established type of fabric furnishing, appeared only slightly

more frequently, in 15.00 percent of the inventories studied for 1775.

Upper economic households and high status groups dominated pos­

session of floor coverings even more clearly than they did window cover­

ings (see Tables 3 and 4). Floor coverings did not occur in any inven­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

tories vlth a total estate value of under £ 200.0.0, and they appeared

in only three of the estates worth £ 200.0.0-£ 1000.0,0. Wealthy

estates worth over £ 1000.0.0 possessed two-thirds of the floor

coverings recorded; in 1775» 35.29 percent of the estates in this

economic range owned such goods. Similarly, all hut one of the inven­

tories with floor coverings recorded a total investment in household

goods of at least £ 120.0.0, and no references to floor coverings

appeared in households worth less than £ 60.0.0 (well over the median

investment of £ 42.0.0-L 45.0.0 in household goods). In 1775$ almost

two-thirds (61.54 percent) of the wealthy households, worth over

£ 120.0.0, owned, floor coverings. This data graphically demonstrates

the introduction and early concentration of floor coverings in upper

economic level estates and households.

Like window coverings and fabric upholstery, floor coverings

remained an almost exclusively urban phenomenon throughout the colonial

period in Philadelphia (see Table 5). No floor coverings appeared in

rural inventories, but the nine urban inventories containing these

goods represented over one-fourth (26.47 percent) of the thirty-four

Philadelphia City inventories studied for the year 1775.

Finally, possession of floor coverings also concentrated in

higher status occupational groups (see Table 6). Financially and

socially successful merchants and tradesmen owned over half of the

floor coverings recorded; in 1775> over one-fourth (29.41 percent) of

the inventories for these occupational groups recorded floorcloths,

carpets, or mats. One mariner and two craftsmen (or 11.76 percent of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

the craftsmen's inventories studied for 1775) also owned floor cover­

ings. In contrast, these goods did not appear in the inventories of

yeomen, husbandmen, laborers, or widows and spinsters.

Carpets

The Philadelphia County probate records listed three types of

floor coverings used in area homes during the third quarter of the

eighteenth century: carpets, floorcloths, and mats. Of these, car­

pets were by far the most frequently recorded type, appearing in 5^ eight of the nine inventories with any type of floor covering. In « contrast, three inventories listed floorcloths and only one, a floor

nat.^ In 1765, Dyche and Pardon's dictionary defined a carpet as ”a

covering for a table, floor, or passage, and commonly understood of a

particular worsted stuff wove with a large pile like velvet, in

various figures and sundry colours."^

As this definition indicated, the earlier use of carpets as

table coverings persisted beyond 1750* Philadelphia appraisers James

Potter and Joseph Falconer encountered both types of carpets early in

1775. On January 23, they recorded "1 Floor Carpet" worth 15s. among 57 the household goods of James Goodwin, house carpenter. The next day,

they inventoried the estate of Francis 3ouchier, Southwark painter and

glazier, appraising "1 Mahangany dlneing Table & Carpet" at h 3.0.0

together.^® Catalano located a reference to a table carpet used in a 5 q Philadelphia area home as late as 1790. However, the contexts of the

inventory entries and the valuations assigned them clearly indicated

that, by 1775, most Philadelphians who owned carpets employed them pri-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22?

inarUy as floor coverings.

In their respective studies of floor coverings, Roth and Little

have described the types of carpets used in colonial Americas

Oriental, hand-knotted pile carpets imported from Turkey, Persia and

other Near and Far Eastern countries; imitation turkeyvork carpets

woven in the Oriental, hand-knotted manner in France and England during

the seventeenth century; flat, pile-less, double-woven and reversible

carpets, commonly called ingrain, Scotch, or Kidderminster, and made

in Scotland and England; Brussels carpets with uncut pile and Wilton

carpets with cut pile, both woven over wire rods that raised loops (not

hand-knotted in the Oriental manner); and Axminster carpets, woven

after 1755 in the reintroduced hand-knotted, Oriental manner. ^

Although three inventories recorded old carpets, ingrain carpets were

the only type specifically identified in any of the Philadelphia inven­

tories studied for this paper.^ Appraisers recorded "one Scotch

Carpet t 2 one floor Cloth h 1" among the household goods of Thomas 62 Wallace, mariner of the city of Philadelphia. Catalano located

additional references to Brussels, Wilton, and Scotch carpets in

Philadelphia inventories taken in 1770-1773.^ In 1771 upholsterer

John I'ason announced to the public that he had "just imported in the

ship Warwick, Captain Davison, from Bristol, .... The best Wilton &j. Carpetting, in the piece." According to this evidence, the unspeci­

fied carpets recorded in Philadelphia inventories of 1775 could

plausibly have been Scotch or Ingrain, Brussels, Wilton,or possibly

Oriental.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228

Floorcloths

Floorcloths, the second type of floor covering recorded in

Philadelphia inventories of this period, generally consisted of

"canvas or some other sturdy cloth material covered with several

coats of paint for durability."^ One Philadelphia inventory listed an

interesting variant of the basic floorcloth— a "Hair Cloth" that

probably "resembled the sturdy horsehair fabric used for upholstery."^

Floorcloths were generally less expensive and easier to replace than

carpets, and when brightly painted, they could be equally decorative.

However, floorcloths were not simply second best substitutes for car­

pets, nor were they used in less wealthy homes. The three Philadelphia

inventories that listed floorcloths also included ca&rpets, with the

two types often listed together. The appraisers for the estate of

Samuel Bryan, shipwright, listed in his back parlor "1 Old Carpet &

Hair Cloth" worth i> 2.0.0 together.Both Roth and Little observed

similar patterns in the use of floorcloths in the inventories they

studied.^

Mats and other floor coverings

The estate of Evan Morgan, apparently a shopkeeper or merchant

in Philadelphia, included "1 Floor Hatt" worth 3s.6d.^ Bailey's

dictionary of 1730 defined a mat as "rushes interwoven to lay on Floors 70 and for various other uses." Current scholarly consensus holds that

matting made of a variety of fibers— straw, flags, rushes, coconut

husks, hemp, jute, c o m husks, cattails, sedge— were probably used on

colonial floors by the mid-eighteenth century, although very little

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229

71 evidence of them has survived.

According to John Fanning Watson, Philadelphia annalist,

colonial householders also made use of a fourth type of floor covering—

not made of textiles nor recorded in the inventories. Watson wrote

of floor coverings in colonial Philadelphia:

Turkey carpets were spoken of, and only to he seen upon the floors of the first families for wealth. Parlour floors of very respectable people in business used to be "swept and garnished" every morning with sand sifted through a "sand sieve," and sometimes smoothed with a hair broom, into quaint circles and fancy wreaths, agreeably to the "genius for drawing" possessed by the chambermaid.72 •

Economic value, arrangement, and procurement of floor coverings

The values of textile floor coverings listed in Philadelphia

County inventories ranged considerably according to type. Appraisers

generally valued floorcloths at 10s.-20s. each, considerably more than

the 3s.9d. assigned Evan "-organ's straw mat. Carpets varied greatly

from a low of 10s. to a high of £ 10.0.0; these variations no doubt

reflected differences in size, weave, quality,and condition. Most

carpets ranged between £ 1.0.0 and £ 2.0.0, much more than the average

valuations of 2s.-10s. assigned to table carpets during the earlier

part of the century. Floor carpets worth £ 1.0.0-L 10.0,0 represented

sizable economic investments and must have been impressive, luxurious

appurtenances to the few households that possessed them.

Most of the householders who did possess floor coverings owned

at least two separate pieces. Merchant Thomas Lawrence possessed the

unusually large number of at least nine carpets, one each in his front

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230

and 'back parlors, three chambers, nursery, stairway, and ground and 73 second floor entries. Other householders placed floor coverings in

hack chambers (two examples) and hack parlors (one example).^

As with most other types of fabric furnishings, upholsterers

supplied the majority of the floor coverings used in colonial Philadel­

phia. John Kason sold imported Wilton carpeting hy 1771, and two years

later he advertised "a beautiful piece of floor carpeting, ” that he had

"just imported per the ship Catherine.Capt. Sutton, from London, and hy 75 other ships from Bristol." In 1771 Plunket Fleeson charged John

Cadwalader h 2.0.0 for "making a Large Wilton Carpet thread & girth.

English Wilton carpets were woven in narrow strips— about twenty-seven 77 inches wide— and had to he sewn together to make a full-size carpet.

It was to this service that Fleeson* s hill referred. Cadwalader also

ordered several floorcloths from Robert Bridges, Philadelphia sailmaker. ^

Function and meaning of floor coverings

On the practical level, floor coverings provided several

physical comforts. They cushioned and insulated cold, hard floors

and diminished noise levels. Their decorative effects also increased

psychological comfort. Finally, they functioned as important indi­

cators of style and status.

Predictably, concern for cleanliness played a major role in the

use of floor coverings. Their location made floor coverings especially

difficult to maintain. They could he dirtied hy mud carelessly

tracked in from outside, stained by countless accidental spills, or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231

dulled "by the settling of general household dust. Continual abrasion

of passing feet gradually wore away the fibers of both pile and flat-

woven carpets, painted floorcloths, and straw mats. The dyes used in

some carpets were not entirely stable, so colors could sometimes fade 79 or bleach out rather easily. Finally, floor coverings could harbor 80 various types of small vermin.

Eighteenth century householders could choose from several

solutions to the problem of maintaining floor coverings. The Toilet

of Flora, an eighteenth century book of receipts, recommended the fol­

lowing cleaning procedure:

To revive the colour of a Turkey Carpet, beat,it well with a stick, till the dust is all got out; then with Lemon or Sorrel Juice take out the spots of ink, if the carpet be stained with any; wash it in cold Water, and afterwards shake out all the Water from the threads of the carpet. When it is thoroughly dry, rub it all over with the Crumb of a hot Wheaten Loaf; and if the weather is very fine, hang it out in the open air a night or two. 81

In some areas, colonial householders could hire professional specialists 82 to clean large, hard to handle carpets. Placement of less expensive

floorcloths and straw mats under tables and in entries, stairways, and

other heavily traveled areas saved more costly carpets much soil and go wear. In their dictionary of 1765, Byche and Pardon remarked of

floor mats: "Some are used to lay in entries of houses to clean the SI4. shoes on." Finally, carpet covers— generally made of woolen baize

or worsted serge cloth— protected carpets from dirt, light, and

abrasion just as slipcovers protected fine upholstery fabrics.®^ In

the early 1770's, John Cadwalader imported two serge carpet covers to 86 protect his imported Wilton carpeting. The use of carpet covers is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conceptually quite interesting. Like slipcovers, carpet covers indi­

cated that the carpets— themselves covers for floors and generally

quite decorative— had "become so valuable that they required their own

protective covers. Carpet covers would have concealed the decorative

features of the carpets, thus eliminating the letter's style "bearing

role. Although carpet covers were not stylish, they could, in a

curious, roundabout fashion, be status bearing. Like slipcovers, they

implied that whatever lay underneath was important and valuable enough

to require protection.

* When not hidden by protective covers, floorcloths and carpets

were generally indicators of bcth style and status. Colorful carpets

woven in floral or geometric patterns, often with borders, provided

very important decorative accents. Painted floorcloths could also be

quite pleasing aesthetically. Several English authors, including John

Carwitham and Batty Langley, published designs for painted floors or

floorcloths, and the designs on painted floorcloths generally kept

pace with the motifs on currently fashionable types of woven carpeting.

The mid-eighteenth century shift from table carpets to floor carpets

clearly indicated the influence of a new style and an important new

attitude toward interior furnishings.

Finally, floor coverings symbolized status and the attainment

of a certain level of social and economic success, as their limited

possession clearly indicates. Throughout much of the colonial period,

window curtains served as important style and status indicators among

the Philadelphia elite. By 1775» however, available evidence suggests

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233

that window curtains were approaching a distribution plateau among

upper economic and high status groups and were even "beginning to move

down the social and economic scale. If everyone who mattered— and

some who did not— owned window curtains, then the elite would have

clearly required a new indicator to express varying levels of fashionable

taste and socio-economic status. This vacuum could explain the intro­

duction and rather rapid acceptance of floor coverings in economically

and socially successful Philadelphia homes during the third quarter of

the eighteenth century.

