INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

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

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

Uni International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1326819

Lee, Nancy Ellen

CONNECTICUT CONNECTIONS: A STUDY OF JOINED CHAIRS, 1720-1810

University of Delaware (Winterthur Program) M.A. 1984

University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1984 by Lee, Nancy Ellen All Rights Reserved

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

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified herewith a check mark •/

1. Glossy photographs or pages./

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy _

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page.

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages *J

8. Print exceeds margin requirements______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print.

11. Page(s) _ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s)______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages______

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received ______

16. O t h e r ______

University Microfilms International

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONNECTICUT CONNECTIONS: A STUDY OF JOINED CHAIRS 1720-1810

BY

Nancy Ellen Lee

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

August 1984 Copyright 1984 Nancy Ellen Lee All Rights Reserved

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

A STUDY OF JOINED CHAIRS, 1720-1810

BY

Nancy Ellen Lee

Approved: Robert Blair St. George, foi.D? Professor in Charge of Thesis on Behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: Q l . ______Stephanie G. Wolf, Ri.IL ' Chairman of the Department of Early American Culture

Approved: RiB. Murray, Hi.D. University Coordinator for Graduate Studies

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

A STUDY OF JOINED CHAIRS, 1720 - 1810

By

Nancy Ellen Lee

An abstract of a thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Early American Culture

August 1984

Approved %rhrt ^■irfyVh— ■ Robertbert Blair St. George, (JPh.D. Professor In charge of thesis

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

This study examines the extent and nature of cultural

Interaction between the lower part of the Connecticut River

Valley and eastern coastal Connecticut in the years between

1720 and 1810. The style and construction of fifty joined

chairs is used as an index of cultural interaction between the

two areas which is articulated in part, in an artifactual

vocabulary and wh:Lch was based on the migration of craftsmen,

economic and kinship ties among both chairmakers and chairowners.

A stylistic and construction analysis of the chairs is

complimented by genealogical research towards family reconstitution

and probate inventory research to determine occupation through

a careful reading of possessions, such as tools, that are indicative

of one's trade.

The study shows that between 1720 and 1760 the two areas

shared common ideas of what constituted appropriate seating

furniture but that between 1760 and 1810 that commonality disintegrated.

This conclusion modifies the dominant belief that New England towns

were first insular and closed and then open and culturally fluid.

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

No project of this scope is ever the work of only one person. I wish to express my gratitude to the several people who have guided and assisted me over the past year. Dr. Christopher Bickford, Direc­ tor of the Connecticut Historical Society, facilitated the support and funding necessary to undertake and complete this study. Ihe Ross

Gregor Nelson family of Manchester, Connecticut, shared their home with me during the months of summer research and made living and work­

ing in Connecticut a pleasure.

In the course of my research I received thoughtful help from:

Arthur W. Leibundguth of the Antiquarian and Landmarks Society in Hart­ ford; Kevin Stayton and Christopher Wilk of the Brooklyn Museum in Brooklyn; Lauren Kaninsky of the Bush-Holley House in Cos Cob; Eleanor

Stevens at the Buttolph-Williams in Wethersfield, a property of the An­ tiquarian and Landmarks Society; Ann Barry at the Connecticut State Li­

brary in Hartford; Thomas Wendland of the Denison Society in Mystic; Alice Lee of the Dorothy Whitfield Historical Society; Mr. and Mrs. Henry Manken at the Thomas Lee House, East Lyme Historical Society; Mrs. Charles Lowry of the Essex Historical Society; Christopher Nevins of the Fairfield Historical Society; Walter Sirrmons of Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, Michigan; Mrs. Goldrick of the Guil­ ford Keeping Society; Dorothy Armistead of the Henry Whitfield Museum,

Guilford; Pamela Hodgkins and Ihilip Zea, Historic Deerfield, Inc.;

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Virginia Spitzer at the Joshua Hempstead House, New London, a property of the Antiquarian and Landmarks Society, Inc.; Emily Bidwell and Linda Edgerton at the Leffingwell Inn, Norwich; Frances G. Safford at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Mr. and Mrs. Harry Hitchcock of the Milford Historical Society; Mary Hughes and William Peterson at the Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., Mystic; Robert Egleston, New Haven Colony Historical Society; Elizabeth Knox, New London Historical Society; Suzanne Flint, Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, Deerfield, Massachusetts; Mrs. Donald Fowler, Stratford Historical Society; Margaret Bacon, Lois

Dater, Robert Halliday and Greg Mecca, Stamford Historical Society; Mrs. Tatro, Stonington Historical Society; William N. Hosley, Jr., Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford; Charlotte Stiverson, Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum, Wethersfield; David Barquist and Deborah Federhen, Yale Univer­

sity Art Gallery, New Haven. Several dealers and collectors, including Lewis Scranton, Nathan Liverant, Peter Tillou, and John Walton, as well

as others who wish to remain anonymous, allowed me to examine and photo­ graph chairs in their possession. Kirk J. Nelson of the Bennington Muse­ um in Bennington, Vermont, skillfully prepared the drawing in figure 1 and accompanied me on far-fetched research trips. My classmate Julie

Riesenweber taught me how to draw a map. I thank all of these people

for their valuable time and cheerful assistance.

Edgar Mayhew and Minor Myers of the Lyman Allyn Museum in New

London shared their expertise of New London County furniture and put me

in touch with many private collectors in the New London area. Kevin Sweeney of the Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum was equally generous in sharing

his knowledge of Wethersfield and kindly shared research notes on chairs

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

in his museum's collection. Lastly, both Robert F. Trent, Curator of Education and Exhibi­ tions at the Connecticut Historical Society and Dr. Robert Blair St. George, Teaching Associate at Winterthur Museum, gave me an immense

amount of encouragement, patience, and sound advice. Their own brilliant scholarship provides a marvelous model for a young student. Robert Trent first noticed the significance of the Lathrop-Royce artisans,

and I am indebted to him for bring many sources to my attention. Robert St. George has guided me through two years of academic and per­ sonal development. As a teacher and friend he is incomparable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vii GUIDE TO NOMENCLATURE...... x INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER I: "Trade Connections" ...... 11

CHAPTER II: "Artisan Connections" ...... 30 CHAPTER III: "Boston and Newport Connections" ...... 48 CHAPTER IV: "Changes Wrought by Urbanization" ...... 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 62

ILLUSTRATIONS ...... 72

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS M e

Figure 1: Guide to Nomenclature X Figure 2: Map of Connecticut River Valley and Coastal Towns 71

Figure 3: Joined chair 72

Figure 4: Seat construction detail 73

Figure 5: Joined chair 74

Figure 6: Joined chairs 75 Figure 7: Tea table 76

Figure 8: Joined chair 77

Figure 9: Joined chair 78

Figure 10: Joined armchair 79

Figure 11: Joined chair 80

Figure 12: Joined chair 81 Figure 13: Joined chair 82

Figure 14: Seat frame detail 83 Figure 15: Joined chair 84 Figure 16: Joined chair 85

Figure 17: Joined chairs 86 Figure 18: Crewel work chair cover 87

Figure 19: Crewel work chair cover 88

Figure 20: Canvas work pocket book 89

Figure 21: Canvas work pocketbook 90 \ri ■?

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

Figure 22: Joined chair 91 Figure 23: Tracings of chair bannisters 92 Figure 24: Genealogical chart 93 Figure 25: Joined chair 94 Figure 26: Back view detail 95

Figure 27: Joined chair 96 Figure 28: Turned armchair 97 Figure 29: Tlimed chair 98

Figure 30: Turned chair 99 Figure 31: Slatback armchair 100

Figure 32: Lower rail detail 101 Figure 33: Lower rail detail 102 Figure 34: Comer chair 103 Figure 35: Map of Connecticut River Valley and Coastal Towns 104 Figure 36: Comer chair 105 Figure 37: Joined chair 106 Figure 38: Joined chair 107 Figure 39: Joined’chair 108

Figure 40: Fiddleback chair 109

Figure 41: Fiddleback chair 110 Figure 42: Joined chair 111

Figure 43: Joined chair 112 Figure 44: Joined chair 113

Figure 45: Joined chair 114

Figure 46: Comer chair 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 47: Joined chair 116

Figure 48: Joined chair 117 Figure 49: Joined chair 118 Figure 50: Joined chair 119 Figure 51: Joined chair 120 Figure 52: Joined chair 121 Figure 53: Joined chair 122

Figure 54: Joined chair 123 Figure 55: Slatback chair 124

Figure 56: Joined chair 125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stileS O r f f p O x ) L - ifIff

.Shoe .loose seat > L | i .Seat rails

brackets

lovjer rails

H i * j - Sels® > (bravjioS ^ .lature v. w k a . t o * - " 6 ligure

without permission proh'tfted Further reo^ctw copvcigt"*"8'' rnV\ss’'on Pe INTRODUCTION

In 1970 American historians witnessed the culmination of a movement which sought to understand history "from the bottom up". In that watershed year four books were published which were each predicated

on the belief that we could only understand colonial America if we laid aside our preoccupation with merchants, ministers, and magistrates and

attended instead to the everyday life of the common man.* In order to accomplish this goal several historians each chose a town, or a group of towns, and studied that town in depth, primarily through the quanti­ tative analysis of local public records. Although each historian asked different questions of his respective materials, the nature of "communi­

ty" was the overarching theme of this body of scholarship.

The Oxford English Dictionary offers several definitions of the

word "community" which fall into two general categories. The first category, a quality of state, includes definitions based on a common character, a quality in common, social intercourse, fellowship, com­ munion with others, society, or the social state in a broad sense. The second grouping, a body of individuals, includes among its variant

meanings a body of persons living together and practicing more or less a community of goods. The historians of the community studies genre

tended to assume an a priori connection between the community in which common character and social intercourse necessarily coincided with the

body of a people organized into a specific political or municipal

1

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

3 entity. Such an assumption resulted in part from the sources they used — vails, inventories of estates, land deeds, tax lists, and church records — and from the fact that these records are commonly organized by specific geopolitical units, such as the town and the county. As Raymond Williams suggests, however, beginning in the

seventeenth century there was a growing distinction between "community" and "society" — a distinction which separates the body of direct

face-to-face relationships from the civil organizations of the state.

The underlying feature of "community" in the first sense is communication. The word "community" and the word "communication" are both derivatives of the Latin word Communis - or common. Therefore, knowing the nature and processes of communication would be helpful in understanding the socialramifications of "conrnmity". Ray Birdwhistell

suggests that the two, heretofore unquestioned, fallacies of the con­ cept of communication are, first that communication is a "process identified by the passage of information through the transmission of more or less meaningful symbols from one individual to another, from

one group or representative to another group or representative," and secondly that ideas are transmitted exclusively through the oral or written word.** By recognizing that communication can take many differ­

ent forms we can expand its definition beyond these two fallacies. One form of non-verbal communication is implicit in the visual vocabulary

of artifactual style. Communities can and often do exist over large

geographic spaces which are not conducive to frequent verbal communica­ tion. Because the "community-studies" historians of the late 1960s and

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

3

early 1970s focused only on documents which preserve the written word,^ they were only able to analyze the community of persons living within the same geographic locale. In addition, since each form of communica­ tion draws on a different set of concepts and expresses only a part of a total reality, and since the "community-studies" historians only ex­ plored a single thread of that reality their analysis did not reach the full depth of human experience.

In the present study, an investigation of joined chairs made primarily in eastern coastal Connecticut and in the lower part of the Connecticut River Valley during the eighteenth century, will serve as a means of exploring the extent and nature of community interaction and cultural exchange between two geographically distinct areas. A rela­

tively high index of stylistic continuity or shared construction tech­ niques reveals, in an artifactual vocabulary, a community of social intercourse based on shared attitudes towards appropriate forms, mater­ ials and workmanship, which was transmitted through the migration of trained artisans, their apprentices, and their patrons. Robert Red- field's work, Peasant Society and Culture provides a model for distin­

guishing between the horizontal axis of community social interaction confined to the locale and the vertical axis of wide spread communities

which penetrate geopolitical units. Within the context of Redfield's paradigm the present study examines the vertical axis of a community of chairmakers and their customers in Connecticut's eastern coastal region and the lower part of the Connecticut River Valley.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

In recent years scholars have suggested that during the eight­ eenth century the Connecticut River Valley was characterized by an insular regional culture. Amelia Miller wrote that while related examples can be seen along Long Island Sound, only in towns along the Q river did the 11 true" Connecticut River Valley doorway dominate.

Similarly, Michael K. Brown believed that the Connecticut River Valley's regional culture could be observed in the scalloped-top furniture of the g area. In order to buttress their belief that the Connecticut River Valley was a cohesive cultural entity, scholars often turn to Timothy

Dwight's description of the Valley written in 1803: The inhabitants of this valley may be said in several respects to possess a common character, and in all the different states resemble each other more than their fellow citizens who live on the coast resemble them. This similarity is derived from their descent, their educations, their local circumstances, and their mutual intercourse. In the order settlements most of the inhab­ itants are natives of this valley, and those who are not yield to the influence of a character which they continually see all around them. In the more recent settlements, where greater num­ bers, and often a majority, were not born in this tract, the same character has regularly gained ground, and in most of them is already evident to an observing traveler. 10 As a member of the influential Dwight family, Timothy Dwight was a part of what was once the Connecticut River Valley's political, ecclesiasti­ cal, and mercantile elite and which are and were commonly known as the

"River Gods". However, by the 1770s the role of the River Gods as cul­ tural mediators was waning and it was all but completely eclipsed by 1803.^ Dwight's statement may express a nostalgia for the old days of influence and power, and therefore does not necessarily describe with

accuracy the social structure of the Connecticut River Valley at any point in its history, either before or after 1770.