Despite their psychological importance as indicators of style

and status, however, both window and floor coverings remained extremely

rare in Philadelphia throughout the colonial period. According to the

inventory data, at least 85.00 percent of the local households managed

to function effectively without these luxury goods. Not until the

nineteenth century did these types of fabric furnishings begin to

affect the general population. Although they were quite clearly in­

essential luxuries, however, most window and floor coverings used in

Philadelphia were rather inexpensive, simplified versions of the lav­

ish, expensive fabric furnishings illustrated in contemporary London

design books and used in upper class English establishments.

Wall Coverings

Although wall coverings did not appear in the inventories

studied, they were used in colonial Philadelphia and were conceptually

quite closely related to other fabric furnishings. The use of wall

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234

hangings— especially tapestries— dated hack to the medieval era.

During the seventeenth century, English noblemen furnished their vails

with tapestries or other fabrics nailed to shaped wooden frames and

attached permanently to the walls. Since the panels of fabric had to

be cut and sewn to fit architectural spaces, the task of preparing

fabric wall hangings fell to the upholsterer, and he continued to be

the principal figure in charge of wall hangings, even after wallpaper

generally superseded cloth during the second half of the eighteenth 88 century. In addition to the logical consistency of hiring one crafts<

man* to hang all wall coverings— whether of cloth or paper— the uphol­

sterer's responsibility for wall paper may have also related to his

role as an interior decorator in charge of harmonizing all interior go furnishings.

At least one colonial Philadelphia upholsterer, John Webster,

advertised "rooms hung with paper, chintz, damask, or tapestry, &c.,"

demonstrating that a close conceptual association between cloth and

paper wall hangings persisted as late as 176?,^ Since the less ex­

pensive wallpaper appeared in almost every other reference to colonial

Philadelphia wall hangings, it must have predominated over cloth hang­

ings by a substantial margin. Presumably, paper wall coverings in­

herited many of the style and status bearing characteristics of fabric

hangings. After 176$ most of the upholsterers' advertisements printed

in Philadelphia newspapers offered to sell and/or put up "paper 91 Hangings." In 1771 George Richey announced that he "hangs paper

with the greatest care and dispatch, and warrants it to stand for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235

QO several years, without coning off."'

Although the inventories studied did not mention wall coverings,

which were apparently treated as architectural features rather than as 93 furnishings, at least four households owned screens. The vertical

panels of standing or folding screens conceptually represented small,

mobile sections of wall. The four screens appeared in inventories

spanning the entire seventy-five year period and ranged in value from

18s. to h 1.7.6. These screens may have had fabric coverings, although

the appraisers provided no descriptions of their appearances. Accord-

ing to the Temple Newsam catalog of English furniture upholstery,

"many screens were en suite with seat furniture, and so were the work

of the upholsterer.

Other Household Textiles

In addition to the numerous varieties of bed, table, seating

furniture, window, and floor coverings discussed above, many Philadel­

phia County inventories also listed utility textiles— mainly coarse

linen bags used with leather fire buckets or for storing malt, meal,

grains, and other items— and surplus yard goods in both large unused

yardages and small remnants.

Utility textiles

Almost one-fourth (23.77 percent) of the total number of inven­

tories studied listed utility textiles— just slightly more than included

textile raw materials (23.**6 percent). In fact, possession of utility oc textiles and textile raw materials exhibited similar patterns. Both

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

'became slightly more common during the period studied, with ownership

of utility textiles rising from about 20.00 percent in 1?00-1?04 and

1?25-172? to 30.00 percent in 1775 (see Table 9).

Bags and other utility textiles appeared in households and

estates at all economic levels. Ownership of these goods varied

directly according to total estate valuation, rising steadily from

14.29 percent among estates worth less than b 50.0.0 to 34.51 percent

of all estates valued at over b 1000.0.0 (see Table 10). However, in

contrast to wealthy estates, wealthy households possessed utility tex-

tiles less frequently than those in the middle range (see Table 11).

Possession of these goods almost doubled, from 18.37 percent among the

poorest households, worth under L 20.0.0, to 36.62 percent among

households worth b 40.0.0-e 80.0.0 (just over the median investment of

L 42.0.0-b 45.0.0 in household goods), then dropped again to 22.39 per­

cent of the wealthier households valued at over b 80.0.0. Textile

tools and raw materials also occurred most frequently in middle range

households.

Like textile tools and raw materials, utility textiles

appeared much more frequently in rural inventories (see Table 12).

Almost one-third (31.50 percent) of the rural inventories studied in­

cluded utility textiles, compared to only 8.93 percent of those taken

inside the city of Philadelphia. Yeomen* s inventories listed utility

textiles much more regularly than those of any other major occupational

group; 37.97 percent of the former contained utility textiles (see

Table 13 ). In comparison, utility textiles appeared in the inven­

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

tories of 20.00 percent of the merchants and tradesmen, 19. percent

of the widows and spinsters, and 18.57 percent of the craftsmen.

Ibis data suggests that the Individuals most likely to invest

in utility textiles were prosperous rural yeomen and craftsmen (and

their widows) with moderate investments in household goods, These

households probably employed bags and other utility textiles in acti­

vities related to producing and securing income, foodstuffs, and goods

necessary to maintaining their standard of living. Utility textiles

owned by urban merchants and tradesmen also presumably related to

their commercial activities.

Although bags comprised the most common type of utility tex­

tile, a few inventories listed other types: hair cloths and sieves

(apparently employed in '•arious domestic or husbandry processes,

especially cheese and beer making); wagon cloths or covers (these \ 96 references appeared in 1750 and 1775). Appraisers rarely described

common utility bags, although a few added the adjectives old, linen, 0 7 or meal to their entries.' In 1750 wealthy Philadelphia merchant 98 Thomas Eurgess owned a "cloathes bag" valued at 15s. A quarter of

a century later, Samuel Bryan* s appraisers recorded "5 Leathr fire 9 9 Buckets & 2 Bags" worth i 2,0.0 in his back parlor. Other inven­

tories listed bags filled with various grains or flour and stored in

garrets or out sheds. Host Philadelphia area colonists who did own

bags possessed between three or four to a dozen of them, with a few

possessing substantially more. In 1775 Samuel Schuller, Marlborough

Township yeoman, owned thirty-four bags and George Panter, another

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238

yeoman In New Providence Township, had thirty-one of them. At the

beginning of the century, the inventory of James Pox, Philadelphia 102 baker, listed seventy-three bags in the granary. Appraisers often

valued common utility bags at as much as Is.-2s. each, so that posses­

sion of a dozen or half -dozen would have constituted a necessary but

not inconsequential investment for a poorer householder.

Surplus textiles

A slightly greater proportion of the total inventories studied

listed surplus cloth (30.86 percent) than recorded utility textiles

(23.77 percent). Since bags and similar items played functional, pro­

ductive roles in household enterprise and agricultural management, and

surplus cloth represented a currently unrealized investment, this

rather unexpected phenomenon suggests that a potential for the conspi­

cuous consumption of textiles already existed in Philadelphia during

the colonial period.

Throughout the first half of the eighteenth century, possession

of surplus textiles remained fairly steady, rising very slightly from

31.25 percent of the 1700-1704- inventories to 36.59 percent of those

taken in 1750 (see Table 9). In 1775» however, only 22.50 percent of

the inventories recorded surplus textiles. This sharp drop may have

reflected the effects of the two Philadelphia non-importation agree­

ments that had briefly cut off the supply of imported textiles in late

1765 and again in 1769-1770. The absence of fresh supplies may

have forced householders to use up stocks of surplus textiles. Per-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239

haps some householders habitually and intentionally purchased excess

yard goods when they were available in case later alterations in the

trade should make them unavailable when needed.

Possession of surplus textiles did not vary substantially

according to estate valuation (see Table 10). The poorest estates,

worth under £ 50.0.0, owned surplus textiles least often (20.00 per­

cent) and the wealthiest, valued at over £ 2000.0.0, owned then most

frequently (42.86 percent). Between these two extremes, however, the

percentages varied rather erratically between 25.45 percent and 38.89

percent, with no particular patterns observable.

In contrast, analysis of the data according to investment in

household goods indicates that moderately prosperous households pos­

sessed surplus textiles more frequently than those at either extreme

(see Table ll). Over one-half (51.52 percent) of the households

valued at £ 80.0.0-£ 120.0.0 owned surplus textiles, compared with

only 22.45 percent of the poorest households (worth under £ 20.0.0)

and 23.08 percent of the wealthiest ones (worth over £ 200.0.0).

Unlike most fabric furnishings, urban and rural inventories

listed surplus textiles with almost the same frequency: 27.68 percent

for the former; 33.00 percent for the latter (see Table 12). If the

non-importation agreements accounted for the drop in surplus textiles

recorded in 17?5» urban households seem to have been hardest hit.

Possession of surplus textiles dropped from 31.25 percent in the urban

inventories of 1750 to 14.71 percent in 1775* in comparison, these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2&0

sane figures for rural inventories diminished, less sharply, from

36.67 percent in 1750 to 28.89 percent in 1775.

The surplus textile holdings of various occupational groups

provide further insights into the economic and psychological roles of

textiles in colonial Philadelphia (see Table 13). Yeomen possessed

surplus textiles most commonly (3^.18 percent), followed by craftsmen

(28.57 percent) and widows and spinsters (22.22 percent). In contrast,

only lh.2 2 percent of the merchants' and tradesmen's inventories listed

surplus textiles. Perhaps the latter groups had a larger cash flow and

easier access to the sources of supply of imported textiles, and so

did not need to purchase dry goods in advance of anticipated use. In

contrast, perhaps yeomen, craftsmen, and similar groups, with less

ready sources of cash and credit, and less direct access to the dry

goods trade, tended to buy textiles when they could and store them

until needed.

Linens— used for a wide variety of purposes— constituted the

most common surplus textile, appearing in 55.00 percent of the one

hundred inventories that listed surplus yard goods (see Table 18).

Appraisers recorded diaper, holland, garlick, lawn, oznabrigg, dowlas,

huckabuck, Scotch cloth, princess, ticklingburgh, and duck as well as

striped, checked and plain or unspecified linens, 'tfool fabrics—

including woolens, worsteds, and blends— comprised the second most

popular group, appearing in *4-5 .0 0 percent of the inventories with

surplus textiles. In general, dense, heavy woolens and blends (frieze,

broadcloth, half cloth, flannel, blanketing, twill, woolen, and linsey

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2kl

voolsey) slightly outnumbered limiter, finer worsteds (camlet, cala­

manco, stuff, serge, kersey, shalloon, russel, druggit, duroy, durants,

worsted damask). The other two fibers— cotton and silk— appeared

much less commonly in Philadelphia area inventories. Only 13.00 per­

cent of the inventories with surplus textiles included cotton or cot­

ton blend fabrics— muslin, calico, chintz, fustian, cotton-linen.

Even fewer (5.00 percent) mentioned silks— crape, satin, poplin,

padusoy, persian. In addition, 27.00 percent of the listings of sur- 10k plus textiles simply mentioned cloth with no designation of fiber.

The relative popularity of different types of fibers shifted

noticeably during the colonial period. References to wool fabrics of

all types declined in frequency from 60.00 percent in l?00-170k to

33.33 percent in 1750 a n d ‘38.89 percent in 1775$ while references to

linen fabrics rose correspondingly from k8.00 percent in 1700-l?0k to

66,67 percent in 1775. Cottons appeared in about the same proportion

of inventories at the beginning and end of the period (2k. 00 percent

and 22.22 percent, respectively), but dropped sharply in the inter­

vening years. The years 1725-1727 and 1750-1751 also saw significant

increases in the number of references to unspecified cloth.

The term linen appeared much more often than any other single

designation (forty times). IAnsey woolsey, a linen-wool blend or all

wool fabric, ranked second (sixteen times), followed by druggit, another

wool or worsted-wool blend (eight times), and calico (seven times).

No other specific fabric appeared in more than six inventories.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ate

The inventory listings of surplus textiles suggest general

trends and changes in the popularity of different fibers and fabric

types in colonial Philadelphia. However, this data cannot be trans­

ferred directly to fabric furnishings, for some of the surplus textiles

were certainly destined for use in apparel. Most of the silk fabrics

mentioned in the listings— especially padusoy, persian, and crape—

were used "almost exclusively" for apparel and mourning wear; they were

not furnishing fabrics. On the other hand, many of the surplus dry

goods were clearly intended for household use. The adjectives ticking,

sheeting, sacking, bolstering, and napkining attached to some linen

entries certainly indicated their intended use as specific types of

fabric furnishings. Other surplus linens— holland, diaper, dowlas,

huckabuck, Scotch cloth— corresponded to types elsewhere recorded in

table and bed coverings. In 1775 widow Anna Sibylla Kline of Lower

Salford Township owned "17 yards of Diaper’d Linnen for Table Cloths"

and "1 yeard 3A Bed fustian."10^ Thomas Burgess's "3 ps. fine Saxon

green worsted damask," measuring 108§- yards in all and worth a total

of i> 27.2.6, must have been intended for a suit of matched bed and

window hangings— like the calico and blue and white sets also in use 108 in the house— and possibly with upholstery as well.

As the last entry demonstrates, very large yardages sometimes

appeared in the inventory listings of surplus textiles. Although some

appraisers listed surplus fabrics simply in terns of pieces, parcels,

or other indefinite amounts, many provided exact measurements. Sur­

plus dry goods commonly ranged in size from one or two yards to ten,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2*3

fifteen, twenty, or more, and often represented substantial investments

of several pounds.

This brief survey of utility and surplus textiles in Phila­

delphia area inventories points out several trends. First, invest­

ments in household textiles were not necessarily channeled entirely

into fine or even partly decorative fabric furnishings. Bags and

other utility textiles performed necessary practical functions but

were coarse and wholly undecorative. That appraisers bothered to re­

cord and evaluate short yardages, small remnants, and even rags sug­

gests the economic and psychological importance of textiles in the 109 colonial period. On the other hand, possession of surplus textiles

by at least 20.00 percent of the lowest economic range of both estates

and households emphatically demonstrates that fabrics were not econo­

mically out of reach for the poorer classes in colonial Philadelphia.

With the exception of quite wealthy households and estates, and the

inventories of tradesmen, merchants, and similar high status groups,

listings of surplus textiles consistently appeared more frequently than

references to the more elaborate types of fabric furnishings—

upholstery (both leather and fabric), window curtains, and floor cover­

ings. This data suggests that, since economic ability or. inability to

purchase sizable yardages of cloth did not necessarily determine owner­

ship of fine fabric furnishings, socially conditioned expectations of

a certain standard of living must have operated to slow the spread of

fine fabric furnishings and other status indicators in colonial

Philadelphia.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SPIES TO CHAPTER VI

^Bnrclish Furniture Upholstery, pp. xvii-xviii.

^Brightman, “3oston and Salem Window Hangings," p. 19**-. 3 See pp. 21-3 above.

^Brightnan, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," p. 49, Table 1.

^Montgomery, Printed Textiles, p. 69.

^ Allen, Pennsylvania Packet, September 5# 1774, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 200; Haughton, Pennsylvania Gazette, March 22, 1775# Ibid., pp. 203-4; Webster, Pennsylvania Journal, August 20, 1767, Ibid., pp. 214-5.

^Pennsylvania Packet, January 30# 1775# Ibid., p. 277.

^Pennsylvania Journal, August 20, 17&7, Ibid., pp. 214-5.

9W-l66, 1750.

10W-l63, 1775.

n Calico W-166, 1750; W-I38 , 1775? chintz ¥-142, 1775? blue and white W-166, 1750.

^Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings," p. 10, Chart 4.

^Katzkin, "Philadelphia County Inventories," p. 46.

^ H o m o r , Blue Book, pp. 28, 44, 67, 71, 155-8, 168-70, 213-4.

15W-42, 1701.

^Berlekamp, "Boston Textile Trade" (thesis), pp. 34, 73* Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 146, 149-50.

^American Weekly Mercury, June 14, 1772, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 205.

^^Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 57-80.

244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245

^Ibid. , pp. 57-8n. 2°W-86f 1775. ^ - 1 7 7 , 1775.

22Brightsan, "Boston and Salsa Window Hangings," p. 172,

2^Ibid.r pp. 172-88; Montgomery, Printed Textiles, pp. 66-76.

2St-98, 1702; W-53 , 1727; W-166, 1750.

25W-4l, 1701.

26W-153, 1775.

27w-75, 1727; w-166, 1750; w-36 , 1775; w-113, 1775; w-121, 1775; w-138 , 1775; w-163 , 1775.

28W-23, 1 7 26; W-7 2, 1727; W-36, 1775; W-I6 3 , 1775. 2 0 ''ihite, Pennsylvania Gazette, July 4, 1754, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 219; Hewes, Ibid., August 21, 1755, PP. 204-5; Weyman, Ibid., January 28, 1755, PP. 215-6; Mason, Pennsylvania Chronicle. July 13, 1767, Ibid., p. 208; Richey, Pennsylvania Gazette, October 17, 1771, Ibid., p. 211; Allen, Pennsylvania Packet. September 5, 1774, Ibid., p. 200. 30 Receipted Bill, Flunket Fleeson to William Armstrong, April 29, 1762, 52.74, DMMC; Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40-3; Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," pp. 69, 81-3; Stephen Paschall, Receimt Book, 1?60-1771, 65x 567, DMJ&; Plunket Fleeson, Account with John Reynolds, 1754-1755, Hi 1073, D®E.

^ fennsylvanla Journal, August 20, 1767, Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 214-5.

^Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 54-5.

^Ibid., p. 56. 35 The Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire, Insurance Surveys, 1752-1775, microfilm copy XR 3 i0-3:5, Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, ori­ ginals in Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company Archives, Philadelphia.

Montgomery, Printed Textiles, pp. 66-76; Montgomery, "Fur­ nishing Fashions," Antiques 97 (February 1970): 268-70; Florence M.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2*l6

Montgomery, "Window Curtains," Delaware Antiques Show Catalogue (Wilmington: The Junior Board of the Delaware Hospital, i960), pp. 59- 63 ? Florence M. Montgomery, "Room Furnishings as Seen in British Prints from the Lewis Walpole Library, Part II, Window Curtains, Uphol­ stery, and Slip Covers," Antiques 105 (March 197*0: 522-31.

3'White, Pennsylvania Gazette. July 4, 175**» Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 219; Weyman, Ibid., January 23, 1755» PP. 215-6.

•^Pennsylvania Gazette, October 17, 1771, Ibid., p. 211.

3 °W-3*>3. 1725. 40 , Pennsylvania Chronicle. July 13, 1767, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 20S.

^^Receipted Bill, Plunket Fleeson to William Armstrong, April 29, 17o2, 52.74,DMM2t Plunket Fleeson, Account with John Reynolds, 175**- 1755» Ph 1073, DMMCj Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," p. 69.

^^Baurgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts, p. 237; Brightnan, ”3oston and Salem Window Hangings," pp. 93-8; Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 144, 203n; Cummings, Bed Hangings, 20-2.

^Goyne, "Philadelphia Furniture Craftsmen," p. 69. 44 Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," p. 197. 4 5 Montgomery, Printed Textiles, pp. **7-8, 66; for further references to matched bed and window curtains in Philadelphia homes, see Horaor, Blue Book, pp. 28, *t4, 67, 71» 155-8, 168-70, 213-**.

^W-166, 1750.

^ W - 138, 1775. 48 Ho m o r , Blue Book, p. 20. 4 0 Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings," pp. 14-5.

Little, Floor Coverings, pp. 3-**» 16-8; Roth, Floor Cover­ ings, pp. 4-5, 10.

^^Francis W. Steer, Farm and Cottage Inventories of Mid-Essex, 1635-1749, Essex Record Office Publications, No. 8 (Chelmsford, Essex, England:" The Essex County Council, 1950)» quoted in Little, Floor Coverings, p. 3«

3 ^Bailey, Dlctionarium Britannicum.

^Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings," p. 14.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 k ?

^ V - 80, 1775; ¥-83, 1775; *-86, 1775; *-113, 1775; *-121, 1775; ¥-150, 1775; ¥-163, 1775; ¥-177. 1775.

"^Floorcloths W-121, 1775; ¥-163 , 1775; *-177, 1775; floor mat ¥-138, 1775. 66 Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary,

57W-80, 1775.

5SW-81, 1775.

^9¥-6, 1790,- cited in Catalano, "Bed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings," p. 5.

^Little, Floor Coverings, pt>. 6-13; Roth, Floor Coverings, pp. *1- 10, 29-^.

6l01d carpets ¥-86, 1775; ¥-113, 1775; ¥-163, 1775. 62W-121, 1775.

^Catalano, "3ed, Window, Floor, and Seat Coverings," p. 15. 6k Pennsylvania Chronicle, October 28, 1771, Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 209.

^ R o t h , Floor Coverings, p, 10.

^ W-l63 , 1775; for discussion of hair cloth floor coverings see Roth,. Floor Coverings, p. 51.

6?3ryan W-I63 , 1775; also ¥-121, 1775; *-177, 1775. 68 Little, Floor Coverings, p. 19; Roth, Floor Coverings, pp. 22-*K

69W-138, 1775. 70 Bailey, Dictlonarium Britannicum. m Roth, Floor Coverings, pp. 26-7; Helene Von Rosenstiel, "Straw and Rush Matting," University of Pennsylvania Hospital Antiques Show Catalogue (Philadelphia: Hospital of the University of Pennsyl- vania, 1977), pp. **0-1. Hereafter cited as University Hospital Show Catalogue.

72' John Fanning Watson, Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, in the Olden Time, ed. Willis P. Hazard, rev. ed., 3 vols. (Fhiladel- phia: Leary, Stuart Co., 1927), 2:550.

73W-86, 1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248

74Baek chambers ¥-113, 1775* ¥-150, 1775* lack parlor ¥-163, 1775. ^Pennsylvania Chronicle, October 28, 1771* Prime, Arts and Crafts, p. 209; Pennsylvania Packet, November 1, 1773, Ibid. 76 Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p, 43. 77 IAttle, Floor Coverings, pp. 12-3* Roth, Floor Coverings, P. 37. 7^Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 50-1.

^Little, Floor Coverings, p. 12. 80 Roth, Floor Coverings, p. 26.

8lThe Toilet of Flora (London: J. Murray and ¥. Nicoll, 1779), p. 230. 87 Roth, Floor Coverings, p. 54.

®^Ibid., pp. 24-5; Little, Floor Coverings, p#. 21. 84 Dyche and Pardon, Dictionary.

®^Roth, Floor Coverings, p. 28, 86 Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 50-1. 87 John Carwitham, Floor-Decorations of Various Kinds, Both in Plano & Perspective Adapted to the Ornamenting of Halls. Rooms. Summer­ houses &c, in XXIV copper Plates (London: John Carwitham, 1739); Batty Langley, The City and Country Builder*s and Workman’s Treasury of Designs: Or the Art of Drawing and Working the Ornamental Parts of Architecture (London: S. Harding, 1750* reprint ed., New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 196?), plates XCIV-CIII; little, Floor Coverings, pp. 16-7* Roth, Floor Coverings, pp. 16-7; Beatrice B. Garvan, "Underfoot in America," University Hospital Show Catalogue. 1977, p. 4?.

^English Furniture Upholstery, pp. xvi-xvii. 89 See p. 50 above; English Furniture Upholstery, p. xvii; Rita Susswein, "Upholsterers Were Eighteenth Century Decorators," American Collector 1 (Karch 20, 1934): 3-6.

^Pennsylvania. Journal, August 20, 1767, Prime, Arts and Crafts, pp. 214-5.

^Pennsylvania Packet, November 1, 1773, Ibid., p. 209.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249

^Pennsylvania Gazette. October 17, 1771, Ibid., p. 211.

93W-42, 1701; W-19, 1726; W-23, 1726; W-86, 1775. 9 4 English Furniture Upholstery, p. xix.

9^See pp. 38-^1 above. q6 Hair cloths and sieves W-34, 1700; tf-124, 1?03; W-8, 1726; W-39, 1727* wagon covers W-236 , 1750; W-84, 1775? W-108, 1775; W-141, 1775.

^ O l d bags W-349, 1725; W-350, 1725; W-220, 1750; W-236 , 1750; W-98, 1775; linen bags W-90, 1775; W-168, 1775; meal bags W-88, 1775.

98W-l66, 1750.