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

Although Connecticut River Valley doorways and scalloped-top furniture may underscore Dwight's vision of an insular regional culture, other evidence, including the chairs in this study, reveal that there was an extensive interaction between the Valley and the coast codified in interregional economic and business relationships and extended kin­ ship networks. Both economic and family relationships functioned as a unifying force until the emergence of urbanization which, in reference

to household artifacts, drew people into their own geographically localized community.

Several studies of Connecticut furniture have examined the area from a variety of approaches. The first major exhibition of Connecticut furniture, held at the Morgan Memorial in Hartford in 1935, included two hundred and seventy-three artifacts arranged in six groups according to stylistic periods. 12 In 1967 the Wadsworth Atheneum presented an exhibition of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Connecticut furniture which showed many examples with histories of ownership. 13 This exhibi­ tion grouped objects chronologically according to form. Although nei­ ther of these two exhibitions was of great interpretative value by current standards, they laid the groundwork necessary for subsequent research.

Six more recent studies of Connecticut furniture concentrate on specific areas within the state, a trend which had made scholars who work with objects fall prey to the same parochial pitfalls as scholars who work with written documents. Patricia Kane contributed two studies of seventeenth-century Connecticut furniture, one on the joined

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furniture of Hartford County,^ and the second on the furniture of New 15 Haven Colony. Minor Myers, Jr., and Edgar deN. Mayhew identified many examples of New London County furniture for their exhibition of 16 New London County furniture, 1640-1840. More sensitive work on Connect­

icut furniture includes Edward S. Cooke, Jr.'s master's thesis on the 17 furniture of Stratford, "The Selective Conservative Taste,' and his later work on Newtown and Woodbury joiners, Fiddlebacks and Crooked- 18 Backs. Cooke placed the furniture and artisans of the towns he stu­ died into their social and historical context and showed how certain

eighteenth-century towns responded to changes in furniture fashion. In 19 Hearts and Crowns- Robert F. Trent drew on the models of Henri Focillon and George Kubler and, by arranging a group of coastal Connecticut chairs into a formal series, he demonstrated how the chairmakers and

their customers responded to the challenges of urban "high style" furni­ ture. His work emphasized the primacy of the object in artifactual

study and, by analyzing the objects on their own terms rather than ac= cording to preconceived notions of correctness or "beauty", Trent argued against the theory that all style in the eighteenth century was trans­

mitted from London to Boston and New York and then to the hinterlands. His work also showed that masterpieces are not the only proper objects

of research and that folk art is not a degenerate version of high style

forms.c 20

Before his death in 1967 Houghton Bulkeley uncovered a vast

amount of material on a group of chairs associated with the Southmayd and Lathrop families, material which indicated that at least one

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 "extended" family of woodworkers was operating in both the Connecticut

River Valley and in New London County. Bulkeley's notes and correspon­ dence, which are now at the Connecticut Historical Society in Hartford, are the foundation upon which much of my research rests. I am indebted to Robert F. Trent, Curator of Education and Exhibitions at the Connect­ icut Historical Society for bringing the Bulkeley manuscripts to my

attention.

For the present study as many Connecticut joined chairs as could

be located in both private and public collections were examined in refer­ ence to their style and construction, as well as in reference to histo­

ries of ownership and manufacture. In some instances tracings taken from the chairs revealed that two or more chairs were cut from the same master template or a second template produced from measured drawings of the first and this research technique aided in establishing provenance

and workmanship habits. Because they at once incorporate workmanship

of certainty, risk, and habit, 91 chairs provide an opportunity to dis­ cover the relationships between these components of execution. Chairs

can incorporate several levels of "production" within a single complex

artifact.

Finally, biographies of individual chairowners illustrate the level of the eighteenth-century social structure which found these chairs

meaningful. Many of the chairowners traveled widely through Connecticut, New England and the colonies in general where they could observe styles and forms which they chose to incorporate into their own vision of

appropriate seating furniture, in particular, as well as into their more

general conception of a well-ordered domestic environment.

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

Introduction These four books were: John Demos, A Little Commonwealth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970); Fhilip Greven, Four Generations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970); Kenneth Lockridge, A New England Town (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1970); and Michael Zuckerman, Peaceable Kingdoms (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970.) Earlier works in this historical genre include: Sumner Chilton Powell, Puritan Village (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1963); and Charles Grant, Democracy in the Connecticut Frontier Town of Kent (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961). Slightly later publications in this genre include: Robert Gross, The Minutemen and Their World (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976) and Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Possessed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974). For a more com­ plete listing of community studies works see Richard Beeman, "Community in Colonial America" in American Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Fall, 1977), 423n-425n. O See "Community" in the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1933) Vol. II, p. 702. O Beeman, "Community in Colonial America", 423-424.

^See Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976) pp. 65-66 and pp. 243-47.

~*Ray Birdwhistell "Communication," in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: MacMillan Co., and the Free Press, 1969) p. 24. 6 A commendable exception to this generalization is Demos, A Little Commonwealth. Demos opens his work with a discussion of "The Physical Setting'* and includes chapters on housing, furnishings, and clothing. Throughout his essay Demos maintains a thoroughly inter­ disciplinary approach, and organizes his investigation around specific concepts rather than around types of evidence.

8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 7 Robert Redfield, Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960) pp. 24-34. Q Miller believes that the over two hundred surviving eighteenth- century Connecticut River Valley doorways reveal a recognizably distinct style that bears little resemblance to doorways from eastern Massachu­ setts or Rhode Island; see Amelia Miller, Connecticut River Valley Doorways (Boston: Boston University for the Dublin Seminar on New England Folklife, 1983) p. 10. a Michael Brown, "Scalloped-top Furniture of the Connecticut River Valley," Antiques, 117, No. 4, (May 1980) 1092.

^Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York. Ed. Barbara Miller Solomon (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard Univer­ sity Press, 1969) II, 229.

^Kevin M. Sweeney, "Mansion People: The River Gods and Materi­ al Culture." A paper for "Material Culture in the Connecticut Valley," conference held at Historic Deerfield, Incorporated, Deerfield, Mass., March 20, 1982, p. 21.

^^Three Centuries of Connecticut Furniture, 1635-1935. (Hart­ ford: The Tercentenary Commission of the State of Connecticut, 1935). Many of the date and maker attributions recorded in this catalog have since been revised. See especially entry numbers 78, 121, and 137. 13 John T. Kirk, Connecticut Furniture: Seventeenth and Eight­ eenth Centuries. (Hartford: The Wadsworth Atheneum, 1967). This exhibition posed part of the question which the present study both elaborates on and seeks to answer with greater precision. Kirk iden­ tified one chair as being from "Middletown or Norwich" (p. 126), and another as originating from "Norwich or Wethersfield" (p. 127).

14Patricia E. Kane, The Seventeenth-Century Joined Furniture of Hartford County, Connecticut," (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1968).

*\ane, Furniture of the New Haven Colony: The Seventeenth Century Style. (New Haven: The New Haven Colony Historical Society, 1973).

^Slayhew, Edgar and Minor Myers, Jr. New London County F u m l ture, 1640-1860. (New London: Lyman Allyn Museum, 1974).

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

10

17 Edward S. Cooke, Jr., "The Selective Conservative Taste: Furniture in Stratford, Connecticut, 1740-1800," (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1979). 18 Edward S. Cooke, Jr., Fiddlebacks and Crooked-backs: Elijah Booth and Other Joiners in Newtown and Woodbury, 1750-1820. (Water- bury: The Mattatuck Historical Society, 1982). 19 Robert F. Trent, Hearts and Crowns: Folk Chairs of the Con- necticut Coast. (New Haven: New Haven Colony Historical Society, vmy.---

20Trent, Hearts and Crowns, p. 91.

21David Pye defines "workmanship of risk" as work where the "quality of the result is continually at risk during the process of making. 1 In contrast, "workmanship of certainty" takes place when, by means of templates or jigs, the result of the work is predetermined. See David Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) pp. 4-5. To these two categories of execution Philip D. Zimmerman has added the "workmanship of habit" which he de­ fines as a mental template lodged in the mind of the worker through re­ peated performance of the same action. See Philip D. Zimmerman, Work­ manship as Evidence: A Model for Obiect Study," Winterthur Portfolio, 16, No. 4, (Winter, 1981): 286-292, especially 28T.

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

Trade Connections

In order to organize joined chairs made in Connecticut between 1720 and 1810 in some meaningful way, this study arranges them into six groups according to stylistic similarities. A few additional chairs

made prior to 1720 or after 1810 are included because they illuminate

aspects of the chairs within the prime date range. The dates are rela-

tive, as the chairs in this study have plain or pierced bannisters of the "Queen Anne" or "Chippendale" styles. Most have curvilinear, crooked O legs, although some have straight, "marlborough" legs. The earliest

reference to the use of a crooked back on chairs in Connecticut is in the 1722 probate inventory of John Mix of New Haven, which lists "Six d d 3 Crooked back Chairs". Mix also owned "6 Streight back Chairs." Assuming that Mix owned his crooked-back chairs at least a few years

before his death, an approximate date of 1720 seems plausible for the initial appearance of the crooked line in Connecticut. The 1738 inven­

tory of Lewis Lyron of Milford includes the first explicit reference to a crooked leg. Lyron owned "one Table Crooked Legs'In addition,

the neoclassical or federal style never completely eclipsed the produc­

tion of chairs with pierced bannisters, and chairs made in a style that

was no longer fashionable in 1810 could easily have been made at any time after that date. Thus, the dates 1720 and 1810 provide a general chronological frame to the probable manufacture of "Queen Anne" and

"Chippendale"-style chairs in Connecticut.

11

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

The chairs are grouped here according to specific formal indices because the purpose of the groupings is to determine the extent of sty­ listic. and cultural interaction between different geographic regions within eighteenth-century Connecticut. Chairs which are stylistically similar sometimes reveal significant differences in construction which

suggest that they were made by different artisans, perhaps working in different areas. When experimenting with new designs an artisan usually

relied on the construction techniques he learned during his apprentice­

ship. While customers may have described what they wanted their chairs

to look like, the chairmakers decided how to construct and embellish the chair; the artisan was responsible for achieving his customers' wishes."*

In other words, stylistic features can be transmitted by both customers and artisans, whereas construction techniques are transmitted by the

latter alone.

Ihe two groups of chairs to be discussed in this chapter have distinctively-shaped bannisters and are made in the lower part of the Connecticut River Valley and in New London County (see figure 2). The

first group of chairs have relatively narrow vase-shaped bannister with a bead silhouette at the neck which joins the short upper section of

the bannister with the long mid-section (see figures 3, 5, 6 , 8 and 9). The spaces between the bannister and the rear stiles resemble two opened- mouth birds facing one another. Ten Connecticut chairs, and two chairs

possibly from New York have bannisters of this design.**

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

The most frequently published examples from this group are five surviving chairs from a set of twelve that originally belonged to Dr. Ezekiel Porter (1707-1775) of Wethersfield (see figure 3). Three chairs from the Porter set are at the Brooklyn Museum, another is at the Yale University Art Gallery, and a final example is at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.^ The Porter family chairs shared several distinctive construction features which set them apart from other examples which are visually similar. The compass seats are constructed with the front and side seat rails joined by a horizontal mortise and tenon. The front legs have round dowel-like tenons which are inserted into a round mor­ tise in the horizontal plane of the front seat rail (see figure 4).

John T. Kirk calls this manner of construction an English tech- g nique, while Benno M. Forman argued that the conventional English tech­ nique was to orient seat rails vertically. In England the rails were tenoned and pinned into the squared-off upper portion of the front leg. The horizontal seat construction, according to Forman, is a Germanic solution to the problem of creating a curved seat front and leg without 9 using lower rails. It is possible that Forman and Kirk are both cor­ rect. The technique may be Germanic in origin, but could have been ta­ ken to London by German artisans in the 1720s and adopted by local English chairmakers. Kirk states that in America the horizontal seat construction technique is seen only on chairs made in Philadelphia and

Connecticut. 10 At least two Connecticut artisans, Benjamin Burnham and Eliphalet Chapin, are known to have served apprenticeships or journey­ man's time in Philadelphia. Although neither of these artisans used the

horizontal seat construction technique, other Connecticut craftsmen

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14

may have trained or worked in Hiiladelphia and brought the horizontal seat construction back to Connecticut with them. It is also possible that the technique was transmitted to Connecticut directly from England

or that the technique was widely known but not commonly used until the desire for an uninterrupted curvilinear line prompted chairmakers to

search through their repertoire for a construction technique that did not require lower rails. Since no direct links between the German,

English, Hiiladelphia and Connecticut uses of this technique have yet

been discovered, the latter possibility seems most plausible.

The Porter chairs also have numerous work marks. The rear seat rail, right side rail, and right knee bracket of the chair marked number four of the set, are numbered with an "X". The left front knee bracket

and the adjacent front seat rail are marked "XL". The left rear knee 11 bracket and the left seat rail are numbered "XIX". The other four

Porter chairs have similar numbers and each joint in the set has a dif­ ferent number. Numbering all the parts of a chair is an unusual, perhaps unique, practice which raises the question of the nature of shop prac­ tices and the organization of labor. Each of the parts of the Porter

chairs must have been cut, the joints fitted, and then laid aside for future assembly. Were there two people at work, one making all the parts

of the chair, then making all the parts of the next chair and passing them on to an assembler? A similar system of numbering appears frequent­

ly on house frame joints, in which the parts were often cut in the car­

penter's yard and then transported to the building site for raising.

Since there are only six known Connecticut chairs with horizontal seat

construction, and all of them are in the same design, one might assume

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

that the chairmakers were adopting a technique with which they were some­ what unfamiliar. The quality of the workmanship, however, suggests the

work of an experienced hand. Perhaps the parts were all cut to templates, 12 marked, and then stockpiled for later assembly. Whether or not this was the case, it seems very likely that at least two, and maybe more, people were involved in the cutting, fitting, and assembly of each of

the Porter chairs.