" w - 163 , 1775. 100 In 1775 the estate of George Planter, yeoman of New Providence Township, included a "Chaff bagg," "2 Ditto with some flower," "a Bagg with some hops," and an "Empty bagg"; see W-10S, 1775.

101Schuller W-84, 1775; Banter W-108, 1775.

102W-4l, 1701.

Jensen, Maritime Commerce, .pp. 160-5, 179-95. 104 Although the term cloth could denote a particular type of heavy woolen fabric, the non-specific context of most of the references suggest that the appraisers used this term in its more general sense to designate any type of fabric; see Baumgarten, "Boston Textile Trade," Anglo-American Arts, p. 237.

^ % o r definitions of fabric terms, see Ibid., pp. 239» 241-2; Cox, "Philadelphia Textiles," pp. 118-9; Cummings, Bed Hangings, p. 29.

^^Cox, "Ihiladelphia Textiles," pp. 155-7.

107W-116, 1775.

108W-l66, 1750.

109Rags W-116, 1775.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V H

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of 32k Philadelphia County inventories has generated

several important insights into the use of fabric furnishings during

the period 1700-1775. Analysis of the means of production— textile

tools arid raw materials— clearly reveals an overwhelming dependence on

imported furnishing fabrics. Merchants' shop inventories and uphol­

sterers' advertisements indicate that these tradesmen0supplied the

bulk of fabric furnishings used in colonial Philadelphia. They pro­

vided coarse, cheap, and ready-made goods for ordinary households as

well as fine, expensive, custom-made furnishings for wealthy, ostenta­

tious. establishments. A summary investigation of the upholstery trade

indicates its immense but largely unstudied importance to the local

craft and mercantile community and its prominent role in providing

home furnishings.

Because fabric furnishings were almost always made of imported

textiles, they constituted an important and direct link to cosmopolitan

centers of taste* unlike furniture and silver, fine furnishing textiles

simply could not be produced in the American colonies. Despite the

use of imported textiles, however, it is not valid to automatically

assume that the designs of colonial fabric furnishings derived directly

250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

from English pattern hooks. Students of American furniture have long

recognized that few pieces of American Chippendale furniture copy the

designs of the Director exactly, and it is time to apply the same

sophistication to our interpretation of fabric furnishing fashions.

The possibility of regional variation in fabric furnishings— as in

wooden furniture— has not yet been adequately investigated. Available

evidence indicates that several important similarities existed in the

use of fabric furnishings in Philadelphia and in Boston— the over­

whelming dependence on imported fabrics; the general range of services

provided by upholsterers; the rarity of references to silk furnishings;

the identification of quilts as fine, costly, decorative bed coverings

rather than thrifty homemade productions— but there were important

differences as well. Boston’s earlier settlement allowed a substantial

upholstery trade to develop by the end of the seventeenth century,

when Philadelphia was still a new settlement. And if Philadelphia’s

upholstery trade lagged behind that of Boston, both lacked the sophis­

ticated patronage that supported their London brethren. Thomas

Chippendale addressed his Director to gentlemen and cabinetmakers, and

productions of the type he illustrated were often commissioned by

wealthy members of the aristocracy. Even though Philadelphia's colonial

craftsmen may have been fully capable of executing Chippendale's de­

signs for furniture and fabric coverings, there were few patrons to

purchase such elaborate goods.

The population of colonial Philadelphia differed substantially

in character from that of old England. During the l690'sf Gregory

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252

King compiled a table illustrating the structure of English society

for the year 1688. Proceeding in order of descending importance, King

listed the following socio-politico-economic groups:

Temporal lords, 160 households, annual incomes of B 3200 each;

Spiritual Lords, 26 households, annual incomes of B 1300 each;

Baronets, 800 households, annual incomes of £ 800 each;

Knights, 600 households, annual incomes of B 650 each;

Esquires, 3000 households, annual incomes of B h>50 each;

Gentlemen, 12,000 households, annual incomes of B 280 each.’*'

These groups composed the greater and lesser nobility. Although a tiny

fraction of the population— never more than four to five percent— these

classes "owned most of the wealth, wielded the power and made all the 2 decisions, political, economic and social for the national whole." And,

it might he added, these classes consumed most of the furniture produced

in London's fine cabinetry and upholstery workshops. Yet these classes

were almost wholly absent from colonial Philadelphia. Being for most of

its history a proprietary colony, Pennsylvania lacked direct contact

with the court styles that were often introduced into other colonies by

royal governors and other officials. Few noblemen ventured into the

colony, and of the 32^ Philadelphia County inventories studied, only ^

individuals (1.23 percent) styled themselves gentlemen.

Continuing down the social scale, King listed greater and

lesser officials, greater and lesser merchants and "Traders by sea,"

lawyers, greater and lesser clergymen, greater and lesser freeholders,

farmers, scholars, shopkeepers and tradesmen, artisans and craftsmen,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

naval and military officers. 'These groups— comprising about 500,586

families in all— contributed to “Increasing the Wealth of the Kingdom."

However, King listed an even greater number of 8*4-9.000 households that

he believed to be “Decreasing the Health of the Kingdom": seamen,

laborers and outservants, cottagers and paupers, and common soldiers.**

In a study of the social origins of the settlers of colonial Pennsyl­

vania, Frederick B. Tolies concluded that:

If we use Gregory King's table of social classes for the year 1688, it is apparent that most Friends fell within those groups— "freeholders of the lesser sort," “farmers," "shopkeepers and tradesmen," "artisans and handicrafts"— which stood lowest on the list of those "increasing the wealth of the kingdom (i.e., those whose incomes covered their expen­ ditures with something to spare), .and that a sizable propor­ tion came from those classes— laborers, servants, and cottagers— who were "decreasing the wealth of the kingdom. 5 •

Peter J. laslett has commented that in most histories the term

England, when used to describe the pre-industrial era, really means "a

small minority of the English, small, select and special. This com­

ment is as apt for the study of material culture and the decorative

arts as it is for political history. Since, as Brightman has pointed

out, we know very little about English fabric furnishing below the 7 level of the aristocracy, we are ill-advised to assume, without fur­

ther research, that high style English pattern books directly deter­

mined the shapes of Philadelphia fabric furnishings.

Fabric furnishings played important practical, economic, and

symbolic roles in colonial Philadelphia households. Many colonists in­

vested rather heavily in these non-productive goods. The median in­

vestment in household textiles ranged between 25.00 percent and *4-5.00

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25k

percent of the investment in all household goods and "between 5.00 per­

cent and 10.00 percent of the total estate valuations. Examination of

the individual types of fabric furnishings listed in Philadelphia inven­

tories— their material composition, form, appearance, economic value,

popularity, distribution, arrangement— clearly indicates that these

material objects possessed several levels of practical function and

psychological meaning. Functionally, they enhanced physical comfort

and cleanliness in several ways. Psychologically, they ceremonialized

and elevated the living functions with which they were associated.

They visibly demonstrated status and style.

The symbolic importance of fabric furnishings as indicators of

style and status varied noticeably between different types and at dif­

ferent intervals in time. - Status apparently outweighed style in im­

portance throughout the period. Despite upholsterers* advertisements

lauding the latest fashions, appraisers only rarely noted the designs

or appearances of items they inventoried. Many householders owned

fabric furnishings several years old or even inherited from past gener­

ations, and although these goods were no longer stylish, their role as

status symbols persisted.

Analysis of the patterns of possession suggests that, as status

bearing fabric furnishings approached a certain level of saturation

among high status households and began to spread to other elements of

the population, they lost much of their desirability as status indi­

cators. New status symbols became necessary. Thus, toward the end of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255

the colonial period, fabric upholstery and floor coverings began to

supersede bed hangings and window curtains as household status symbols.

An even more important shift occurred in the relative impor­

tance of fabric coverings and the wooden furniture surfaces they cov­

ered. Despite the introduction of relatively new types— window cur­

tains, fabric upholstery, and floor coverings— fabric furnishings gen­

erally declined in importance during the first three-quarters of the

eighteenth century. As technological improvements reduced the cost of

fabric furnishings, these goods lost part of their earlier symbolic

value. While the contents of household assemblages of fabric furnish­

ings remained steady or slightly increasing, economic investments'in

these goods dropped. At the same time, total investment in household

goods remained steady. As- a result, the relative economic value of

fabric furnishings in comparison to other household goods diminished as

the eighteenth century progressed. At the same time, appraisers' de­

scriptions of fabric furnishings grew less careful and precise, imply­

ing that the symbolic value of these goods declined as their absolute

and relative economic value diminished. These factors suggest that,

after the mid-eighteenth century, other household goods— especially

fine wooden furniture— began to replace textiles as household status

symbols. Carved hardwood bedsteads began to emerge from underneath

heavy hangings. Thbles, no longer hidden by carpets, diversified and

became more decorative. Chair frames, with more show wood left exposed

by the use of the cushion seat, developed intricate back designs and

provided surfaces for much ornamental carving.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256

Hie eighteenth century clearly witnessed a reversal in the

relative importance of fabric furnishings and wooden furniture, and

this shift marked a major change in Anglo-American material culture.

Full understanding of this process will require greater integration of

furniture and textile studies. Hie earlier Industrialization of tex­

tile production probably contributed to the declining status value of

fabric furnishings during the eighteenth century. By making fine

fabrics less expensive and more widely available among the general

populace, industrialization also lessened their desirability among the

taste-setting elite. Furniture making, in contrast, did not become

industrialized until the nineteenth century. During the colonial

period, production of case furniture and seating furniture frames re­

quired considerable hand craftsmanship, although numerous labor saving

techniques were certainly utilized. Perhaps fine case furniture and

seating furniture with much show wood and ornamental carving (necessarily

produced by hand), inherited the style and status bearing roles for­

merly possessed by fine fabric coverings.

Finally, analysis of inventory references according to time

period, estate and household valuations, geographic residence, and

occupational background indicates that possession of fabric furnishings

followed consistent patterns. Simple bedding was the only type to

approach universal distribution in colonial Philadelphia— appearing in

almost every self-sufficient household. Bedsteads were the only other

item to appear in over one-half of the total number of inventories

studied, suggesting that a majority of colonial Philadelphia households

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257

did not possess any 'bed hangings or table, seating furniture, window,

or floor coverings. Among the minority who cttd possess such goods,

references to ta'ble coverings consistently exceeded the other types.

Throughout the period, references to fabric upholstery, window cur­

tains, and floor coverings appeared very rarely; these goods clearly

did not attain widespread distribution during the colonial period.

In general, possession of fabric furnishings increased with

estate and household valuations. The inventories of urban householders

and of merchants and tradesmen generally listed fabric furnishings

more frequently and in greater variety than did those of rural house­

holders or yeomen and craftsmen. Although not fully explored in this a paper, ethnic backgrounds probably influenced use of fabric furnish­

ings. Available evidence suggests that the Germanic textile traditions

of using beds and straw bags as bed covers and hand towels instead of

napkins differed markedly from the practices common to Anglo-American

households in colonial Philadelphia. Other data— such as the possession

of surplus textiles— indicates that lack of economic purchasing power

did not necessarily prevent the acquisition of fabric furnishings.

Perhaps subtle, possibly sub-conscious, social controls operated to

limit the spread of fabric furnishings during the colonial period.

The relative popularity of different types of fabric furnish­

ings remained remarkably consistent throughout the period studied, even

when measured over different variables of time, economic level, resi­

dence, and occupation. Bed coverings, table coverings, seating furni­

ture coverings, window coverings, and floor coverings consistently

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258

appeared in that order of descending frequency. These consistent pat­

terns of possession suggest that rational principles governed invest­

ments in household goods. Phbric furnishings possessed close symbolic

ties to important aspects of daily life, and these psychological

associations combined with considerations of physical comfort to deter­

mine the use of bed, table, seating furniture, window, and floor cover­

ings in colonial Philadelphia homes.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER Y U

Gregory King, "Scheme of the income & expence of the several families of England calculated for the year 1688,n printed in Charles Davenant, Essay unon the Probable Methods of flaking a People Gainers in the Ballance of Trade, 1699, reprinted in Laslett, World We Eiave Lost. pp. 36-7.

laslett, tforld We Have Lost, pp. 27-8, 38.