A chair which most closely relates to the Porter chairs is at

the Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum and originally belonged to Sarah Noyes 13 Chester (see figure 5). The Chester chair has the same construction

feature as the Porter chairs but does not have numbered joints; the Ches- ter chair is smaller overall, and the bannister is 3/4 inches broader. l^f While the Porter chairs are made of black cherry (Prunus serotina), the

Chester chair is birch (genus Betula). A history of the Chester chair

written by a descendant states that it is one of a set of six.^ It retains its original crewel-embroidered seat cover, which was made by

Sarah Noyes sometime between 1740 and 1750 or shortly before her marriage 16 to Colonel John Chester of Wethersfield which took place in 1747.

Given the construction and design similarities of the Porter and Chester chairs both sets were probably made in Wethersfield, and perhaps even

in the same shop.^

A third set of chairs which have a beaded silhouette at the neck

of the bannister were made in Saybrook, a town at the mouth of the 18 Connecticut River (see figure 6 ). Because of the stylistic similar­ ities between the bannisters of these chairs and the Porter and Chester

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 chairs, these Say brook chairs have been attributed to Wethersfield. 19 Yet, a table at the Wadsworth Atheneum, which is certainly made by the same artisan who made the Saybrook chairs, has a history in the Saybrook- Lyme area (see figure 7). 20 As on the Porter and Chester chairs, the

side seat rails are tenoned through the rear stiles, but unlike the previous examples, the rear seat rails of the Saybrook chairs are placed completely above the side rails (see figure 25). The chairmaker may have felt this placement was necessary for strength when using a through-tenon, even though there are numerous examples of through-tenoned

chairs with seat rails fitted flush at their top edges. 21 The fact that

the stiles are particularly thin, only 1 7/8 inches, may also have con­ tributed to the chairmaker's decision not to intersect the side and rear rails. The Saybrook chairs also have an applied molding to contain the loose seat. 22 On chairs with horizontal seat frame construction this

is common, but on the Saybrook chairs, with vertical seat construction, it is unnecessary. Chairs with vertical seat construction often have a planed molding around the seat which is visually similar to an applied molding, but the Saybrook chairs represent a singular use of an applied -

molding on a vertically constructed seat frame.

The Saybrook chairs lack knee brackets, and the bannister of each example is housed in a shoe which is not a separate piece of wood, 23 but simply an upward extension of the back seat rail. The scalloped

front skirt is double-pinned at all the joints, which is common on Connecticut chairs with deep seat rails. More unusual is the double pinning of the narrow bannister at the crest and shoe, which over the years has caused the thin wood to crack. This surface attention to add

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

17

to the chairs' sturdiness also indicates that the chairmaker did not quite trust the design he was asked to construct, and that he felt that the chair needed extra pins to stay together.

Two other chairs with bannisters with a beaded silhouette design have no histories of ownership or manufacture, but certain features make

a Norwich attribution probable. A chair at the Leffingwell Inn in Nor­ wich has a narrow bannister like the Porter and Saybrook chairs and, like the Saybrook chairs,has a trapezoidal seat (see figure 8). The knee brackets on the Leffingwell chair are not placed between the seat rail and the leg, as is typical, but instead are glued to the face of the skirt. Kirk compared this technique to one found on English chairs, but he failed to notice a striking difference between its use on English and Connecticut examples. English chairs of this type have narrow seat rails with extensions that conform exactly to the shape of the brackets. 25 The Connecticut chairs have seat rails about 2 7/8" deep which makes an extension for the brackets unnecessary, so the shape of the brackets does not correspond precisely to the shape of the skirt. Five Connecti­ cut side chairs, and one Connecticut corner chair share this construe- 26 tion feature. A single notch on the upper inside edge of the front rail on the Leffingwell chair indicates that it was part of a set. The back is crooked and the bannister sits in a separate shoe.

A final chair in this group, at the Joshua Hempstead House in New London, has a bannister with proportions very similar to the Lef- 27 f ingwell chair (see figure 9). The seat has curved side rails but basic­ ally straight front rails. Unlike the Porter and Chester chairs, its

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

seat is framed vertically. Like all the chairs in this first group, the chair at the Hempstead House has side seat rails tenoned through the rear stiles, and a crooked back. The knee brackets have the same

sharp points that appear on several Norwich examples (see figures 46 and 48 ).

The second group of chairs owned both in the lower Connecticut River Valley and in New London County have large cusps on the sides of

the bannister about a third of the way up from the shoe (see figures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15). Chairs with bannisters of a similar design 28 were also made in Philadelphia and in Ireland. Several Connecticut

examples of chairs with this bannister exist in a variety of proportions, suggesting that they were not cut from the same template and that they

may be the work of different artisans.

The best known chair from this second group is the Governor on William Pitkin (1694-1769) armchair (see figure 10). This is the only

known armchair with a cusped bannister. Six side chairs are included in this study and many more are in various public and private collections.

One side chair belonged to Colonel Gurdon Saltonstall (1708-1785) of New London, and was used in the Saltonstall family's country estate in 30 Branford, Connecticut (see figure 11). Three side chairs (which are all exactly the same) are at the Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum and have re­

cent histories of ownership in both Hartford and East Hartford (see 31 figure 12). A fifth side chair, now at Winterthur Museum, is marked 32 "CHENEY" on the loose seat frame (see figures 13 and 14). There were 33 woodworking Cheneys in Hartford, Litchfield, and in New London. The

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

last side chair with a cusped bannister has no history or distinguishing

features.^

Although Connecticut chairs with cusped bannisters are attributed 35 without exception to Norwich, not one of these chairs discovered to date has a specific history of ownership or manufacture in that town.

Nonetheless, a New London County attribution could be generally correct. A chair with a similar bannister (but different skirt) was offered for

sale in 1969 by Israel Sack, Incorporated (see figure 15). The skirt on the Sack chair is similar to one in the Garvan Collection (see figure 37 16). Both the Sack and Garvan chairs have knee brackets glued to the face of the skirt, like those on the Norwich chair mentioned earlier (figure 8). This construction feature seems to be more commonly used

in New London county, although a Middletown corner chair also shares this technique. In addition, all of the Connecticut chairs with cusped bannisters have three lower rails (one rear and two side) which taper

at the ends and have conical stops; the chairs also have very sharply pointed knee brackets. The arrangement of the lower rails and knee

bracket shape are commonly found on New London County chairs. In all 38 likelihood Pitkin bought his chair in Norwich or New London, and Hartford area residents either commissioned local chairmakers to produce

similar chairs or went to New London themselves and bought the chairs. The style could also have been transmitted from New London County through an as yet unidentified chairmaker who moved from the former

area to the latter.

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

The chairs in these two groups demonstrate through visual simi­ larities the presence of cultural ties between the Hartford area and New London County. To understand why such seemingly disparate areas should reveal at least partial cultural continuity, we need to look at the set­ tlement history and commerce patterns of the two areas.

39 The settlement of Connecticut took place in four distinct waves. In the inital phase, which took place between about 1635 and 1675, fertile

lands and commercial advantages drew settlers to the coastal region and the major river valleys. The second phase, from roughly 1686 to 1734,

witnessed the opening of the interior uplands and secondary valleys. Between approximately 1737 and 1761, Connecticut's extreme northwest comer was settled in what was the third phase of the colony's develop­ ment. Finally, in the fourth phase from about 1767 to 1789, large towns

broke into smaller units and new towns were carved from old.

Wethersfield, Hartford, Saybrook, Norwich and New London were all settted during the initial phase, and thus shared similar advantages of initial opportunity and early development. In addition, the people who settled these towns shared common agricultural motives. According

to Bruce Daniels, although several towns were founded by congregations who spe­ cifically moved to enjoy the ministry of one man, and although trade considerations were uppermost in the minds of the foun­ ders of a few towns, the overwhelming desire for fertile land motivated the vast majority of these early settlers. 40 Unlike towns settled between 1686 and 1734 which attracted many land

speculators and absentee farmers, the earliest towns were established

by groups of people from either Massachusetts or England, and not by

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

scattered individuals. Norwich, the most densely populated town in the colony by 1756, had the. richest land in New London County, while Weth­ ersfield, the second most populous town at that time, had the most fer- / i tile land anywhere in Connecticut.

During the seventeenth century, Wethersfield was the center of commerce for the entire Connecticut Valley; local husbandmen exported grains, cattle, horses, hides, flaxseed, dried fish, pork, beef, tobac- / 2 co, tar, pitch, lumber and red onions. By the mid-eighteenth century, sub-regions based on distinctive types of agricultural specialization

developed where equally distinctive soil types were better suited for particular crops. Wethersfield soil was particularly well suited for the cultivation of red onions and the town consequently devoted a major

I Q part of its agricultural energy to producing them. The Reverend Sam­ uel Peters, whose satirical General History of Connecticut was first

published in 1781, said of Wethersfield, "This town raises more onions than are consumed in all New England."^ Sometime around 1700, however, the Connecticut River met an obstruction of red sandstone shale and changed its course.^ At that time, Wethersfield's natural harbor was transformed into a small cove and Hartford and Middletown replaced Wethersfield as the Valley's leading commercial centers. Nonetheless, Wethersfield continued as a prosperous farming community.

From’the beginning of the settlement of the Valley, the Connec­

ticut River was plagued by natural disadvantages that prevented the re- t gion from developing an extensive foreign command. The River was block­ ed by ice for three months of the year, and sandbars obstructed its lower

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 reaches. Above Hartford the River was virtually unnavigable.^ Although some Hartford, Wethersfield, and Middletown merchants did participate directly in the West Indies and coasting trades, many ships were sent out from these towns half empty and filled only when they reached New

London. On the return trip, ships first stopped in New London and either transferred their cargo to smaller coasting vessels which could travel the river, or simply unloaded half the cargo to lighten the vessel. When Isaac Byington left his Bristol, Connecticut home in 1786 he took

a ship from Wethersfield to New London, and from there boarded another 47 vessel bound for Savannah, Georgia.

Although Norwich and New London have always been rival towns, Frances Manwaring Caulkins noted that the rivalry was "restricted to matters and objects of pecuniary concern, never interfering with the cultivation of social intercourse, the establishment of warm friendships,

the alliance of families and a hearty, prompt, and efficient assistance in seasons of calamity and danger.In 1734 the Connecticut General Assembly decided that Norwich and New London would share the county 49 court responsibilities and two courts a year would sit in each town.

This shared responsibility meant that there was extensive interaction and travel between the two towns. Several families, including the Caulkins, the Edgecombes, the Houghes, and the Lathrops had branches

in both Norwich and New London.

The chairs in the first two groups with histories of ownership

were all owned by families who were economically successful and who

maintained family and business ties in both the river towns and the

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

and the eastern coastal towns (see figure 2). According to a nineteenth- century historian of Wethersfield, Dr. Ezekiel Porter (the owner of the chair illustrated in figure 3) was "a celebrated surgeon and particularly excelled as a setter of broken and dislocated bones and in difficult cases (was) most remarkably successful."^® His skill as a doctor took him well beyond Wethersfield, as Caulkins recounts in the fate of Esther

Post of Norwich, who "was thrown from her horse, severely wounded in the head, carried to the house of Mr. William Angel, where she lingered for a fortnight in great pain and distress. The whole neighborhood

was moved by her sufferings, and several physicians hastened to her relief. Dr. Goddard came from New London, with Dr. Morrison, an army surgeon, just returned from Capa Breton, Dr. Worden from Franklin and 51 Dr. Porter from Wethersfield; but surgical skill was exerted in vain."

The Chesters of Wethersfield (who owned the chair pictured in figure 5) maintained extensive family connections in New London and New Haven. Colonel John Chester left the largest estate in the Connecti­

cut Valley which included £1,468 in personal and £11,698 in real pro- 52 perty. Sarah Noyes Chester's father, the Reverend Joseph Chester, was b o m in Stonington where his father was minister. Joseph studied

theology with his father and was licensed to preach by the New London Association. He declined an offer to become a colleague with his father 53 in order to accept a call from the church in New Haven. Colonel John and Sarah Noyes Chesters' eldest son, also Colonel John, married Eliza­ beth Huntington, the daughter of one of the most distinguished residents

of Norwich. Sarah, Colonel John and Sarah's eldest daughter, married

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

Thomas Coit, also of Norwich.^

The Saltonstall family, in which the chair in figure 11 descended,

was one of the leading political families in the Connecticut colony. Before becoming governor in 1707, Gurdon Saltonstall had been minister of the church at New London. Saltonstall was governor until 1724, and

while holding office in Hartford remained in close contact with family and friends in New London.^ Saltonstall's granddaughter was the second

wife of Silas Deane, who, until sent to France on a secret mission during 56 the Revolutionary War, was a merchant in Wethersfield. Deane and his two brothers Barnabas and Simeon, also of Wethersfield, were the sons of a Groton blacksmith."^ After reviewing the family and economic ties

of the known owners of the chairs in the first two groups, it is clear that during the eighteenth century the Hartford and the New London areas were closely allied through business and personal interests. The owners

of the chairs discussed here are representative examples of an extensive network of cultural exchange which existed among the prominent and eco­ nomically successful families of eighteenth-century Connecticut.

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

Chapter I

*1 Bannister" is the term used in the Hartford Cabinetmakers price book of 1792 for the thin, vertical member in a chair back current­ ly known as the "splat". See the Hartford, Connecticut Cabinetmakers, At a Meeting of the Cabinetmakers . . . (Hartford, n.p., 1792) p. 6 . the same term was used in Philadelphia and in Boston. See The Cabinet­ makers' Hiiladelphia and London Book of Prices (Philadelphia: Snowden & McCorkle, 1796) p. 131; The Journeymen Cabinet and Chairmakers Book of Prices. Second edition. (Hiiladelphia: Ormod & Conrad, 1795) p. 79; and Brock Jobe, "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1720-1740," in Boston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century, ed. Walter Muir Whitehill (Boston: The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1972) p. 42.

9 In the eighteenth century "crooked" meant curved or ogee. A "crooked back" referred to a chair with a reverse curve to the back. A "crooked leg" meant the curved leg currently known as a cabriole leg. See Robert F. Trent, Hearts and Crowns, p. 60.

^New Haven District Probate Court Records, Vol. 5, p. 103. I am indebted to Robert F. Trent for bringing this reference to my atten­ tion. 4 Trent, Hearts and Crowns, p. 60.

^Zimmerman discusses the significance and identification of customer decisions versus chairmaker decisions in Zimmerman, "Workmanship as Evidence," 291.

Kirk attributed two chairs at the Museum of the City of New York (accession numbers 36.352.7 and .8) to New York manufacture. See Kirk, Connecticut Furniture,p.127n. If the New York attribution is cor­ rect, then these chairs, like the coastal York chairs, are part of a network of stylistic trade between New York and Connecticut discussed in Benno M. Forman, "The Crown and York Chairs of Coastal Connecticut and the Work of the Durands of Milford," Antiques, 105, No. 5 (May 1974) 1148. See also Dean N. Failey, Long Island is My Nation, (Setauket: Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, 1976) , p. 51 and p. 76.

^Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn, New York, Accession numbers 14.708, 14.709, and 14.710; Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale Univer­ sity Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, Accession number 1963.10; Museum of Fine ARts, Boston, Accession number 63.247.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ®Kirk, American Chairs, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972) p. 127.

Forman, "German Influences in Pennsylvania Furniture," in Arts of the Pennsylvania Germans, ed. Scott T. Swank (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1983) p. 169. "Lower rails" refers to the horizontal members below the chair seat which connect the legs. Lower rails are currently known as "stretchers". See The Journeymen Cabinet and Chair- makers Hiiladelphia Book of Prices, p. 79.

10Kirk, American Chairs, p. 27.

1 1 See Kane, 300 Years of American Seating Furniture, (Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1976) p. 79.

12For documentation on the practice of stockpiling chair parts in the eighteenth century see Forman, "Delaware Valley 'Crookt-Foot' and Slat-back Chairs" in Winterthur Portfolio, 15, No. 1 (Sprine 1980) 45-46.

^\ebb-Deane-Stevens Museum, Wethersfield, Connecticut, Acc. no. 1980.25.

■^The Chester chair bannister is 18 1/4" tall and 5" wide at the broadest point. Ihe Porter chairs' bannisters are 20 3/4" tall and 4 1/4" wide at the broadest point.

^■^Registrar's files, Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum. 16 See Col. Henry E. Noyes, Genealogical Record of Some of the Noyes Descendants. (Boston: Privately Published, 1904) II, pp. 77-83. 17 Kevin M. Sweeney has argued that the Porter chairs are a local Wethersfield interpretation of the Chester chairs which he thinks were not made in Wethersfield. While this is possible there are no related examples from other towns which would indicate that chairs with this design and construction were made outside Connecticut. See Kevin M. Sweeney, "Furniture and Furniture Making in mid-eighteenth century Wethersfield, Connecticut," Antiques, 125, No. 5 (May 1984) 1161. 18 Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, Acc..no..1935.2.1 and 1935.2.2. 19 Kirk, Connecticut Furniture, p. 126.

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

^Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, Acc. No. 1973.113.

21 Chairs in this study with through tenons and seat rails fitted flush at their top edges include figures 3, 5, 8 , 9, 22, 27, and 57.

22"Loose seat" is the term used in Hartford and in Philadelphia for the part of the chair now known as the slip seat. See Hartford, Connecticut Cabinetmakers, At a Meeting of the Cabinetmakers, p. 6 ; The Journeymen Cabinet and Chairmakers Philadelphia Book of~Prices , p. 79. In Boston the same chair part was called a "cushion seat"; see Jobe, "The Boston Furniture Industry," p. 42.

23For an illustration see Kirk, American Chairs, p. 26.

^Leffingwell Inn, Norwich, Connecticut, Acc. no. 63. 25 Kirk, American Chairs, pp. 55-56. 26 See figures 8 , 15, 16, 17, and 22. The corner chair is at the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, uncatalogued as of February, 1984. 27 Joshua Hempstead House, New London, Connecticut, Antiquarian and landmarks Society, Acc. no. 1982.7.6. 28 See Joseph Downs, American Furniture: Queen Anne and Chip­ pendale Periods. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952) Figure 121; and Dewey Lee Curtis, An Exhibition of the Decorative Arts of Ireland, Morrisville: Pennsbury Manor, n.d.) figure 5. 29 Privately owned. 30 The New Haven Colony Historical Society, New Haven, Connecti­ cut, acc. no. 1979.19. 31 Webb-Deane-Stevens Museum, Wethersfield, Connecticut, acc. nos. 1968a7b and 1970-38.

^^Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 60.107.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 33 Benjamin Cheney (d.1730) worked in East Hartford. In deeds he is called a carpenter, joiner, and wheelwright. Silas Cheney (1776 - 1821) was a woodworker in Litchfield. See Hiylis Kihn "Connecticut Cabinetmakers" in Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, 30, No. 4, 114. A number of Cheneys in New London County were ship carpenters. See Edgar deN. Mayhew and Minor Myers, Jr., New London County Furniture 1640-1840, (New London: Lyman-Allyn Museum, 1974) p. 30.

^Privately owned. 35 For examples see Israel Sack, American Antiques from the Israel Sack Collection. (Washington, D.C7: Highland House) II, p. 526 and IV, p. 920. 36 Privately owned. 37 Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. no. 1930.2416. 38 Although there are no known examples of Hartford residents purchasing chairs in New London County it is certainly plausible that they did. See Failey, Long Island is My Nation, p. 161, for an example of eighteenth-century Long Inlanders patronizing both local and distant craftsmen. 39 Bruce Daniels, The Connecticut Town: Growth and Development, 1635-1790. (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1979) pp 8-43.

^Daniels, The Connecticut Town, p. 14.

/ *1 Daniels, The Connecticut Town, p. 56.

^See Lois M. Weider, "Wethersfield, The Most Ancient Town in Connecticut," Antiques, 109, No. 3, (March 1976) 516, and Ronna L. Reynolds, Images of Connecticut Life. (Hartford: The Antiqua­ rian and Landmarks Society, 1978) p. 40.

^Daniels, "Economic Development in Colonial Connecticut: An Overview," William and Mary Quarterly Vol. XXXIV, No. 1 (January 1980) 433.

Samuel Peters, General History of Connecticut (1781; rpt. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 187/) p. 138.

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

^Henry Stiles, The History of Ancient Wethersfield, 2 vols, (New York: The Grafton Press, 1904), II, 82-83.

^^Timothy Dwight discusses the topography of the Connecticut River at length in Dwight, Travels in New England and New York, ed. Solomon, I, 170-71. See also Margaret E. Martin, "Merchants and Trade of the Connecticut River Valley, 1750-1820," Smith College Studies in History, XXIV, Nos. 1-4 (October 1936 - July 1939)

^Isaac Byington, "Diary of Isaac Byington, 1786-89," unpub. manuscript, Joseph Downs Manuscript Collection, Winterthur Museum li­ braries, unpag.

^Francis Manwaring Caulkins, History of Norwich Connecticut (New London: privately published, 1866) p. 254.

^Caulkins, History of Norwich, p. 273

■^Stiles, History of Ancient Wethersfield, II, 534.

^Caulkins, History of Norwich, pp. 227-281. 52 Jackson Turner Main, Connecticut Society in the Era of the American Revolution. (Hartford! The American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of Connecticut, 1977) p. 50.

"^Noyes, Genealogical Record, pp. 77-83.

^Stiles, History of Ancient Wethersfield, II, p. 215.

"^Caulkins, History of New London, Connecticut. (New London: privately published, 1852) pp. 376-84.

^^Martin, "Merchants and Trade of the Connecticut River Valley," 89.

■^Martin, "Merchants and Trade of the Connecticut River Valley," 88.

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

In the last chapter, chairs with visual similarities owned in the Connecticut River Valley towns and in New London County demonstrate that members of the economic and political elite in these two areas maintained a common definition of appropriate seating furniture. Kinship and economic relationships kept the people of the two areas in contact

with one another and facilitated the existence of a network of communi­ cation and cultural exchange. A related network also operated among the woodworking artisans of the Connecticut River Valley and New London Coun­ ty regions. The next two groups of chairs, some with known makers, pro­ vide information about the nature and extent of this artisan network.

Narrow bannisters with particularly elongated upper portions

above the vase characterize the ten chairs in the third group. In 1946 the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City acquired a set of four maple side chairs, which according to oral tradition had been made by a member of the Southmayd family of Middletown, Connecticut (see figure

-I 17). The chairs, part of an original set of six, were owned in the 1920s by William B. Goodwin of Hartford. Although the chairs were first 2 published with a Southmayd attribution by Wallace Nutting in 1928, they have no specific history of ownership of manufacture. A daybed in a

private collection has also been attributed to a Southmayd of Middletown, but here again, the source of the attribution is unclear. At least one

chest of drawers exists with a Southmayd signature, but its style 30

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

suggests a much later date of manufacture than that of the Metropolitan's set of four chairs. As described by the owner in 1964 the signed chest is a "swell front chest in solid cherry in the Hepplewhite style with the original brasses with the cornucopia and sheaf of wheat design. Across the bottom of the piece written in an indelible pencil is the name

Southmayde."^

At least two members of the Southmayd family of Middletown earned

a living as woodworkers. The probate inventory of Jonathan Southmayd's (1736-1797) estate included, "7 Gimblets, Spike Gimblet, Four plain, Gouge and Chisels, 1 Iron Square, 1 adze, 3 saws, 2 pit saws, 2 draw shaves and a lathe in the garret."^ He also owned six fiddleback chairs, 0 one case of drawers, and a desk which may have been his own work. A notice in the 1797 Middletown Gazette states, "Died after a long illness,

Mr. Jonathan Southmayd, ship carpenter, age 61. He was a very industi- n ous inhabitant of this town and an honest man." Although the notice only refers to him as a ship carpenter, the tools listed in his inventory g suggest that Jonathan Southmayd may also have been a joiner and turner. In the eighteenth century the divisions of labor were not so rigidly

defined that a person would maintain only one occupation. A person who called himself a ship carpenter one day might also refer to himself as a joiner or turner the next day. In order to remain in the town with their

families, artisans developed several different skills which would make them occupationally and economically flexible. By performing different

tasks as the season or the need dictated, artisans could avoid moving to q a new location to find work.

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

John Bates Southmayd, whose specific relationship to Jonathan Southmayd is unclear, was born in Durham, Connecticut, one town south of Middletown, in 1794. His death date is not known. The precise date of his removal to Middltown can not be determined, but in 1840 he adver­ tised for sale in that town, "Coffins: ready made coffins constantly on hand of different sizes and descriptions which will be trimmed to order on the shortest notice. Inquire of J.B. Southmayd at the Cabinet

Furniture Warehouse comer of Main and Washington Streets.

The Metropolitan "Southmayd" chairs were probably made between

1735 and 1760. Given that time frame, it seems unlikely that either Jonathan or John Southmayd made the chairs. One other possibility for the origin of the Southmayd attribution does exist. William Goodwin

bought the chairs, which all retain their original crewel-worked seats, from a member of the Derby family of Middletown in the 1920s. Each seat, worked in shades of rose, green, blue and brown, depicts a slightly dif­ ferent scene: one shows a shepherdess seated under a tree with abstract hills and flowers in the background and a small white dog; the second,

much like the first, lacks the shepherdess and has a small squirrel in the tree; the third shows the same tree with a lion, a deer and a dog;

the fourth has no tree, but has a shepherd standing in the center and a woman seated to the right. They are surrounded by hills and flowers,

sheep and a small black dog (see figures 18 and 19).

A needlework pocketbook, given by the same donor as the "south-

mayd" chairs is also in the Metropolitan Museum of Art collections. 11 Like the chair covers, the pocketbook is worked in shades of rose, blue,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 green, brown and tan. The pocketbook design differs in specific details, and is canvas-work rather than crewel-work, but its overall character is similar to that of the "Southmayd" chair seats (see figures 20 and 21). Sewn into the top of the pocketbook is a paper label probably from the nineteenth century, which reads "1720/no.66/Mrs. Elmer G. Derby,

Middletown/Mrs. L.G. Southmayd." The date and "Mrs. Southmayd" are in one hand, while "Mrs. Derby" is in another hand. The "no. 66" seems

to have been added later. 12 The Southmayd attribution on the Metropo­ litan's four chairs may stem from this inscription. If this is the case, then it would seem that the seat covers and not the chairs were made by a member of the Southmayd family who may or may not have owned them. The quality of the needlework makes it unlikely that the chair seats were worked by a professional. The chairs were, undoubtedly, owned in

Middletown.

A chair in Winterthur Museum appears, at first glance, to be nearly identical to the Metropoltain's Middletown chairs (see figure 22).13 A closer examination reveals that the vase turnings at the rear of the side lower rails on the Winterthur chair are much more bulbous

in profile than the corresponding turnings on the Metropolitan chairs. When turning the lower rails the chairmaker may have used a measuring

stick which would indicate the linear spacing of the design but would not control the character of the three-dimensional shape of the turnings.

The profile of the turnings tend, in David Pye's terms, toward workman- M / ship of risk. The turnings on the medial lower rails also differ. The balls on the Winterthur chair are much larger and rounder than the balls on the Metropolitan chairs. There are several possible explanations

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 for these differences between the lower rail turnings. The chairs could have been made by different artisans working in the same shop or by the same artisan but at different times for separate customers. It is also possible that the chairs were made in different shops and that the arti­ sans in the second shop were duplicating the chairs from the first shop from memory, verbal description or from an imprecise drawing.