3tf-lll, 1702; tf-18, 1726; W-75, 1727; tf-lte, 1775. Zj, King, “Scheme," reprinted in Laslett, World We Have Lost. pp. 38-7.

^Tolies, Meeting House and Counting House, p.*W).

^Laslett, tforld We Have Lost, p. 29. 7 Brightman, "Boston and Salem Window Hangings," p. 193.

259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX

TABIE 1

OVERALL POSSESSION (F FABRIC FURNISHINGS

No. %

Total Inventories 324 100.00

Total Household Textiles 301 92.90

Total Bed Coverings 291 89.81

Bedding 287 88.58 Bedsteads 168 51.85 Total Bed Hangings 99 30.56 Specified 74 22.84 Implied 25 7.72

Ta'ble Coverings 125 38.58

Total Upholstery 78 24.07

Fiber 64 19.75 Leather 27 • 8.33 Cushions 10 3.09 Textiles 8 2.47

Window Coverings 32 9.88

Floor Coverings 9 2.78

260

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261

TABIE 2 POSSESSION OP FABRIC FURNISHINGS BY TIKE PERIOD

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775

No. % No. % No. % No; %

Total Inventories 80 100.00 82 100.00 82 100.00 80 100.00

Total Household Textiles 75 93.75 75 91. **6 76 92.68 75 93.75

Total Bed Coverings 7^ 92.50 72 87.80 74 90.24 71 88.75

Bedding 72 90.00 71 86.59 74 90.24 70 87.50

Bedsteads 37 **6.25 34 41.46 39 .47.56 58 72.50

Total Bed Hangings 29 36.25 23 28.05 18 21.95 29 36.25

Specified 26 32.50 15 18.29 10 12.19 23 28.75

Implied 3 3.75 8 9.76 8 9.76 6 7.50

Ta'ble Coverings 34 42.50 29 35.37 23 28.05 39 48.75

Total Upholstery 19 23.75 14 17.07 18 21.95 27 33.75

Fiber 13 16.25 14 17.07 16 19.51 21 26.25

Leather 9 11.25 2 2.44 7 8.54 9 11.25

Cushions 7 8.75 3 3.66

Textiles 1 1.25 1 1.22 2 2.44 4 5.00

Window Coverings 7 8.75 9 10.98 4 4.88 12 15.00

Floor Coverings 9 11.25 t

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262

TABIE 3

POSSESSION OP FABRIC FURNISHINGS BY TOTAL ESTATE VALUATION

£ 0.00.00- £ 50.00.00- £ 100.00. DO- £1 200.00. GO- £ 49.19.11 99.19.11 199. 19.11 299.19.11

No. % No. % No. % No. % N<

Total Inventories 35 100.00 47 100.00 72 100.00 55 LOO.00 5

Total Household 91.49 68 94.44 50 90.90 Textiles 31 88.57 43 5

Total Bed Coverings 27 77.14 40 85.11 67 93.06 50 90.90 5

Bedding 27 77.14 39 82.98 66 91.67 59 90.90 5 i Bedsteads 14 40.00 21 44.68 38 52.78 27 49.09 3

Total Bed Hangings 3 8.57 10 21.28 14 19.44 15 27.27 1

Specified 3 8.57 8 17.02 12 16.67 12 21.82 ! 1

Implied 2 4.26 2 2.77 3 5.45 1 1 Ta'ble Coverings 5 14.29 16 34.04 28 38.89 23 41.82 I 2 \ } Total Upholstery 7 20.00 9 19.15 14 19.44 14 25.45 i 1 Fiber 5 14.29 8 17.02 14 19.44 10 18.18

Leather 1 2.86 2 4.25 3 4.17 4 7.27 •

Cushions 1 1.39 4 7.27

Textiles 1 2.86 2 2.78 1 1.82 •

Window Coverings 3 6.38 3 4.17 4 7.27 1 i 1 Floor Coverings 1 1.82 i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i 200.00.00- s 300 .00.00- £ 600.00.00- £ 1000.00. GO- £ 2000.00.00 299.19.11 599.19.11 999.19.11 1999. 19.11 + to. fOa No. /3 No. 55 No. 55 No.

15 100.00 5A 100.00 2A 100.00 21 100.00 1A 100.00

;o 90.90 53 98.15 22 91.67 20 95.2A 12 85.71

;o 90.90 53 98.15 22 91.67 19 90. A8 12 85.71

>P 90.90 52 96.30 22 91.67 19 ' 90. A8 12 85.71

>7 A9.09 34 62.96 11 A5.83 16 76.19 8 57.1A

-5 27.27 17 31 . AS 11 ^5.83 16 76.19 10 71. A3

12 21.82 1A 25.93 6 25.00 9 A2.86 7 50.00

3 5.A5 3 5.55 5 20.83 7 33.33 3 21. A3

23 Al.8 2 23 A2.59 11 A5.8 3 9 A2.86 11 78.57

LA 25.A5 7 12.96 7 29.17 10 A7 .6 2 8 57.1A

LO 1 8 .18 7 12.96 2 8.33 8 38.10 8 57.1A

A 7.27 ... A 1 6 .67 7 33.33 6 A2.86

A 7.27 1 1 1.85 A 16.67

1 1 .8 2 ! 3 1A.29 1 7.1A

A 7.A1 6 25.00 6 50.00 7.27 1t * 28.57 7

1 1.82 [ 1 1.85 1 A. 17 A 19.05 2 1A.29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263

TABia 4

POSSESSION OF FABRIC FURNISHINGS BY HOUSEHOLD VALUATION

£ 0.00.00- £ 20.00.00- £ 40.00.00- £ 80.00.00- i £ 2 19.19.11 39.19.11 79.19.11 119.19.11 .

No. % No. % No. 55 No. 55 1 No.

Total Inventories 49 100.00 61 100.00 71 100.00 33 100.00 ! 21

Total Household 95.92 60 98.36 100.00 Textiles 47 71 32 96.97 1 20

• Total Bed Coverings 45 91.84 60 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20

Bedding 43 8?. 76 ' 60 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20

Bedsteads 20 40.82 27 44.26 44 61.97 25 75.76 15

Total Bed Hangings 3 6.12 11 18.03 30 42.25 24 72.73 17

Specified 3 6.12 10 16.39 22 30.99 18 54.55 11

Inplied 1 1.64 8 11.26 6 18.18 6

Table Coverings 8 16.33 18 29.51 38 53.52 25 75.76 14

Total Uoholstery 6.12 11 18.03 18 25.35 14 42.42 3 i 14

Fiber 3 6.12 8 13.11 15 21.13 1 2 36.36 I 11

Leather 3 4.92 1 1.41 5 15.15 ! 7

Cushions 1 1.64 2 2.82 4 12.12 j 2

Textiles 1 1.41 1 3.03 ' 5

Window Coverings 1 2.04 1 1.64 4 5.63 5 15.15 10

Floor Coverings 1 1.41 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263

TABLE 4 JRNISHINGS BY HOOSEHOID VALUATION

0.00,00- £ 20.00. GO- £ 40.00.00- £ 80, 00.00- £ 120.00.00- £ 200.00.00 L9.19.ll 39. 19.11 79.19.11 119. 19.11 199.19.11 +

% No. 55 No. % No. 55 No. 56 No. 56

100.00 61 100.00 71 100.00 33 100.00 21 100.00 13 100.00

95.92 60 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20 95.24 13 100.00

91.8k 60 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20 95.24 13 100.00

87.76 60 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20 95.24 13 100.00

40.82 27 44.26 44 61.97 25 75.76 15 71.43 10 76.92

6 .1 2 11 18.03 30 42.25 24 72.73 80.95 13 100.00

6 .1 2 10 16.39 22 30.Q9 18 54.55 11 52.38 10 76.92

• • • • 1 1.64 8 11.26 6 18.18 6 28.57 3 23.08

16.33 18 29.51 38 53.52 25 75.76 14 66.67 12 92.31

6.12 11 18.03 18 25.35 14 42.42 14 66.67 12 92.31

6.12 8 13.11 15 21.13 12 36.36 11 52.38 0y 69.23

l • • • 3 4.92 1 1.41 5 15.15 7 33.33 10 76.92

> • ~ • • * 1 1.64 2 2.82 4 12.12 2 9.52 1 7.6 9

. . . . 1 1.41 1 3.03 5 23.81 1 7 .6 9

2.04 1 1.64 4 5.63 5 15.15 10 47.62 11 84.62

1 1.41 4 19.05 4 30.77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264

TABIE 5 POSSESSION OF FABRIC FURNISHINGS BY GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCE

Urban Rural

No. % No. *

Total Inventories 112 100.00 200 100.00

Total Household 103 Textiles 91.96 191 95.50

Total Bed Coverings 99 88.39 185 92.50

Bedding 96 85.71 184 92.00

Bedsteads 70 62.50 93 46.50'

Total 3ed Hangings 53 47.32 46 23.00

Specified 43 38.39 31 15.50

Implied 10 8.93 15 7.50

Ta'ble Coverings 63 56.25 60 30.00

Total Upholstery 51 45.54 26 13.00

Fiber 45 40.18 18 9.00

Leather 22 19.64 5 2.50

Cushions 5 4.46 5 2.50

Textiles 8 7.14

Window Coverings 30 26.79 2 1.00

Floor Coverings 9 8.04

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABIE 6 POSSESSION OP FABRIC FURNISHINGS -BY CCCUPATION

Yeomen Craftsmen Widows/ Spinsters Tradesmen

No. % No. % No. % No. *

Total Inventories 79 100.00 70 100.00 36 100.00 23 100.00

Total Household 76 96.20 64- 91.43 Textiles 35 97.22 22 95.65

Total Bed Coverings 7^ 93.67 6l 87.14 34 94.44 22 95.65

Bedding 73 92.41 59 84.29 34 94.44 22 95.65

Bedsteads 38 48.10 34 48.57 21 58.33 16 69.57

Total Bed Hangings 20 25.32 17 24.29 21 58.33 10 43.48

Specified 13 16.46 12 17.14 17 4?.22 7 30.43

Implied 7 8.36 5 7.15 4 11.11 3 13.05

Tahle Coverings 23 29.11 25 35.71 19 52.78 14 60.87

Total Upholstery 9 11.39 18 25.71 13 36.11 13 56.52

Fiber 8 10.13 15 21.43 10 27.78 11 47.83

Leather 2 2.53 3 4.29 7 19.44 6 26.09

Cushions 3 4.29 3 8.33 1 4.35

Textiles 3 8.33 2 8.70

Window Coverings 3 4.29 6 16.67 9 39.13

Floor Coverings 2 2.86 2 8.70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Widows/ Tradesmen Spinsters Merchants Mariners Husbandmen Gentlemen labca o. * No. * No. % No. % No. * No. * No.