Various details of construction also differentiate Winterthur's chair from the Metropolitan examples. The side seat rails of the former are tenoned through the rear stiles, while those on the Metropolitan chairs are secured with blind tenons. X-ray pictures of the Winterthur chair show round tenons where the lower side rails join the front leg, while the Metropolitan chairs have rectangular tenons at the correspond­

ing joint. Although the seat rail tenons were the choise of the custo- 15 mer, the lower rail tenons were a choice of the chairmaker. Accord- 16 ing to the principle of workmanship of habit, an artisan would probably

use the same lower rail tenoning technique on all or most of the chairs he made.

Finally, the Metropolitan and Winterthur chairs reveal differ­

ences in the shaping and proportions of their bannisters (see figure 23) which indicates that the bannisters were not cut from the same template. Since the bannister proportions would also be consistent if one set of

chairs were made from a measured drawing of the other, or if one bannis­ ter template was drawn directly from an existing template or finished

chair the alternatives can now be narrowed down to two possibilities.

Either one set of chairs was made from a memory of the other, or the

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

second set was made from an informal drawing of the first. Taken to­ gether, these differences indicate that despite their visual similarities the Metropolitan chairs and the Winterthur chair are not products of

the same chairmaker.

Although the Winterthur chair does not have a history of owner­ ship or manufacture, it is identical in all details to three chairs in 17 separate private collections. One of the privately owned chairs bears a label stating that it was "Left by Rufus Lathrop in 1805 to Martha 18 Devotion." A detailed history of a second chair in this set traces its ownership from Colonel Simon Lathrop (1689-1774) of Norwich to a 19 recent owner in the twentieth century. "Seven worked chairs" are in- eluded in both the probate inventory of Colonel Simon's estate, 20 and 21 in the inventory of his wife, Martha lathrop's (1696-1775) estate.

Colonel Simon and Martha Lathrop of Norwich, first cousins who

married in 1714, were both members of a complex, intermarried dynasty of Norwich and Wallingford woodworkers (see figure 24). The progenitor of the dynasty was Samuel Lathrop, who was b o m in England in 1623 and

moved to New London, Connecticut in 1648. In 1668, Lathrop moved to Norwich where he held several town offices before his death in 1700. In 1678 Lathrop and John Elderkin entered into a contract to build the

second, or "Bradstreet" meeting house in New London. 22 Of Lathrop's children, three sons, John (1645-1688)Israel (1659-1733)and 25 Joseph (1661-1740) were woodworkers. Samuel Lathrop's daughter, Sarah (b. 1655) married Nathaniel Royce (d. 1706) a carpenter, joiner and 26 blacksmith of Wallingford, Connecticut; and settled there. The Lathrop

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

family was intermarried with the woodworking Royces two more times. Samuel Lathrop's son John (1645-1688) married Ruth Royce and John's sister, Elizabeth (b. 1648) married Isaac Royce. Both couples settled in Wallingford. Seven cousins in the third generation of the Lathrop- 27 Royce family were woodworkers. Solomon (1706-1733) and Joseph (1688- 28 1757) , both sons of Joseph (1661-1740), worked in Norwich along with William (1688-1778)39 John (1690-1752),30 and Samuel (1692-1753),31 who

were all sons of Israel Lathrop (1659-1733). Samuel (c. 1670-1746)33 33 and John (1680-C.1753), both sons of John and Ruth Royce Lathrop,

worked in Wallingford until 1728 when John moved to Norwich. In the fourth generation five Lathrop cousins worked in Norwich as woodworkers: Ezra (1718-1760),34 the son of Samuel (1685-1754); Ezra (1719-1753),35 the son of William (1688-1778), Israel (1711-1742)36 and Ezekiel (1724- 1771)3^ both sons of Israel (1687-1758); and Zebediah (d. 1783),33 the

son of Joseph (1688-1757). In the fifth generation only Isaac (b. 1765)39 has surfaced as a member of the woodworking trade. In all, there is firm evidence that at least eighteen members in five generations of the Lathrop-Royce family earned a part of their living as carpenters, joiners, turners, or coopers. The Lathrop-Royce woodworking dynasty was active in

Wallingford at least until 1746, and in Norwich from 1668 until at least 1788. With three brothers, four cousins, a father and three uncles as

woodworkers it is highly probably that the set of chairs owned by Colonel Simon and Martha Lathrop, one of which is in the Winterthur collection, was made by a member of the Lathrop-Royce family. The Metropolitan's

"Southmayd" chairs were probably made by a Wallingford member of the

Lathrop-Royce woodworking dynasty and owned in Middletown, which is the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 town immediately east of Wallingford.

Five surviving chairs from a set of six with a history of owner­ ship in the Welles family of Wethersfield, and a chair made in New Lon­ don County all have bannisters which are very similar to the bannisters on the Lathrop-Royce chairs. The Wethersfield chairs have compass seats

with seat rails 2 7/8" deep. The side seat rails are tenoned through the rear stiles and, like those of the Saybrook chairs in the first group, the rear rails are here placed above the side rails (see figures 40 25 and 26). Work lines on the back of the knees which mark the cen­ ter of the curve of the front legs suggest that the chairmaker was not very practiced at making crooked legs. The chair backs are crooked and the back feet are sharply undercut which gives the rear stiles a pro­ nounced rear kick.

When viewed from the front the New London County chair looks very much like the Wethersfield chairs, but it varies considerably in its con­ struction details. It has the same deep seat rails and deeply curved ankles as the Wethersfield chairs, but it does not have a crooked back

i *1 or sharply undercut rear feet (see figure 27). Like the Wethersfield

chairs, the New London County chair is through-tenoned, but its seat rails are flush around the top edges. The only work lines on this chair are marks on the rear stiles which delineate the sections of the stiles below the seat which are chamfered. Unlike most Connecticut joined chairs this chair has small corner blocks and the loose seat is a solid

plank of wood rather than a frame. Although not identical the bannister on this chair resembles closely that of the Winterthur Lathrop chair.

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

The Wallingford-Norwich connection, so clearly present in the Lathrop-Royce family, is also discemable in a group of turned chairs made in Wallingford, Groton, and Fairfield. An armchair which has been owned in the same Groton family for over 250 years forms the corner­ stone of the fourth group of six chairs which demonstrates the connec­ tions between the western coastal town of Fairfield and the eastern coastal town of Groton, and between both of these towns and the Connect­ icut River town of Wallingford.

/ 2 The Groton armchair (see figure 28) was probably made by the same turner who trained the Fairfield chairmakers Ozias Buddington (1712-1759) and Edward Buddington (1708-1773); he also made two matching / Q side chairs (see figures 29 and 30). The Buddingtons moved from Groton to Fairfield and brought their Groton training and visual vocabulary

with them. The deeply notched undercut arms of the Groton armchair close' ly resemble the arms of Fairfield slatback chairs attributed to the Buddingtons (see figure 31)^. The turnings on the front lower rails and underarm spindles of the Buddington chairs are identical to those of the medial lower rails on the Lathrop-Royce chairs (see figures 32

and 33). This ball-spool turning is similar to the ball-reeded reel turning of the front lower rails and underarm spindles of the Groton armchair (see figure 28). The only difference between the spool effect and the reeded reel effect is the space between the central reel and the adjoining collar. The Groton armchair and the Buddington chairs also

share the short, vasiform turning on the front posts immediately below the arms. Thus, a formal motif was carried from New London County to

Fairfield by the Buddingtons, and probably by other artisans who

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

traveled the route of the Boston Post Road.

The ball-spool turnings on the Buddington slatback'r chairs and the Lathrop-Royce chairs suggest a pattern of triangular cultural ex­ change in material forms between New London County (Norwich and Groton) Fairfield and Wallingford. The Wallingford-New London County side of

the triangle is even further clarified by a corner chair with a history of ownership in the Royce family of Wallingford and possibly made by a Royce family artisan (see figure 3 4 ) According to family tradition the chair belonged to Joash Royce who was b o m in Wallingford in 1716.

Sometime between 1740 and 1750 he moved to Sheffield, Massachusetts and 46 is said to have brought the chair with him when he moved. The dis­ tinctive inward sweep to the columns on the posts of the Royce chair are also present on the back posts of the Groton chair.

Chairs in the third and fourth groups are evidence of a cultural

link between the Connecticut River Valley and the Connecticut coast which existed on the artisan level and which complements a similar re­ lationship among the agricultural, mercantile and political elite of the two areas (see figure 35). On the level of the artisans, this connection took two forms; first, similar visual forms created in disparate geo­ graphic areas linked those areas through their mutual contributions to a formal sequence,and second, a strong kinship network linked cousins

working in different areas.

By visually sharing the ball-spool turnings on the Lathrop-Royce

medial lower rails and the underarm spindles of the Buddington slatback

chairs, the people who saw the turnings in Middletown, Wallingford,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

Norwich, and Fairfield were all sharing in the historical event of the form's initial creation, repetition and recreation. When the profile

was expanded from the ball-reeded reel of the Groton armchair the arti­ sans in Norwich, Middletown, Fairfield, and Groton became allies in an

effort to solve a common formal problem.

Bonds of kinship created a network which operated on both per­ sonal and economic levels. By consistently following in the woodworking trades of their fathers and uncles, the Lathrops and Royces underscored

their natural, personal relationships with a second relationship both economic and occupational in nature. As members of the same trades the

lathrops and Royces shared common knowledge and skills along with their mutual personal experiences and blood ties. The distinction between the economic and personal aspects of the lathrops' relationships were at best

blurred and in many cases a distinction simply did not exist. After his brother Isaac's death in 1778, Hezekiah Lathrop (1742-1784) contributed

to his sister-in-law's financial support by paying her to do needlework 48 for him and buying some of her surplus corn, meal, pork and butter.

In 1739 John Lathrop put his daughter Bethia to an apprenticeship with

his brother Benjamin and his wife Martha. During the term of her appren­ ticeship Bethia was contracted to faithfully serve her master and mistress

who, in return for her labor, would teach her to "spin, knit and do or- 49 dinary household work." Bethia's apprenticeship to her aunt and uncle brought her into closer contact with them personally while at the same

time she provided them with her labor and they provided her with the skills that could economically support her after the term of her appren­ ticeship had expired.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41

The kinship network which functioned as the underlying force of the Lathrop-Royce woodworking dynasty also formed a dialectical re­ lationship between the artisan network, exemplified here by the Lathrops and Royces, and by the Buddingtons, of the Connecticut coast and the Connecticut River Valley, and the network among the economically elite inhabitants of the two regions. In addition to their extensive partici­ pation in the woodworking trades, the Lathrop family joined the Hunting­

ton, Saltonstall, leffingwells and Tracys as members of New London Coun­ ty's economic and political elite. Colonel Simon Lathrop (1689-1774)

the owner of the chair pictured in figure 17, was one of the first Nor­ wich men to receive permission to build a wharf at the Landing Place. i In 1734 he was granted permission to build a warehouse opposite his dwelling house.^ In addition to being a prosperous businessman,

Colonel Simon was several times a representative from Norwich in the 51 colony General Assembly. He was also one of the first Norwich men to own a chaise, which was certainly a distinctive sign of wealth and

prestige during the period. Colonel Simon's nephew, Dr. Daniel Lathrop (1712-1782) also owned a chaise.

Dr. Daniel Lathrop graduated from Yale College in 1733 and sub­ sequently studied medicine in London. He returned from England with a

large store of medicines and other mercantile goods and opened the first apothecary's establishment in Connecticut. His was the only drug store on the route from New York to Boston and he frequently filled orders sent

from hundreds of miles away. In 1744 Daniel lathrop married Jerusha, the

daughter of Governor Joseph Talcott of Hartford. After 1743 Lathrop was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

joined in business by his brother (d. 1807). For a short time they im­ ported not only medicines, but also fruits, wines and European and Indian goods directly from England. In 1757 the Lathrops formed a partnership with Solomon Smith, a former apprentice. Smith went to Hartford and the firm of Lathrop and Smith maintained strores both in Hartford and in

Norwich."^

The two networks of cultural exchange between the Connecticut

River towns and the coastal towns, one existing among the economic and political elite, and one existing among the woodworking artisans were related and mutually supportive. Bonds of kinship must have kept the mercantile lathrops in touch with the woodworking Lathrops and the family

probably patronized each other's shops and stores.

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

43 Chapter II 1 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. nos. 46.194.1-.4

2Wallace Nutting, Furniture Treasury. (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. 1928) figure 2l3l.

The daybed is mentioned in Houghton Bulkeley's research notes now at the Connecticut Historical Society (hereafter referred to as "Bulkeley Manuscripts")

^Letter from private collector to Houghton Bulkeley, November 10, 1964, "Bulkeley Manuscripts."

^Hartford District Probate Court Records, file number 3217 (hereafter HDPCR).

6HDPCR, no. 3217.

^"Bulkeley Manuscripts" g See Joseph Moxon, Mechanick Exercises or the Doctrine of Handy-works Applied to the Arts of Smithing, Joinery, Carpentry, and Bricklaying. (1703; rpt. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970) plates 4-5 and plates 12-16. o "Robert Blair St. George, Fathers, Sons and Identity: Wood­ working Artisans in Southeastern New England, 1620-1700," The Crafts­ man in Early America. Edited by Ian M.G. Quimby. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984) pp. 119-125, discussed the development, in early- eighteenth century, of occupational splintering or "role diffusion" due to limited opportunities for specialized work.

■^"Bulkeley Manuscripts".

11Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 53.179.15.

12Needlework pocketbooks were popular between 1760 and 1780. They were rarely made before 1740 or after 1790. The inscription on this pocketbook seems to be an estimation of its probable date of manu­ facture and not contemporary with its creation. See Susan Burrows Swan, 1'Worked Pocketbooks," Antiques, 107, No. 2, 298-303.

■^Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 58.2220.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

^ S e e Pye, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, p. 4. 15 For six pence extra, a Philadelphian, in 1795 could request that his chair be constructed with through tenons. Therefore the same chairmaker might make one set of chairs with through tenons and a second set with blind tenons, depending on his customer’s preference. See Kirk, American Chairs, p. 31.

16 Zimmerman, "The Artifact as Historical Source Material: A Comparative Study of Philadelphia Chippendale Chairs," (unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Delaware, 1980), p. 42. 17 Houghton Bulkeley saw these three chairs in 1964 and his manu­ scripts contained detailed notes on each of them as well as a comparative analysis. As yet, I have been unable to locate these chairs.

^®When Martha Lathrop died she left three chairs to her daughter Martha Lathrop Devotion Cogswell and the remainder of the set to another daughter, Eunice Huntington, Norwich District Probate Court Records, file number 6707, (hereafter NDPCR). Rufus Lathrop, Martha and Eunice’s brother, outlived them both and some of the chairs probably passed to him after his sisters' deaths. Rufus Lathrop died without any children and part of his estate went to his sister Martha's heirs, NDPCR, file number 6725. Among the heirs was a daughter, Martha Devotion.

^^"Bulkeley manuscripts"

20NDPCR, file number 6738.

21NDPCRi file number 6707.

99 Caulkins, History of New London, p. 191. Samuel Lathrop's probate inventory taken in 1700 includes five planes, seven chisels, two small gouges, two augers, one great gouge, one holdfast, one adz, broadaxe, one lath hammer, one frae, spokeshave , one narrow chisell, one henant saw, one handsaw, one iron dog, one small broad axe, one narrow axe." NDPCR, file number 3293.

2^John lathrop built the first mill in Wallingford in 1677. See E.B. Huntington, A Genealogical Memoir of the Lo-Lathrop Family. (Ridgefield, Connecticut: Julia M. Huntington, 1884) p. 46 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

Israel Lathrop may have been a tailor as well as a woodworker. At his death he owned several pieces of marked linen and a pair of tailor's shears as well as: 500 shingles, one broad ax, one hammer, a jointer plane and a pair of chissels. NDPCR, file number 3288. 25 Joseph lathrop owned six jointer's tools, twenty-two turner's tools, a small gauge, a frae, two jointers, two fore planes and a smooth­ ing plane. NDPCR, file number 3290. 26 See Huntington, Lathrop Geneaology, p. 472. 27 Solomon Lathrop owned: four axes, a pair of chisels, two augers, a jointer, and a gouge and chisels. NDPCR, file number 3295. 28 At the time of his death Joseph Lathrop owned: 2,360 oak boards, 270' plank; 3,500 chestnut shingles, 600 oak clapboards and 1,008' vhite wood boards. He also owned a handsaw, two nail gimblets, one pair of pincers, nine awls, an axe, a frae and a shave. Included in his inventory is a note, "Mrs. Mary Lathrop's account of what she provided toward the building of a house at Waterbury which sd deceased was bound to do in his lifetime: 2,500 of nails -g-, 2,000 of nails > 4,500 of shingles nails, 17,000 chestnut shingles, 100 oak clapboards, 40 feet of glass, about 500 pounds of shingle nails, 2,370 feet oak boards, 270 feet plank, 58 feet slitwork, 3,500 chestnut shingles, 600 oak clapboards, 1,008 feet white wood boards and six pounds drawn lead. NDPCR, file nuniber 6689. 29 William Lathrop owned a cooper s shop valued at 2/0/0. NDPCR, file number 6745. He is also credited in an account book dated 1720 for making a chest and a cradle. See Mayhew and Myers, New London County Furniture, p. 120.

^John Lathrop's inventory lists 2,284 feet of Board, 500 feet of inch plank, 314 feet inch and a quarter plank, and 4,000 chestnut shingles. NDPCR, file number 6678. 31 Samuel Lathrop owned part of an axe, two chisels, two augers, one gouge, one shave, one frae and a gimblet and hammer. NDPCR, file number 6726. 32 Samuel Lathrop's inventory includes: a chisel, an inch and a half auger, turning chisels, turning gouges, taper augers, a handsaw, a shave, a gouge, a mortising chisel, a carpenter's chisel, a hammer, a crosscut saw, a frae and a mallet /. New Haven District Probate Court Records, file number 6460.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

33John lathrop had: two percer bits, three chisels and gouges, a square and compass, a tap borer, a handsaw, an adz, a hatchet, a broad ax, a frae and a breastplate. NDPCR, file number 6680.

*5/ Ezra lathrop's personal property included: a drawing knife, a saw, a pair of chisels, a gouge, two augers, a hammer and a pair of nippers. NDPCR, file number 6630, 35 Ezra lathrop owned: two pairs of nippers, a chisel and awl, a square and a handsaw. NDPCR, file number 6629. 36 Israel Lathrop's inventory includes: four hundred ten penny nails and a gimblet. NDPCR, file number 3289. 37 Ezekiel lathrop had: one 3/4 auger, one pair of compasses, and four axes. NDPCR, file number 6628. 38 Zebediah lathrop's inventory includes: 2 Broad axes, one adze, two squares, a grooving plough, a sash saw and a back saw, a fore plane, smooting plane and four sash planes, two pairs of hollows and rounds, a gimblet, a half round file, three dquare files, two paring chisels and a duck bill chisel, a plane iron, a hammer, a whetstone, a bit stock, a jointer, a fore plane, and a smoothing plane, a drill and four bits. NDCPR, file number 6751. 39 In 1788 Isaac Lathrop advertised for an apprentice in shop- joining. See Mayhew and Myers, New London County Furniture, p. 120.

^Privately owned in two separate collections. / i Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1964.38.9. / O Privately owned.

43lhe first chair is at the Buckingham House, Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut, acc. no. 54.1603; the second is privately owned.

440gden House, Fairfield Historical Society, Fairfield, Connec­ ticut, acc. no. 1976.16.5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1969.55. An identical c o m e r chair is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 30.120.43.

^^The history of the chair is in the registrars' files at the Connecticut Historical Society.

^For a detailed discussion and analysis of the concept of "formal sequence" see George Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962) pp. 33-62.

^®NDPCR, file number 6653.

AQ Indentures of apprenticeships made by Selectmen of Norwich, Connecticut, 1719-1786, on deposit at the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut.

^Caulkins, History of Norwich, p. 304.

51 Huntington, Geneaological Memoirs of the Lo-Lathrop Family, p. 58. 52 Caulkins, History of Norwich, p. 325.

■^Caulkins, History of Norwich, p. 326-27.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III Boston and Newport Connections

The formal relationships which characterize eigjiteenth-century Connecticut River Valley and coastal Connecticut chairs are also part of a larger sphere of influence which includes both Boston and Newport.

Later examples of eighteenth-century Connecticut chairs with solid ban­ nisters show a much stronger influence from both of these cities than the earlier chairs from the groups already discussed. Because New Lon-

don was Connecticut's center of trade througout the colonial era, formal concepts from trade centers such as Boston and Newport entered the Con­ necticut regions through the port of New London. The Boston influence

was also evident in other types of New London County artisans. Jennifer Goldsborough found in her study of New London County silversmiths that New London silver was influenced exclusively by Boston work. She states, the relationship between New London and Boston was so strong that no other influences can be found in New London. Although New York characteristics can be found in silver made as nearby as New Haven, no evidence of New York tradition is found in New London silver. Nor does New London silver reveal close contact with Hartford or Newport. 2

In contrast with Goldsborough1s findings in New London silver, many Newport features are found on New London chairs. A corner chair

in a private collection which has a history of ownership in New London

incorporates a Newport lower rail system and a broader bannister than is usually found on New London chairs. The shell carving on the knee O of the front leg is a very common Newport element (see figure 36).

48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

A side chair originally owned in Norwich incorporates a bannister in the ,fbird of prey" design also associated with Newport (see figure 37) J*

Six chairs which are all derived from a standardized Boston pro­

totype (see figure 38)"* constitute the fifth group of chairs in this study. The first chair in this group is currently in the collections of the Wadsworth Atheneum and once belonged to General Israel Putnam £ (1718-1790) of Brooklyn, Connecticut (see figure 39). The turnings on

the lower side rails of the Putnam chair repeat the bulbous vase turnings on the lower rails of the Lathrop-Royce chairs. Although the maker of the Putnam chair has adopted the broader Boston bannister, a heavier leg, and narrower seat rails, the cusps at the bottom of the bannister are

similar to later New London County fiddleback chairs (see figures 40 and 41)? Another chair with the same lower rail design as the Putnam chair is in the Winterthur collection (see figure 42). While the over­ all shape of the bannister is the same as the Putnam chair, the bannister on the Winterthur chair is much narrower. A Newport chair pictured in 9 the 1965 John Brown House exhibition catalog also has vase turnings on its lower side rails, but the vase is oriented in the opposite direc­ tion than that on the Putnam, Winterthur and Lathrop-Royce chairs. On the Brown House chair the bulbous part of the vase is closer to the front of the chair, whereas on the Winterthur, Putnam and Lathrop-Royce chairs

the bulbous shape is at the back of the chair’. Vase turnings are also sometimes seen on Massachusetts and Rhode Island easy chairs. 10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

General Israel Putnam was b o m in Danvers, Massachusetts, in 1718

and moved to Pomfret (later Brooklyn) Connecticut in 1739. In 1767 Putnam married as his second wife Deborah Lathrop Avery Gardiner (1717- 1 1 1777). Deborah was the daughter of Samuel lathrop (1685-1754) and the niece of Colonel Simon and Martha Lathrop; in short, she was a member of the mercantile and woodworking Lathrop-Royce family. Deborah Lathrop

was married twice before she married Israel Putnam, first in 1738 to

Reverend Ephraim Avery of Brooklyn, and second to John Gardiner in 1755. The Putnam chair was probably made by Deborah Lathrop's relatives for her second marriage, in 1755, and passed to the Putnam family after her

third marriage.

Two chairs, each very similar to the Putnam chairs are in a pri-

vate collection (see figure 43). 12 Both chairs have histories of owner- 13 ship in Norwich families. One chair is identical to the Putnam chair, and the bannisters match exactly. The second chair has thinner lower

rails and cushioned pad feet where the others have plain pad feet. Since it is fairly common to see pad feet, the cushions of which have worn off, all the feet on chairs of this design could have had cushion when they were new. These chairs were probably quite common in Norwich at one

time.

Finally, a chair which has a history of ownership in New London

is smaller than the Putnam and related chairs, but the overall shaping, particularly of the bannisters is the same. The front legs of this chair

do not have the same sharp knees as the Putnam chair and the lower rails have the more common tapered column, rather than the Lathrop-Royce type

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

14 vases.(see figure 44).

In addition to the fact that New London was a large trading cen-. ter and therefore exposed to several other regional influences, New Londoners also came into contact with other styles and designs in their personal travels. The diary of Joshua Hempstead (1678-1758), a New London farmer, surveyor, house, and ship carpenter, joiner, attorney,

stonecutter and trader chronicles the extent of his involvement in each of his trades as well as his extensive travels in New England and Long 15 Island. Between 1711 and 1758 Hempstead made numerous trips to Hart­ ford, usually on court business. When going to Hartford he usually stop­ ped overnight in Colchester. Up to the 1740s he made an average of three

or four trips trips to Hartford a year. Hempstead owned land in Southampton, Long island and frequently traveled across Long Island Sound

to spend a few days there. In 1716 Hempstead's wife died, and his daughter, Elizabeth, was taken to live in Easthampton, Long Island where 16 she remained for fifteen years. Although Hartford and Long Island were his usual destinations, Hempstead also traveled to New Haven, Boston, and Newport. After 1740, by which time he was sixty-two years old, Hempstead traveled much less frequently but by that time he had a son

who was married and living on Long Island and a daughter who was married 17 and living in Boston. Because his children came to New London on a

regular basis, his awareness of aspects of both Boston and Long Island

cultures must have continued.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

Although this study concentrates on the influences from other areas present in New London County, The relationship between new London and other colonies was a dialectical one. Dean Eailey mafees numerous

references to Connecticut features on New York furniture in his study 18 Long Island is My Nation. In noting the presence of New England furn­

iture in Virginia, Barry Greenlaw expresses considerable surprise at finding records of shipments of furniture to Virginia from New London. He states, "More substantial and more surprising (than shipments from

Salem, Massachusetts) are the records of shipments from New London, Connecticut. . . As early as 1736 five desks entered Hampton on board , the New London registered Hannah, and five dozen chairs entered the same 19 port on December 16, 1751. At the same time that New Londoners were absorbing aspects of other regional styles into their own furniture

designs, aspects of their furniture were being exported to other areas

and absorbed into other regional designs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

^Roland Mather Hooker, TheColonial Trade of Connecticut, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936), p. 38. 9 Jennifer Goldsborough, New London County Silversmiths, 1700- 1835. (New London: Lyman-A1 lyn Museum, 1969) pp. 4-5. 3 Privately owned.

^Privately owned.

^Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 54.523.

^Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1983.16. Two other chairs from this set are at the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. nos. 1984.40.1-.2.

^The first chair is at the Thomas Lee House, East Lyme Historical Society, Niantic, Connecticut and does not have an accession number. The second chair is on loan at the Lee House from the Lyman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1952.76. Q Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 54.544. a The John Brown House Loan Exhibition of Rhode Island Furniture. (Providence, The Rhode Island Historical Society, 1973) p. 5.

10 Downs, figures 71 and 72.

1 1 See Eben Putnam, A History of the Putnam Family. (Salem, Massachusetts: The Salem Press, 1891) pp. 88-126.

12Privately owned.

13See Mayhew and Myers, New London County Furniture, p. 30.