6 100.00 23 100.00 12 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 4 :

5 97.22 22 95.65 10 83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 3 75.00 3

4 9^.44 22 95.65 10 83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 3 75.00 3

(4 94.44 22 95.65 10 100.00 6 100.00 75.00 3 83.33 7 3 e !1 58.33 16 69.57 7 58.33 4 57.14 3 50.00 1 25.00 2

11 58.33 10 43.48 8 66.67 3 42.86 3 75.00 • •

.7 47.22 7 ■ 30.43 6 50.00 3 42.86 2 50.00 t •

4. 11.11 3 13.05 2 16.67 1 25.00 • •

19 52.78 14 60.87 6 50.00 4 57.14 2 33.33 2 50.00 1

L3 36.11 13 56.52 7 58.33 2 28.57 2 50.00 • •

LO 27.78 11 47.83 7 58.33 1 . 14.29 2 50.00 • •

7 19.44 6 26.09 3 25.00 2 28.57

3 8.33 1 4.35 1 8.33 1 14.29

3 8.33 2 8.70 2 16.67 • •

6 16.67 9 39.13 7 62.50 2 28.57 1 25.00 • •

2 8.70 3 25.00 1 14.29

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rchants Mariners Hus’bandnen Gentlemen laborers Professionals

% No. % No. * No. % No. £ No. %

100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00 k 100.00 4 100.00 2 100.00

83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 3 75.00 3 75.00 2 100.00

83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 3 75.00 3 75.00 1 50.00

100.00 6 100.00 75.00 *3 75.00 1 50.00 83.33 7 3 0 58.33 h 57.12* 3 50.00 1 25.00 2 50.00 1 50.00

66.67 3 ^2.86 3 75.00

50.00 3 ^2.86 2 50.00

16.67 1 25.00

50.00 57.12* 2 33.33 2 50.00 1 25.00 2 50.00

58.33 2 28.57 2 50.00 1 50.00

58.33 1 . 1^.29 2 50.00 1 .50.00

25.00 2 28.57

8.33 1 1^.29

16.67

62.50 2 28.57 1 25.00

25.00 1 I2*-. 29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266

TABLE 7

APPRAISED VALUATIONS

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 17 75

Total Estate

Median £ 23 ^.15.10| £ 180.19.00 £ 202.01.06 £ 252.10.00

Mean 389.10.00 36l.04.00 483.09.00 586.03.00 • Range 7.15.00- 4.17.06- 9.07.00- 12.02.06- • 27^6.03.0? 6414.14.04 6271.04.04|- 4235.00.07

Total House­ hold Goods

Median £ 42,00.00 £ 45.00.00 £ 44.00.00 £ 44.10.00

Mean 71.14.00 50.09.00 71.10.00 82.00.06

Range 7.06.09- 3 .16.00- 6.10.00- 4.10.00- 367.00.00 173.04.02 500.12.02 461.12.00

Household Textiles

Median £ 17.10.00 £ 16.10.06 £ 12.08.00 £ 12.12.06

Mean 27.17.00 18.14.06 20.17.00 22.10.00

Range 1.06.00- 0.05.00- 0.10.00- 0.02.06- 153 .01.06 55.12.08 158.19.08 148.01.00

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267

TABIE 8

RELATIVE INVESTMENTS

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775

Household Goods/ Total Estate Median 21.53 % 18.20 % 19.73 % 20.82 % Mean ’27.00 26.20 33.23 33.66 Range 3.09- 2.17- 3.19- 1.87- 100.00 100.00 100,00 100.00

Textiles/ Household Goods Median 42.08 % 34.41 % 32.95 % 27.42 % Mean 41.38 34.46 29.91 29.87 Range 11.75- 2.79- 3.56- 8.33- 72.29 79.89 59.09 61.89

Textiles/ Total Estate Median 8.71 % 6 .3 0 % 7.19 55 5.72 % Mean 11.50 9.62 9.24 9.72 Range .61- .11- .32- .11- 33.87 52.82 37.96 41.72

Silver Plate/ Household Goods Median 11.23 % 9.06 % 21.36 % 7.55 % Mean 9.73 13.90 25.08 10.62 Range .79- .82- 6.33- 2.72- 22.00 48.50 45.01 44.19

Silver Plate/ Total Estate Median 1.09 % 2 .6 9 % 4.05 % 1.74 % Mean 2.48 5.59 9.32 5.38 Range .30- .51- .38- .42- 7.14 22.54 30.01 43.26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268

TABIE 9

POSSESSION OF OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES AND PRODUCTION SUPPLIES BY TIME PERIOD

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775

No. % No. % No. % No. c*/» • \ Total Inventories 80 100.00 62 100.00 82 100.00 80 100.00

Total Household 76 92.68 Textiles 75 93.75 75 91.46 75 93.75

Surplus Textiles 25 31.25 27 32.93 30 36.59 18 22.50

Utility Textiles 16 20.00 16 19.51 20 24.39 25 31.25

Total Production Supplies 29 36.25 42 51.22 43 52.44 35 43.75

Raw Materials 16 20.00 23 28.05 24 29.27 13 16.25

Tools 21 26.25 35 42.68 38 46.34 32 40.00

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TILES AND ERIQD

27 1750-1751 1775 Overall

% No. % No. a*/» No. %

.00 82 *100.00 80 100.00 324 100.00

76 92.68 75 93.75 301 92.90

.93 30 36.59 18 22.50 100 30.86

.51 20 24.39 25 31.25 77 23.77

.22 43 52. w* 35 *0.75 149 45.99

.05 24 29.27 13 16.25 76 23.46

.68 ✓ — 46 .34 32 40.00 126 38.89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

table: 10

POSSESSION OP OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES AND PRODUCTION SUPPLIES BY TOTAL ESTATE VALUATION

h 0,00.DO- £ 50.00.00- h 100.00.00- £ 200.00.00- £ I 49. 19 . H 99.19.11 199.19.11 299.19.11 • No. % No. % No. % No. % Nol

Total Inventories 35 100.00 47 100.00 72 100.00 55 100.00

Total Household 91.49 68 94.44 Textiles 31 ■ 88.57 43 50 90.90 531

Surplus Textiles 7 20.00 16 34.04 22 30.56 14 25.45 21J Utility Textiles 5 14.29 7 14.89 14 19.44 12 21.82 1 9 l Total Production Supplies 11 31.43 18 38.30 29 40.28 33 60.00 32|

Raw Materials 6 17.14 11 23.40 14 19.44 19 34.55 151

Tools 10 28.57 11 23.40 28 38.89 29 52.73 271

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission...... — '"i • 0.00.00- B 200.00.00- B 3 OO.OO.OO- a 600.00.00- 5 1000.00.CO- B 2000.00.00 9.19.11 299.19.11 599.19.11 999.19.11 1999. 19. 99 + M > 1 0 % No. % So. No. A? • No. fO 1

100.00 55 100.00 54 100.00 24 100.00 100.00 14 100.00

94.44 50 90.90 53 9S .15 22 51.67 20 95.24 12 85.71

30.56 14 25.45 21 33.89 7 29.17 0 28.57 6 42.86 19.44 12 21.82 19 35.19 3 33.33 23.81 7 50.00

i | 60.00 59.26 50.00 4 40.28 33 32 1 ‘ 33.33 23.57 19.44 15 27.78 1 r? 29.1? 9.52 2 14.29 19 34.55 1 * !< 2 38.89 29 52.73 27 50.00 1 w 37.50 1 ? 33.33 3 21.43 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270

TABLE 11

POSSESSION (F OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES AND PRODUCTION SUPPLIES 3Y HOUSEHOID VALUATION

£ 0.00.00- £ 20.00.00- £ 40.00.00- £ 80.00.00-[. S 19.19.11 39.19.11 79.19.11 119.19.11 |

• No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total Inventories 49 100.00 61 100.00 71 100.00 33 100.00

Total Household . 95.92 60 98.36 100.00 32 Textiles 47 71 96.97

Surplus Textiles 11 22.45 18 29.51 27 38.03 17 51.52

Utility Textiles 9 18.37 17 27.87 26 36 .62 6 18.18

Total Production Supplies 14 28.57 29 47.54 43 60.56 15 45.45

Hair 'Materials 5 10.21 15 24.59 23 32 .39 11 33.33

Tools 11 22.45 28 45.90 36 50.70 13 39.39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D TEXTILES AND HOLD VALUATION i 20.00.00- £ 40.00.00- £ 80.00.00- £ 120.00.00- £ 200.00.00 39.19.11 79.19.11 119.19.11 199.19.11 + i. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

100.00 71 100.00 33 100.00 21 100.00 13 100.00

) 98.36 71 100.00 32 96.97 20 95.24 13 100.00

S 29.51 27 38.03 17 51.52 9 42.86 3 23.08 y 27.87 26 36.62 6 18.18 5 23.81 4 30.77

? 47.54 43 60.56 15 45.45 10 47.62 2 15.38

5 24.59 23 32.39 11 33.33 5 23.81 1 7.69

3 45.90 36 50.70 13 39.39 7 33.33 1 7.69

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271

TABLE 12

POSSESSION OF OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTILES AND PRODUCTION SUPPLIES BY GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCE

Urban Rural

• No. % No. %

Total Inventories 112 100.00 200 100.00

Total Household 103 91.96 Textiles 191 95.50

Surplus Textiles 31 27.68 66 33.33 Utility Textiles 10 8.93 63 31.50

Total Production Supplies 28 2 5. oc 117 58.50

Raw Materials 7 6.25 69 34.50

Tools 25 22.32 97 48.5 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272

TABLE 13

POSSESSION OF OTHER HOUSEHOLD TEXTHES AND ' PRODUCTION SUPPLIES BY OCCUPATION

Widows/ Yeomen Craftsmen Tradesmen Spinsters

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total Inventories 79 100.00 70 100.00 36 ' 100,00 23 100.00

Total Household 76 96.20 64 91.43 Textiles 35 97.22 22 95.65

Surplus Textiles 27 3^.18 20 28.57 8 22.22 3 13.04

Utility Textiles 30 37.97 13 18.57 7 19.** 4 17.39

Total Production Supplies 50 63.29 27 38.57 21 58.33 6 26.09

Raw Materials 33 41.77 12 17.14 12 33.33 1 4.35

Tools 42 53.16 22 31.43 17 47.22 5 21.74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S AND N

Widows/ Tradesmen Merchants Mariners Husbandmen Spinsters Gentlemen Labi

• No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 1

3 6 * 100.00 23 100.00 12 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 4 1

35 97.22 22 95.65 10 83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 3 75.00 3 1

8 22.22 3 13.04 2 16.67 4 57.14 3 50.00 1 25.00 3 1 7 1 9 . ^ 4 17.39 3 25.00 1 16.67 1 25.00

21 58.33 6 26.09 1 14.28 4 66.67 1 25.00 1 I 12 33.33 1 4.35 1 14.28 1 I6 .6 7 1 25.00

17 47.22 5 21.74 1 14.28 3 50.00 1 25.00 1 I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Merchants Mariners Husbandmen Gentlemen Laborers Professionals

• No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

12 100.00 7 100.00 6 100.00 4 100.00 4 100. ooe 3 100.00

10 83.33 7 100.00 6 100.00 75.00 3 75.00 2 100.00 3

2 16.67 4 57.1* 3 50.00 1 25.00 3 75.00

3 25.00 1 16.67 1 25.00 T 50.00

1 14.28 4 66.67 1 25.00 * 1 25.00 1 50.00 1 14.28 1 16.67 1 25.00

• • « • • « 1 14.28 3 50.00 1 25.00 1 25.00 1 50.00

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273

TABIE 14 POSSESSION OP BEDDING BT TIME PERIOD

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775

No. % No. % No. % No. % ■ Total Inventories 100.00 100.00 100.00 with Bedding 72 71 74 70 100.00

Total Beds 67 93.06 61 85.96 68 91.89 6 7. 95.71

Beds and Furniture, etc. 31 43.06 36 50.70 55 74.32 34 48.57 Unspecified Beds 46 63.89 30 42.25 56 75.68 40 57.14 Feather Beds 32 44.44 34 47.89 21 28.38 26 37.14 Flock Beds 16 22.22 7 9.86 3 4.05 4 5.71 Chaff Beds - 7 9.72 14 19.72 12 16.22 '7 • 10.00 e ■ ,

Kats/Kattresses 4 5.56 • • • • t 1 1.35 5 7.14 Hammocks 3 4.17 2 2.82 2 2.70 1 1.43

Total Headrests 40 55.56 30 42.25 16 21.62 29 41.43

Pillows 28 38.89 19 26.76 12 16.22 16 22.86 Bolsters 38 52.78 23 32.39 10 13.51 15 21.43

Total Bed Linens 49 68.06 40 56.34 23 31.08 41 58.57

Sheets 40 55.56 32 45.07 20 27.03 38 5^.29 Blankets 39 54.17 28 39.44 16 21.62 22 31.43 Pillow/Bolster Cases 22 30.56 13 18.31 7 9.46 17 24.29

Total Bed Covers 37 51.39 29 40.85 15 20.27 30 42.86

Rugs 31 43.06 22 30.99’ 5 6.76 14 20.00 C overlets /C overlids 14 19.44 10 14.08 10 13.51 16 22.86 Quilts 13 18.06 9 12.68 4 5.41 7 10.00 Counterpanes 3 4.17 2 2.82 3 4.05 7 10.00

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PERIOD

25-1727 1750-1751 1775 Overall

. % No. % No. % No. %

100.00 74 100.00 70 100.00 287 100.00

85.96 68 91.89 67- 95.71 263 91.64

50.70 55 74.32 34 48.57 157 54.70 42.25 56 75.68 40 57.14 172 59.93 47.89 21 28.38 26 37.14 113 39.37 9.86 3 4.05 4 5.71 30 10.45 19.72 12 16.22 7 10.00 40 13.94 • • • • 1 1.35 5 7.14 10 3.48 2.82 2 2.70 1 1.43 8 2.79