^\yman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1968.74. 1 ^ Joshua Hempstead, The Diary of Joshua Hempstead. (New London: New London County Historical Society, 1901) p. IX.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

16 Diary of Joshua Hempstead, p. 236. 17 Diary of Joshua Hempstead, p. 304. 18 Failey, Long Island is my Nation, p. 51 and p. 76. 19 Barry Greenlaw, New England Furniture at Williamsburg. (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1974) p. 3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV Changes Wrought by Urbanization

The foregoing discussion of Connecticut River Valley and coastal

Connecticut joined chairs, their makers and their owners, suggests that an underlying cultural unity characterized a particular facet of the

artifactual vocabulary of the two areas. With the introduction of the pierced bannister design around 1760, the unity between the areas seemed

to disappear from the artifactual vocabulary. The emergence of a pierced

bannister was soon followed by a switch from a yoked crest rail to an eared crest rail. TWelve New London County chairs demonstrate this de­ velopment and constitute the sixth group of chairs in this study. These chairs were made between 1760 and 1810 and have a variety of pierced

bannister designs not seen on chairs from other areas of Connecticut.

A pair of chairs at Historic Deerfield, once owned by the Skinner family of East Hampton, Connecticut, was probably made in Norwich They

have the same triple lower rail system, knee brackets, and crests as the chairs in the second group, and they have a diamond and heart-shaped piercing on their bannisters (see figure 45). The silhouette of the

bannister shape is also new. Nonetheless, the chairs are still quite conservative. The bannister design is not an intricately worked lacy

pattern, but simply a basically solid bannister with a few voids cut out. In Hearts and Crowns, Robert F. Trent introduced the concept of

stylistic "challenge", a phenomenon which prompts an artisan to choose 55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

aspects of a new style or design and graft those chosen features onto 2 a fundamentally familiar object. On the Skinner chairs, the concept of a pierced bannister has been grafted onto a traditional early eight­ eenth century frame. A double-backed comer chair which once belonged

to Governor William Pitkin (1694-1769) of Hartford has a smaller version of the same bannister design as that on the Skinner chairs (see figure 46). This chair was probably also made in Norwich.

New London County chairmakers also modified an eastern Massachu­

setts "owl's-eyes" bannister design for use on their chairs with three lower rails, sharply pointed knee brackets and yoked crests. TWo chairs of this description are at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford (see fig- 4 ure 47). These chairs are part of a set which also belonged to Governor William Pitkin. A third chair, which is identical to the two at the Wadsworth is at the Winterthur Museum (see figure 48) Although the

Winterthur chair does not have a documentary history of ownership in the Pitkin family it may also be a part of the Pitkin set and was certainly made by the same chairmaker who made the Pitkin chairs. The mylar tem­ plates from all three chairs match and the chairs are all numbered with

a series of crescent shaped marks, not the more ordinary straight lines or notches. Features which distinguish New London County "owl's eyes"

chairs from eastern Massachusetts chairs include the placement of the eyes closer to the crest rail and the addition of a quatrefoil on the

lower portion of the bannister.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

Six of the "owl's eyes" chairs have straight, marlborough legs with moldings run along the outside edges of the front legs, and outside upper edges of the lower rails. They are smaller than the Pitkin chairs, have eared rather than yoked crest rails and are made either with loose or upholstered seats. One of the six chairs has ears with spiral carv­ ings which are a visual though not structural continuation of the rear

stiles (see figure 49) This chair has a bannister which appears to have been cut from a template intended for a larger chair. To accomodate the extra length without sacrificing the pattern, a portion of the crest rail was cut away and the crest rail fits around the bannister which is pinned in like the bannister on the Saybrook chairs. In his study of Philadelphia Chippendale chairs, Philip D. Zimmerman found one arm­

chair which seemed to have unusually large voids between the bannister and rear stiles. By comparing the template of the armchair with a few side chair bannister templates, Zimmerman found that the chairmaker had

used a side chair template to cut an armchair bannister. Naturally, the proportions did not seem quite right, but by using an available template instead of creating a new one the chairmaker was able to save time and

money. It seems that the Connecticut artisan who made this chair also made this choice.

Three "owl's eyes" chairs with marlborough legs have ears which

are both a visual and structural continuation of the crest rail. TWo of these chairs have bannisters whose templates match except in the length Q between the quatrefoil and the shoe (see figures 50 and 51). On one of these two chairs the bannister is seated in the rear seat rail and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

passes behind the shoe.

The last examples of New London County "owl's eyes" chairs are a pair of chairs at the New Haven Colony Historical Society (see fig­ ure 5 2 ) These chairs have a slightly varied bannister design. The

piercing just above the eyes on most "owl's eyes" chairs is not present on this set and the uppermost central piercing is partly cut out of the crest rail and partly out of the bannister. Both chairs in this pair have had extensive repairs, including replaced feet.

Three chairs with frames and crest rails like the three "owl's eyes" chairs whose ears are a visual and structural continuation of the crest rail have more intricately worked bannisters than the "owl's eyes" chairs. One of these chairs is at the Leffingwell Inn, in Norwich, (see

figure 53).^ A set of chairs with the same bannister design but which

are upholstered over the rails is at Historic Deerfield, Inc. (see fig­ ure 54).^ A set of four chairs with the same bannister design once belonged to Jabez Huntington of Norwich. They were offered for sale by

Israel Sack, Lie. in 1967.12

A further variation of this crest and frame design is found on

three chairs which share a simplified back design and which may have been made in Colchester (see figures 55). 13 These slat-back chairs may

have been made in response to the lacy slatback chairs of the federal period. As with the early pierced bannister chairs, they incorporate the

lightness and openness of federal furniture without giving up the old and familiar.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

New London County chairs from this sixth group are unlike con­ temporary Hartford area Chapin chairs. The Chapin chairs have very lacy bannisters, swept ears, trapezoidal seat frames, and often have ball-and-claw feet (see figure 56).^ True to their maker's training they adhere more closely to Philadelphia mid- and late eighteenth-century

chairs.

After 1760, largely due to the entrepreneur Christopher Leffing-

well (1734-1810) Norwich blossomed into a manufacturing city. As the eighteenth-century progressed, Norwich, New London, Hartford and Middle­

town became increasingly more urbanized. In their definitions of appro­ priate seating furniture, the inhabitants of these towns seemed to direct their energies inward and these artifacts no longer manifest strong formal relationships. In characterizing the emergence of an urban

society in rural Massachusetts between 1760 and 1820, Richard D. Brown

stated that, These conditions withered the old corporate insularity of towns. Tied by commerce, politics and communications to the world outside its boundaries, the preeminence of the town as the focus of secular concern declined. Weakening of purely local allegiances and development of supra-local interest groups made the old compulsion to achieve consen­ sus anachronistic. Townspeople were now members of many communities — their own organizations as well as the state and nation. 15 From the present study of eighteenth-century Connecticut chairs we might

be led to believe that the exact opposite is true in urbanizing Connecti­ cut, that towns were first open and culturally fluid and then insular

and closed; that townspeople first had supra-local and subsequently local­

ly defined interests.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

Like many historians, Brown used only literary and documentary evidence to arrive at his conclusions. The fact that artifactual evidence leads us to very different conclusions about the way Connecticut men and women made the transition from rural to urban society may say more about the differences in forms of expression and the way people order and balance their lives than about any historical differences between eight­ eenth-century Massachusetts and eighteenth-century Connecticut. While politically and culturally the men and women of eighteenth-century

Connecticut were being pulled into the statewide and national arena they

may have chosen to look inward into their own geographic communities for objects which would fill the personal spaces of their own homes. The same drive which earlier in the century prompted them to seek a contrast­

ing view from beyond their own geographic communities, now pulled them

inward to contrast the array of new and unfamiliar experiences which accompany urbanization.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

Chapter IV i Ashley House, Historic Deerfield, Incorporated, Deerfield, Massachusetts, acc. nos. 57.238 A and B.

^Trent, p. 60. 3 On loan at the Connecticut. Historical Society, Hartford from the Old State House, Hartford, Connecticut, uncataloged.

^Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. nos. 1928.1 and 1976.20.

^Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 55.133.1.

^Lyman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1972.383.

^Zimmerman, "Workmanship As Evidence," 299. Q The first chair is at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connect­ icut, acc. no. 1978.58; the second chair is at the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1968.15.2. 9 Morris House, New Haven Colony Historical Society, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. nos.1971.305 A and B.

^Leffingwell Inn, Norwich, Connecticut, acc. no. 193.

11Ashley House, Historic Deerfield, Incorporated, Deerfield, Massachusetts, acc. nos. 2039 A and B.

12Israel Sack, American Antiques from the Israel Sack Collection, II, p. 375. 13 Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1983.10.50; and Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 57.103.4.

■Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 54.21.

^^Richard Brown, "The Emergence of Urban Society in rural Mas­ sachusetts, 1760-1820" Journal of American History, LXI, No. 1 (June 1974) 50.

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

Primary Sources

Byington, Isaac. "Diary of Isaac Byington, 1786-89," unpub. manuscript on deposit in the Downs Manuscript and Microfilm Collection, Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum Library, Winterthur, Delaware. The Cabinet-makers' Philadelphia and London Book of Prices. Philadelphia: Snowden & McCorkle, 1976. Indentures of apprenticeship made by Selectmen of Norwich, Connecticut 1719-1786, 27 documents. On deposit at the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut. Dwight, Timothy. Travels in New England and New York. Edited by Bar­ bara Miller Solomon. 4 Vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1969. Fairfield, District Probate Court Records. Individual dockets on deposit in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut.

Foote, Abigail and Elizabeth. "The Diaries of Abigail and Elizabeth Foote, 1775-1781." Typescript on deposit at the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum Library, Winterthur, Delaware. Hartford, Connecticut Cabinetmakers. At a meeting of the cabinetmakers held in this city, the following resolutions were agreed upon ’Ey us . . . Hartford: n.p., 1792. Hartford District Probate Records. Individual dockets on deposit in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut. Hempstead, Joshua. The Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Connec­ ticut 1711-1758. New London: New London County Historical Society, 1901. The Journeymen Cabinet and Chairmakers Philadelphia Book of Prices. Second edition. Philadelphia: Ormod and Conrad, 1975.

Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises or the Doctrine of Handy-Works Applied to the Arts of Smithing, Joinery, Carpentry, Bricklay­ ing. 1703; rpt. New York: Praeger Publishers, 19/0.

62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Mew Haven District Probate Court Records. Individual dockets and micro­ film volumes on deposit in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut. New London District Probate Court Records. Individual dockets on deposit in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut. Norwich District Probate Court Records. Individual dockets on deposit in the Connecticut State Library, Hartford, Connecticut.

Vital Records of Norwich, 1759-1848. Hartford: Society of Colonial Wars in the State of Connecticut, 1913.

Secondary Sources

Andrews, Charles M. The River Towns of Connecticut. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1889. Barbour, Frederick. The Stature of Fine Connecticut Furniture. Pub­ lished by the Author, 1959. Beeman, Richard. "The New Social History and the Search for 'Conmunity' in Colonial America.11 American Quarterly, Vol. XXIX, No. 4 (Fall 1977): 422-443. Benes, Peter. Ttoo Towns: Concord and Wethersfield, A Comparative Exhibition of Regional Culture, 1735-1850. Concord: The Concord Antiquarian Museum, 1982. Berkhofer, Robert. "The TWo New Histories: Competing Paradigms for Interpreting the American Past," Organization of American Historians Newsletter, 2, pp. 9-12. Birdwhist.ell, Ray. ''Conmunciation,1' in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 3. New YorTc: MacMillan Co., and the Free Press, 1969: 24-29. Boyer, Paul and Stephan Nisseribaum. Salem Possessed: 'Die Social Origins of Witchcraft. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

m f c — ------Brown, Michael K. "Scalloped-top Furniture of the Connecticut River Valley,” Antiques Vol. 117, No. 5 (May 1980): 1092-1099.

Brown, Richard. "The Emergence of Urban Society in Rural Massachusetts, 1760-1820," Journal of American History, Vol. IXI, No. 1 (June 1974): 29-51.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

Bulkeley, Houghton. Contributions to Connecticut Cabinetmaking. Hartford: The Connecticut Historical Society, 1967. Bulkeley, Houghton. "The Norwich Cabinetmakers," Connecticut Histo­ rical Society Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 3 (July 1964): 76-85. Bulkeley, Houghton Manuscripts on deposit at the Connecticut Histori­ cal Society, Hartford, Connecticut. Bushman, Richard. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in Connecticut, 1690-1765. New York: W.W. Norton, 1970. Bridenbaugh, Carl. The Colonial Craftsman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Caulkins,Frances Manwaring. History of New London, Connecticut. Published by the Author, 1866. Caulkins, Frances Manwaring. History of Norwich, Connecticut. Pub­ lished by the Author, 1866. "Community in the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1933. II, 702. Cook , Edward M. Jr. The Fathers of the Towns. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. Cooke, Edward S. "The Selective Conservative Taste: Furniture in Stratford, Connecticut, 1740-1800," unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Delaware, 1979. Cooke, Edward S. Fiddlebacks and Crooked-backs: Elijah Booth and Other Joiners in Newtown and Woodbury, 1750-1820. Waterbary: The Mattatuck Historical Society, 1982. Curtis, Dewey Lee. An Exhibition of the Decorative Arts of Ireland. Pennsbury Manor, Morrisville, Pennsylvania, n.d. Daniels, Bruce C. "Connecticut's Villages Become Mature Towns: The Complexity of Local Institutions," William and Mary Quarterly? Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, (July 1980): 429-50.

Davis, Charles, A History of Wallingford, Connecticut, Meriden: private­ ly published, 1870. Decker, Robert Owen. The Whaling City: A History of New London. Chester: The Pequot Press for the New London County Historical Society, 1976.

Demos, John. A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. New Yorlci Oxford University Press, 1970.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

Utawns,, .Joseph. American Furniture; Queen Anne and ChippgndaJ.c Periods. New Yorkl the MacMillan Company. 1952. ’* TSniilleey,, lEtean. Long Island Is My Nation, The Decorative Arte and Crafts­ men, 1640-1830. Setauket: Society of the- Preservation of Long.- .Island Antiquities, 1976. JTallfes, Dean A. Ihe Furniture of Historic Deerfield. Deerfield: Historic Deerfield, Inc. 1976. JEHieming, E. McClung. "Artifact Study: A Proposed Model," Winterthur hu Portfolio 9 Edited by Ian M.G. Quimby. Charlottesvilles Univ- \ ersity Press of Virginia, 1974.