42.25 16 21.62 29 41.43 115 40.07

26.76 12 16.22 16 22.86 75 26.13 32.39 10 13.51 15 21.43 86 29.97

56.34 23 31.08 41 58.57 153 53.31

45.07 20 27.03 38 54.29 130 45.30 39.44 16 21.62 22 31.43 105 36.59 18.31 7 9.46 17 24.29 59 20.56

40.85 15 20.27 30 42.86 ill 38.68

30.99" 5 6.76 14 20.00 72 25.09 14.08 10 13.51 16 22.86 50 17.42 12.68 4 5.41 7 10.00 33 11.50 2.82 3 4.05 7 10.00 15 5.23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27*

i TABLE 15 j POSSESSION CF BEDSTEADS BY TINE PERIOD j

1700-170* 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775 •

No. % No. % No.' £ No. %

Total Inventories 37 100.00 3 * 100.00 with Bedsteads 39 100.00 58 100.00

Sacking Bottom Bedsteads 2 5.*1 6 17.65 * 10.26 17 29.31

Corded Bedsteads 12 3 2 .*3 6 17.65 * 10.26 * 6.90

Trundle Bedsteads 2 5.*1 3 7.69 1 1.72

Folding Bedsteads 2 5.*1 1 2.9* 1 2.56

1 I •? J 1a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. J EE PERIOD !

1727 1750-1751 1775 Overall

% No.* % No. % No. %

00.00 39 100.00 58 100.00 168 100.00

17.65 4 10.26 17 29.31 j 29 17.26

17.65 4 10.26 4 6.90 1 26 15.48 i • • • 3 7.69 1 1.72 ] 6 3.57

2.9^ 1 2.56 j 4 2.38

i I 1 i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275

TABLE 16 POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF BED HANGINGS

1700-170^ 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775 No. No. No. No. No. No. No'. No. Inv. Sets Inv, Sets Inv. Sets Inv. Sets

Calico 2 2 2 2 6 2 3 Muslin 1 5 Serge 2 2 Serge, sad-colored 1 1 Linsey Woolsey, green 1 1 Cheyney, 'blue 1 1 Shalloon 1 1

Linen 1 1 Scotch Cloth 2 2

Check, blue and white 1 1 "Painted Linti" 1 1

Green 6 9 Green and white 1 1 Green, red, and white 1 1

Blue k 1 1 1 1 31ue and white 1 1 1 1 Blue and white check 1 1 •

Red 1 1 2 2 Sad-colored 2 2 Cinnanon-colored 1 1 White 1 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276

TABIE 17 POSSESSION £F TABLE COVERINGS BT TIKE PERIOD

1700-1704 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775 C

No. % No. % No. % No. % No Total Inventories 100.00 100.00 100.00 w/ Table Coverings 34 29 23 39 .100.00 12

Total Tablecloths 24 70.59 23 79.31 19 82.61 31 79.49 9

Diaper 8 23.53 5 17.24 4 17.39 2 5.13 1

Damask 2 5.88 - 2 6.90 3 13.04

Huckabuck 2 5.88 2 6.90

Total Napkins 23 • 67.65 18 62.07 10 43.48 14 35.90 6;

Diaper 10 29.41 2 6.90 2 8.70 1

Damask 2 5.88 2 6.90 1 4-. 35

.Huckabuck 1 2.94 2 6.90 1 4.35

Towels 15 44.12 13 44.83 9 39.13 15 38.46 5

Case Furniture 6 Coverings 17.65

Table Carpets 7 20.59 1 3.^5 1 2.56 <

\(

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BY TIKE PERIOD

25-1727 1750-1751 1775 Overall

. % No. % No. * No. %

100.00 23 100.00 39 .100.00 125 100.00

79.31 19 82.61 31 79.49 97 77.60

17.24 4 17.39 2 5.13 19 15.20

6.90 3 13 .04 7 5.6 0

6.9 0 4 3.2 0

I 62.07 10 43.48 14 35.90 65 52.00

• 6.90 2 8.70 14 11.20

: O./ AAy\j 1 4.35 5 4.00

I 6.90 1 4.35 4 3.20

) 44.83 9 39.13 15 38.46 52 41.60

6 4.80

L 3.45 1 2.56 7.20 1 9

i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277

TABLE 18

POSSESSION (F SURPLUS TEXTILES BY TIKE PERIOD

• 1700-1704. 1725-1727 1750-1751 1775

Cf No. % No. /o No. % No. % T

Total Inventories with Surplus 25 100.00 2? 100.00 30 100.00 18 100.00 2 Textiles

linen Textiles 12 48.00 15 55.56 16 • 53.33 12 66.67 •• Si Total Wool Textiles 15 60.00 13 48.15 10 33.33 7 38.89 M Woolens 10 40.00 7 25.93 9 27.27 5 27.78 Worsteds 7 28.00 8 29.63 5 16.67 2 11.11 i

Cotton Textiles 6 24.00 3 11.11 4 22.22 I Silk Textiles 1 4.00 1 3.70 3 16.67 1

Unspecified Cloth 2 8.00 7 25.93 15 45.45 3 16.67 i i

\ i j

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. > BY T H E PERIOD

'5-1727 1750-1751 1775 Overall i j % No. % No. % I No. % i 1 t 100.00 30 100.00 18 100.00 I 100 100.00 ! »j I ;' 55.56 16 • 53.33 12 66.6? jj 55 55.OO

\i 48.15 10 33.33 7 38.89 jj 45 45.00

25.93 9 27.27 5 27.78 jj 31 31.00 j 1 29.63 5 16.6? 2 11.11 if 22 22.00 J** i 11.11 4 22.22 ! 13 13.00

3.70 3 16.67 5 5.00

25.93 J 15 45.45 3 16.67 ] 27 27.00 f

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Materials

A. Published

American Weekly Mercury (Hiiladelphia), 173^.

Bailey, Nathan. Dictionarlum 3ritannicum: Or a more Corroleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than any Extant. Londons T. Cox, 1730.

Campbell, R. The London Tradesman. Londons T. Gardner, 17^7; reprint ed., Newton Abbot, Devon, Englands David & Charles, Ltd., 1969. • Carwitham, John. Floor-Decorations of Various Kinds. Both in Plano & Perspective. Adapted to the Ornamenting of Halls, Rooms. Summer-houses &c. in XXIV copper Plates. London s John Carwitham, 1739.

Chippendale, Thomas. The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Directors Being; a large Collection of the Most Elegant and Useful Designs of Household Furniture, In the Kost Fashionable Taste. 3rd* ed. Londons By the Author, 1762; reprint ed., New Yorks Dover Publications, Inc., 1966,

Douglass, William. A Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America. &c. Londons T. Cooper, 1739; renrint ed., American Economic Association, Economic Studies 2 October 1897): 265-375.

Dyche, Thomas, and Pardon, William. A New General English Dictionary. 12th ed. Londons Catherine and Richard Ware, 1765.

Kersey, John. Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicums Or. A General English Dictionary. Londons J. Wilde, 1715*

Langley, Batty. The City and Country Builders and Workman's Treasury of Designs s Or the Art of Drawing and Working The Ornamental. Parts of Architecture. Londons S. Harding, 175°* reprint ed., New Yorks Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1967.

278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279

Prime, Alfred Coxe, comp. The Arts and Crafts in PMladttlpMa-, Maryland and South Carolina. 1721-1785* Gleanings from Newspapers! /Topsfield. Mass./: The Walpole Society!" 1929.

. comp. Colonial Craftsmen of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art, 1925.

The Records of Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church. Wilmington, Delaware, from 1697 to 1773. Translated fry Horace Burr. Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, no. 9. Wilmington; Historical Society of Delaware, 1890.

The Toilet of Flora. London; J. Murray and W. Nicoll, 1779

B. Unpublished

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. City Hall Annex. Office of the Register of Wills. Records Center. Philadelphia County Probate Records. Administrations Series, 1700, 1725, 1726, 1750, 1775.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Contritutionship for the Insurance of Houses from Loss by Fire. Insurance Surveys, 1752-1775. Microfilm copy, XR 3:0-3:5; originals in Philadelphia Contributionship Insurance Company Archives, Philadelphia.

Winterthur, Delaware. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum. Joseph Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collection.

Fleeson, Plunket, Account with John Reynolds, 175^-1755. Photostat, Ph 1073; original at Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Gillow Cabinetmakers. Estimate Sketch Book, 178*J-1787. Microfilm copy, K-1467; original in Gillow Archives, Westminster City Libraries, London.

Grant, Samuel. Account Book, 1728-1737. Microfilm copy, M-1526; original at Massachusetts Historical Society.

Paschal1, Steven. Receipt Book, 1760-1771. 65 x 567.

Philadelphia County Probate Records. Wills Series, 1700-170^, 1725- 1727, 1750-1751, 1775. Idcrofilm copies, M-966-970, K-991-993, K-1017-1018, M-10^2; originals at Records Center, Office of the Register of Wills, City Hall Annex, Philadelphia.

Receipted Bill. Plunket Fleeson to William Armstrong, April 29, 1762. 52.7^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280

Receipted Bills. Plunket Fleeson to George Croughan, I765-I767. Photostats, Hi 938-9? originals at Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

U . Secondary Materials

A. Published

1. Books

Ashmead, Henry Graham. History of Delaware County. Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: L.H. Everts & Co., 1885; reprint ed., Chester, Pa.: John Spencer, Inc., for Concord Township Historical Society, 1568.

Benson, Kary Sumner. Women in Eighteenth Century America. A Study of Opinion and Social Usage. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, no. 405. New York: Columbia University Press, 1935.

Bezanson, Anne; Gray, Robert D.; and Hussey, Miriam. Prices in ■ Colonial Pennsylvania. Industrial Research Department, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsyl­ vania, Research Studies, no. 26. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1935.

Boston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century. Publications of the Colo- nial Society of Massachusetts, no. 48. Boston: Ihe Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1974.

Brett, Gerard. Dinner is Served. A Study in Manners. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1969.

Bridenbaugh, Carl. Cities in Revolt. Urban Life in America. 1743-1776. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955.

. Cities in the Wilderness. 'Die First Century of Urban Life in America. 1625-1742T 2nd ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, I960.

Brightman, Anna. Window Treatments for Historic Houses, 1700-1850. Preservation Leaflet Series. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, n.d.

Brunner, Herbert, Old Table Silver, A Handbook for Collectors and Amateurs. Translated by Janet Seligman. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc., 1967.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281

Bullock, Charles J. Essays on the Monetary History of the United States, The Citizens Literary. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1900.

Burnham, Harold B. and Burnham, Dorothy K-. "Keep He Warm One Night." Early Handweaving in Eastern Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press and Royal Ontario Museum, 1972.

Cooper, Grace Rogers. The Coop Family Textiles. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, no. 7, Washington, D.C.: Smith­ sonian Institution Press, 1971.

Cummings, Abbott Lowell, comp. Bed Hangings. A Treatise on Fabrics and Styles in the Curtaining of Beds. 1650-1650. Boston: The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 1961.

Deetz, James. Invitation to Archaeology. American Museum Science Books. Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History, 1967.

Downs, Joseph. American Furniture. Queen Anne and Chippendale Periods in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952.

Eckman, Jeanette. Delaware, A Guide to the First State. Edited by Henry C-. Alsberg. Rev. ed. American Guide Series. New York: Hastings House Publishers, Inc., 1955.

Eden, Mary and Carrington, Richard. The Philosophy of the Bed. New York: G.?. Putnam’s Sons, 1961.

Emery, Irene. The Primary Structures of Fabrics. An Illustrated Classification. Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum, 1966.

Fales, Martha Gandy. Early American Silver. Rev. ed. A Dutton Paperback. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973.

Fennelly, Catherine.- Textiles in New England. 1790-18^-0. Old Sturbridge Village Booklet Series. Edited by Catherine Fennelly. Sturbridge, Mass.: Old Sturbridge Inc., 1961.

Fiske, Patricia L., ed. Imported and Domestic Textiles in Eighteenth- Century America. Irene Emery Roundtable on Museum Textiles 1975 Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: The Textile Museum, 1976.

Fumivall, Frederick J,, ed. Early English Meals and Manners. Early English Text Society Series, no. 32. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 190^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282

Giedion, Siegfried. Mechanization Takes Command. A Contribution to Anonymous History. “She Norton Library. New York: W'.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1969.

Kackwood, Frederick V. Good Cheer. The Romance of Food and Feasting. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1911? reprint ed., Detroit: Singing Dree Press, 1968.

Homor, William fecpherson, Jr. Blue Book of Philadelphia Furniture. from William Fenn to George Washington. Philadelphia: By the Author, 1935^

Jensen, Arthur L, Hie Maritime Commerce of Colonial Philadelphia. Madison, Wise.: Die State Historical Society of Wisconsin for the Department of History, University of Wisconsin, 19&3.

Laslett, Peter J. Die World We Have Lost: England Before the Industrial Age. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1971. Lee, Ruth and Jedlick, William J. Shades of History. Chicago: Joanna Western Kills Company, 19^9.

Little, Nina Fletcher. Floor Coverings in New England Before 1850. Old Sturhridge Village Booklet Series. Edited by Catherine Fennelly. Sturhridge, Mass.: Old Sturhridge Inc., 19&7.

"acauoid, Percy and Edwards, Ralph, eds. The Dictionary of English Furniture from the Kiddle Ages to the Late Georgian Period. Rev. ed. 3 vols. London: Country Life Ltd., 195^.

Kinchinton, W.E., ed. The Growth of English Overseas Tirade in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Debates in Economic History. Edited by Peter Mathias. London: Methuen & Company, Ltd., 1969.

Montgomery, Florence M. Printed Textiles: English and American Cot- tons and linens, 1700-1S50~ A Winterthur 3ook. New York: Viking Press, 1970.

Morse, John D., ed. Country Cabinetwork and Simple City Furniture. Winterthur Conference Report 19&9. Charlottesville, Va.: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du ' Pont Winterthur Museum, 1970.

Murray, James A.H., e t a l . , eds. A Hew English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 10 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1888.

Orlofsky, Patsy and Qrlofsky, Myron. Quilts in America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 197^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283

Phlmer, Arnold. Movable Feasts. A Reconnaissance of the Origins and Consequences of Fluctuations in Keal-Times. London: Oxford University Press, 1952.

Phillips, Henry, Historical Sketches of .the Saner Currency of the American Colonies. 2 vols. Woodward's Historical Series, no. 5. Roxbury, Mass.: W, Elliot Woodward, I865. Vol. I.

Praz, Mario. An Illustrated History of Furnishing from the Renaissance to the 20th Century. Translated by William Weaver. New York: George Sraziller, 1964.

Pye, David. Pie Nature and Art of Workman ship. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1971.

Quirnby, Ian H.G., ed. Arts of the Anglo-American Commnnity in the Seventeenth Century. Winterthur Conference Report 1974. Charlottesville, Ya.: The University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis du Font Winterthur Museum, 1975*

______, ed. Ceramics in America. Winterthur Conference Report 1972. Charlottesville, Va.: The University Press of Virginia for the Kenry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1973“.

Roth, Rodris. Floor Coverings in 18th-Century America. United States National Museum Bulletin 250. Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology, Paper 59. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1967.

Safford, Carleton L. and Bishop, Robert. America's Quilts and Coverlets. New York: Weathervane Books, 1972.

Scharf, John Thomas and Westcott, Thompson. History of Philadelphia. 1609-1884. 3 vols. Philadelphia: L.H. Everts & Company, 1884.

Schiffer, Margaret B, Chester County. Pennsylvania, Inventories. 1684-1850. Exton, Pa.: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 1974.

______. Historical Needlework of Pennsylvania. New York: Bonanza Books, 1958.

Schumpeter, Elizabeth Boody. English Overseas Trade Statistics 1697- 1808. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, i960.

Tolies, Frederick B. Meeting House and Counting House. The Quaker Merchants of Colonial Philadelphia. 1682-1763. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press for The Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., 1948.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28k

Wainvright, Nicholas B. Colonial Grandeur In Philadelphia. The House and Furniture of General John Cadwalader. Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 19bk.

Watson, John Fanning. Annals of Riiladelnhia and Pennsylvania, in the Olden Time. Rev. ed. Edited by Willis P. Hazard^ 3 vols. Philadelphia: Leary, Stuart Company, 192?.

Wilson, C. Anne. Food and Drink in Britain from the Stone Age to Recent Tines. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, Harper & Row Publishers,Inc., 197k.

Wright, Lawrence. Warm and Snug: The History of the Bed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1962.

Wright, Thomas. The Homes of Other Days. A History of Domestic Manners and. Sentiments in England. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1871; reprint ed,, Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1967.

2. Catalogs

Belden, Louise. "Setting the Early American Dinner Table." Ninth Annual Cincinnati Antiques Festival Catalogue. Cincinnati, Ohio: Association of Volunteers, Convalescent Hospital for Children, 197k.

______. "What a Well-Dressed Dinner Table Once Wore." Ellis Memorial Antiques Show Catalog 1970. Boston, 1970.

DePauw, Linda Grant; Hunt, Conover; and Sehneir, Miriam. Remember the Ladies. Women in America. 1750-1815« A Studio Book. New York: Viking Press in association with The Pilgrim Society, 197b.

The Golden Age of English Furniture Upholstery. 1660-I8k0. Intro­ duction by Karin-K. Walton, Leeds, England: Temple Newsam House, 1973. Heckscher, Morrison H. In Quest of Comfort: The Easy Chair in America. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1971.

Montgomery, Florence K. "Window Curtains." Delaware Antiques Show Catalogue 1966. Wilmington: The Junior Board of the Delaware Hospital, 19^6. Pp. 59-63.

Pennsylvania Farm Museum of Landis Valley. The Homesuun Textile Tradition of the Pennsylvania Germans. Introduction by Ellen J. Gefaret and Alan G. Keyser. Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, 1976.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285

Ihiladelohla: Three Centuries of American Art, Thiladelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 197&.

University of Pennsylvania Hospital Antiques Show Catalogue. Ihiladelphia: Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 1977.

Wadsworth Atheneum. Bed Ruggs/ 1722-1833. Introduction and Essay by William Iamson Warren. Hartford, Conn.: Wadsworth Atheneum, 1972.

3. Periodicals

Boynton, L.O.J. "Hie Bed Bug and the 'Age of Elegance.*" Furniture History 1 (1965): 15-31.

Brightman, Anna. "Window Curtains in Colonial Boston and Salem " Antiques 86 (August 196^): 184-7.

______. "Woolen Window Curtains— Luxury in Colonial Boston and Salem." Antiques 86 (December 19&4): 722-7.

Cummin, Hazel. "Calamanco. ” Antiques 39 (April 1941*): 182-4.

______. "Camlet." Antiques 42 (December 1942): 309-12.

______. "Colonial Dimities, Checked and Diapered." Antiques 38 (September 1940): 111-2.

______. "Early Seersucker." Antiques 38 (November 1940): 231-2.

. "Moreen— A Forgotten Fabric." Antiques 38 (December 1940): 286-?.

. "A Note on Nankin, Colonial Calico." Antiques 41 (March 1942): 197.

. "Tammies and Durants." Antiques 40 (September 1941): 153-4.

______. "What Was Dimity in 1790?" Antiques 38 (July 1940): 23-5.

Gilbert, Christopher. "Hie Temple Newsam Furniture Bills." Furniture History 3 (1967): 16-28.

C-illingham, Harrold E. "Benjamin Lehman, A Germantown Cabinetmaker." Hie Pennsylvania Magazine of History and 3iogranhy 54 (1930): 289-305.

Heckscher, Morrison H. "Form and Frame: New Thoughts on the American Easy Chair." Antiques 100 (December 1971): 886-893.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286

Iverson, Marlon Lay. ”The Bed Sag in Colonial America." Antiques 85 (January 1964): 10?-9. ---

Joy, E.T. "English Furniture Exports to America 1697-1830." Antiques 85 (January 1964): 92-8.

. "The Overseas Trade in Furniture in the Eighteenth Century." Furniture History 1 (1965): 1-10.

Mac Ear lane, Janet R. "Shades of Our Forefathers." Antiques ?6 (August 1959): 122-5.

Kiddle ton, Thomas C. "John and Elisabeth Ththam of Burlington, New Jersey, 1681-1700." Records of the American Catholic Historical Society 6 (1895): 65-135^

Montgomery, Florence M. "Eighteenth-Century Engld sh and American Fur­ nishing Fashions." Antiques 97 (February 1970): 267-71.

______. "English Textile Swatches of the Kid-Eighteenth Century." ihe Burlington Magazine 102 (June i960): 240-3.

. "Furnishing Textiles at the John Brown House, Providence, Hhode Island." Antiques 101 (March 1972): 496-502.

. "Room Furnishings as Seen in British Prints from the Lewis Walpole Library, Part I, Bed Hangings.” Antiques 104 (December 1973): 1068-75.

______. "Room Furnishings as Seen in British Prints from the Lewis Walpole Library, Part II, Window Curtains, Upholstery, and Slip Covers." Antiques IO5 (March 1974): 522-31.

Naeve, !*32o K. "Plunket Fleeson, Sighteenth-Century Upholsterer," Winterthur Newsletter 4 (January 28, 1958): 3-4.

"Proceedings of Thematic Sessions of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society of Architectural Historians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19-24 May I976." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 35 (December 1976): 255-315

Smelser, Marshall and Davisson, William I. "ihe Historian and the Computer: A Simple Introduction to Comolex Computation." Essex Institute Historical Collections io4 (April 1968): 109-26. Susswein, Rita. "Upholsterers Were Eighteenth Century Decorators." American Collector 1 (Kareh 20, 1934): 3 -6.

Swan, Mabel Munson. "Coastwise Cargoes of Venture Furniture." Antiques 55 (April 1949): 278-80.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287

Symonds, Robert W. "English Cane Chairs— Part I." The Connoisseur 126 (ffetrch 1951): 8-15.

. "The English Export Trade in Furniture to Colonial America, Part I." Antiques 27 (June 1935)• 21*J—7.

______. "The English Export Trade in Furniture to Colonial America, Part H . " Antiques 28 (October 1935)* 156-9.

B. Unpublished

Baumgarten, Linda H. "Upholstery Materials Used in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1750-1800. Paper written for Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, 1971. Technical Library, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware.

Berlekamp, Linda Eaumgarten. "The Textile Trade in Boston: 1650-1700." M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1976.

Brightnan, Anna. "Fabrics and Styles of Colonial Window Hangings as Revealed through Boston and Salem, Massachusetts, Records, 1700-1760." Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1963? A m Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, Inc., n.d.

Carson, Barbara and Carson, Cary. "Styles and Standards of Living in Southern Maryland, 1670-1752.” Paper read at Southern Historical Association meeting, November 12, 1976.

Catalano, Kathleen M. "Textiles Used for 3ed, Window, Floor and Seat Coverings in Eighteenth Century Philadelphia." Paper written for Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, n.d. Technical Library, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware.

Cox, Ruth Y. "Textiles Used in Philadelphia, 1760-1775.” M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, i960.

Forman, Benno K, "Seventeenth Century and William and Mary Style Furniture in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum." Manuscript, 1977. Section 4. *

Goyne, Nancy Ann. "Furniture Craftsmen in Philadelphia,1760-1780, Their Role in a Ifercantile Society." M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1963.

Hayward, Helena. "John Linn ell, London Cabinetmaker." Lecture pre­ sented to the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, October 8, 1976.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jobe, Brock William. "Ihe Boston Furniture Industry, 1725-1760." M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1976.

Lelbundguth, Arthur W. "The Furniture-leaking Crafts in Philadelphia, c. 1730-c. 1760." M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1964.

KcSlroy, Cathryn J. "Furniture of the Philadelphia Area: Forms and Craftsmen before 1730." E.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1970.

Matzkin, Ruth. "Inventories of Estates in Philadelphia County, 1682- 1710." M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1959.

Prendergast, Susan H. "The Napkin Ring, Its Place and Purpose in Late Nineteenth Century America." Paper written for Winterthur Program in Early American Culture, 1975.

______. "Pictorial Sources for the Design and Use of Fabric Fur­ nishings, 1640-1840, in the Maps and Prints Collection of the K.F. du Pont Winterthur Museum." Paper written for Winterthur Program in Sarly American Culture, 19?6,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.