Forman, Benno M. "The Crown and York Chairs of Coastal Connecticut and the Work of the Durands of Milford," Antiques Vol. 105, No. 5: 1147-1154. Forman, Benno M. "Delaware Valley 'Crookt Foot' and Slat-backJ3raire: The Fussell-Savery Connection" in Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 15,.1 No* 1 (Spring 1980): 41-64. Forman, Benno M. "German Influences in Pennsylvania Furniture," Acts of the Pennsylvania Germans. Edited by Scott.T. Swank New York: W.W. Norton and Co. 1983, pp. 102-70. Garvan, Anthony N.B. Architecture and Town Planning in Colonial Con­ necticut. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973. Glassie, Henry. Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analy­ sis of Historic Artifacts" Nashville: University of Tennesee . Press, 1975. GoldsQacarough, Jennifer. New London County Silversmiths 1700-1835. New London: Lyman Allyn Museum, 1969. Grant, .Charles S. Democracy in the Colonial Frontier Town of Kent. .New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1972. GreecflaWj Barry. New England Furniture at Williamsburg. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1974. Gr-evem, Ihilip. Four Generations: Population, Land and Family in Colo- nial Andover, Massachusetts. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, m ------

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

Gross, Robert A. The Minutemen and Their World. New York: Hill and Wang, 1976. Hagler, Katherine Bryant. American Queen Anne Furniture, 172.0-1755. Dearborn, The Edison Institute, 19?6. Hooker, Roland Mather. The Colonial Trade of Connecticut. New Haven: Yale University Press for the Tercentenary Commission, 1936. Hummel, Charles. With Hammer in Hand: The Dominy Craftsmen of East Hampton, New York. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1966. Huntington, Rev. E.B. A Genealogical Memoir of the Lo-Lathrop Family. Ridgefield, Connecticut: Julia M. Huntington, 1884.

Jobe, Brock. "The Boston Furniture Industry, 1720-40" in Whitehall, Walter Muir, ed. Boston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century. Boston: Hie Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1972, pp. 3-48. The John Brown House Loan Exhibition of Rhode Island Furniture. Providence: The Rhode Island Historical Society, 1965.

Kane, Patricia E. Furniture of the New Haven Colony: The Seventeenth- Century Style. New Haven: The New haven Colony Historical Society, 1963. Kane, Patricia E. "The Seventeenth-Century Joined Furniture of Hart­ ford, Connecticut," unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Delaware, 1968. Kane, Patricia E. 300 Years of American Seating Furniture. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1976. Kihn, Ihylis. "Connecticut Cabinetmakers," Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 4 (October 1967): 97-144 and Vol. 33, No. 1 (January 1968): 1-40. Kirk, John T. American Chairs: Queen Anne and Chippendale. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972. Kirk, John T. "The Distinctive Character of Connecticut Furniture," Antiques Vol. 92, No. 4 (October 1967): 524-29. Kubler, George. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67

Lockridge, Kenneth A. A New England Town: The First Hundred Years. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1970. Ludwig, Allan. Graven Images, New England Stonecarving and Its Symbols, 1650-1813T Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1966. Main, Jackson Turner. Connecticut Society in the Era of the American Revolution. Hartford: The American Revolution Bicentennial Commission of Connecticut, 1977. Martin, Margaret E. '*Merchants and Trade of the Connecticut River Valley, 1750-1820," Smith College Studies in History, 24 Nos. 1-4 (October 1938-July 1939). Middlebrook, Louis F. History of Maritime Connecticut During the American------Revolution 1/75-1783. Salem: The Essex Institute,

Miller, Amelia. Connecticut River Valley Doorways: An Eighteenth- Century Flowering. Boston: Boston University for the Dublin Seminar on New England Folklife, 1983. Mitchell, Isabel S. Roads and Road-Making in Cblonial Connecticut. New Haven: Yale University Press for the Tercentenary Commis­ sion, 1933. Morse, John D., ed. Country Cabinetwork and Simple City Furniture. CharlottesvilleT The University Press of Virginia, 1970.

Mayhew, Edgar, and Minor Myers, Jr. New London County Furniture, 1640- 1860. New London: Lyman Allyn Museum, 1974. Noyes, Colonel Henry E. Genealogical Record of Some of the Noyes De­ scendants . Privately Published, 1904.

Nutting, Wallace. Furniture Treasury. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. 19281------Onuf, Peter S. "New Lights in New London: A Group Portrait of the Separatists," William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3 (October 1980): ' 6 2 7 - 5 0 . ------Palmer, Frederic. "Hempstead House in New London," Connecticut Antiquarian, Vol. x, No. 1, 6-33. Perkins, Mary E. Old Houses of the Ancient Town of Norwich, 1660- 1800. Norwich, The Bulletin Club, 1895.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

Peters, Rev. Samuel. General History of Connecticut. 1781; rpt. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1877. Pitkin, A.P. Pitkin Family of America. Privately Published, 1887. Porter, George S. Inscriptions from Gravestones in the Old Burying Ground, Norwich Town, Connecticut? Norwich: The Society of the Founders of Norwich, 1933. Powell, Sumner Chilton. Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England Town. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1963. Prawn, Jules David. "Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method," Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring 1982): 1-19. Prown, Jules David. "Style as Evidence," Winterthur Portfolio Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1980): 197-21$: Putnam, Eben. A History of the Putnam Family. Salem: Salem Press, 1891.

Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Redfield, Robert. The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i960.

Reynolds, Ronna L. Images of Connecticut Life. Hartford: The Anti­ quarian and Landmarks Society, 1978. Reynolds, Ronna L. "Wethersfield People and Their Portraits," Antiques Vol. 109, No. 3 (March 1976): 528-33.

Sack, Israel. American Antiques from the Israel Sack Collection. Washington, D.C.: Hyland House, 1974.

St. George, Robert Blair. "Fathers, Sons and Identity: Woodworking Artisans in Southeastern New England, 1720-1700," The Crafts­ man in Early America. Edited by Ian M.G. Quimby. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1984, pp. 89-125. Seymour, George Dudley. "The Governor Saltonstall House, Branford" Connecticut Antiquarian, Vol. 10, No. 2 (December 1958): 10-25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Slater, James A. and Ralph A. TUcker, "The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of John Hartshorne" in Puritan Gravestone Art II Boston: Boston University, 1979. Stiles, Henry. The History of Ancient Wethersfield. New York: The Grafton Press, 1904. 2 Vol.s Stout, Henry and Peter Onof. "James Davenport and the Great Awakening in New London," Journal of American History Vol. 70, No. 3 (December 1983): 556-578. Swan, Susan Burrows. "Worked Pocketbooks," Antiques, Vol. 108, No. 2. (February 1975): 298-303. Sweeney, Kevin M. "Furniture and Fumiture-Making in Mid-eighteenth Century Wethersfield, Connecticut," Antiques 125, No. 5 (May 1984): 1156-1163. Three Centuries of Connecticut Furniture. 1735-1935. Hartford: The Tercentenary Commission of the State o F Connecticut, 1935. Trent, Robert F. Hearts and Crowns: Folk Chairs of the Connecticut Coast. New Haven: New Haven Colony Historical Society, 15777 Van Dusen, Albert E. "Samuel Huntington: A Leader of Revolutionary Connecticut," Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin Vol. 19 No. 2 (April 1954): 38-62. Watkins, Susan Finlay. "Connecticut Needlework in the Webb-Deane- Stevens Museum," Antiques Vol. 109, No. 3 (March 1976): 542-44. Weider, Lois M. "Wethersfield, the Most Ancient Town in Connecticut," Antiques, Vol. 109, No. 3 (March 1976): 516-17. Weil, Martin Eli. "A Cabinetmaker's Price Book," In American Furniture and Its Makers, Winterthur Portfolio~l3~ Edfited by Ian M.G. Quimby Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 175-192. Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford Unviersity Kiss, 1976. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and literature. Oxford:Oxford Univer­ sity Press, T5777

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

Zimmerman, Riilip D. "The Artifact as Historical Source Material; A Comparative Study of Philadelphia Chippendale Chairs", unpub. M.A. Thesis, University of Delaware, 1980. Zimmerman, Riilip D. "Workmanship As Evidence; A Model for Object Study," Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 16, No. 4, (Winter 1981): 283-307. Zuckerman, Michael. Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the Eighteenth Century. New York; Alfred A. KnopF, 1970.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

Figure 2: Map of Connecticut River Valley and coastal Connecticut highlighting towns where chairs in groups one and two were owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

Figure 3: Joined chair, Wethersfield, Connecticut, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 41 1/2", SH: 17” , 0W: 19 1/4", OD: 17 1/2". Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. no. 1963.10. Descended from Dr. Ezekiel Porter (1707-1775).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

Figure 4: Detail of seat construction on Porter chairs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

Figure 5: Joined chair, Wethersfield, Connecticut, 1735-50, birch. OH: 40 1/2", SH: 17 1/2*, OW: 21", OD: 19". Webb-Deane- Stevens Museum, Wethersfield, Connecticut, acc. no. 1980.25 . Descended from Sarah Noyes Chester (1722-1797).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

Figure 6: Joined chairs, Saybrook, Connecticut, 1740-1770, walnut. OH: 41 1/2", SH: 17 3/4", OW: 18 7/8", OD: 15 5/8". Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1935.2.2.1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

Figure 7: Tea Table, Saybrook, Connecticut, 1740-70, maple. OH: 27 1/4", OW: 30 1/2", OD: 26 1/4". Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1973.113.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

Figure 8: Joined chair, probably Norwich. Gormectiuct, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 41", SH: 17", 0W: 19", OD: 15". The Leffingwell Inn, Norwich, Connecticut, acc. no. 63.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

Figure 9: Joined chair, New London County, 1735-60, maple. OH: 41", SH: 17", OW: 18 1/2", 0D: 15 1/2*. Joshua Hempstead House, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1982.7.6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

Figure 10: Joined chair, probably New London, Connectiuct, 1735-60. cherry. OH: 41", SH: 17", OW: 25", OD: 17 1/2". Privately owned, may have originally belonged to Governor William Pitkin of Hartford (1694-1769).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

Figure 11s Joined chair, probably New London, Connecticut, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 41 1/2", SH: 17 1/2", OW: 20 3/4", OD: 16 1/4". New Haven Colony Historical Society, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. no. 1979.19. Descended from Gurdon Saltonstall (1708- 1785) .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

Figure 12: Joined chair, owned in East Hartford, Connecticut, 1735-60 , cherry. OH: 41", SH: 16 7/8", OW: 20", OD: 15 3/4". Webb- Deane-Stevens Museum, Wethersfield, Connecticut, acc. no. 1968.18a.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

Figure 13: Joined chair, Connecticut, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 42” ; SH: 17” , OW: 21” , OD: 16” . Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 60.107. Signed "CHENEY" on the loose seat frame.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

Figure 14: Detail of loose seat frame of chair in Figure 13.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

Figure 15: Joined chair advertised for sale by Israel Sack, Inc. in 1967. Hiotograph from American Antiques in the Israel Sack Collection. Vol. II, p. 526.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

Figure 16: Joined chair, probably Norwich area, Connecticut, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 40 1/2", SH: 17", OW: 20", 0D: 16". Mabel Brady Garvan Collection, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. no. 1930.2416.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Figure 17: Joined chairs, probably made by a Lathrop-Royce chairmaker in Wallingford, Connecticut, 1735-60, maple. OH: 43", SH: 18", OW: 19 1/2", 0D: 16 3/4". Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. acc. nos. 46.104.1 and.2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

Figure 18: Detail of crewel work chair seat cover. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 46.194.3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

Figure 19: Detail of crewel work chair seat cover. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 46.194.4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

Figure 20: Front view of canvas work pocketbook, 1740-60. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 53.179.15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

Figure 21: Back view of canvas work pocketbook, 1740-60. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no. 53.179.15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 22: Joined chair, probably made by a Lathrop or Norwich, Con­ necticut, 1735-60, mpale. OH: 43", SH: 18 1/2", OW: 19", OD: 15". Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 58.2220.* Descended from Colonel Simon and Martha lathrop of Norwich.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

s&Smtrt . ‘

Figure 23: Tracings taken from chairs in figures 17 and 22.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vO CO (1688-1757) Joseph** Carpenter (d. (d. 1783) Zebedlah** Carpenter Joiner (1661-1760) (1706-83) Carpenter ionrich Solooon** Turner/ **Joe*ph1 ' 1753) Carpenter (1726-71) (1692- Carpenter Saauel** Turner/ Abigail ) 8 •1) 17. (1687- Xsraal (1711 Carpenter 'Israel** Eseklel**’ Joiner (1659- Carpenter/ **larsal 1752) ) (1690- John** 7 Carpenter - 1725 ( Eunice 1753) Joiner (1719- Kxra** Carpenter/ L Wall lngford Wall 1778) 1778) (1688- Cooper William* William* 1778) (1740- (1765- ) Isaac Isaac Joiner (1733-63) Elisabeth 1796) (1707- Jabex (1742*66) HexabUh (1621-1700) S « m I Lothrop Carpenter/Joiner Ebenesar Devotion (1696- c.1714) (1696- l)Mary 2)Hartha Martha Carpenter/Joiner Wallingford ,rr (1689- (1715-7) Hartha 1754) (1685- Saaual Cardlnar Joiner Futnaa 3)Cen. Israel 2)John 1760) 1807) (1781-1805) (1782- Joshua' Druggist lulus Goldsalthf horvlch (d. 1706) 1774) (1681- t b o M S (1717-77) Avery (171ft- 'Deborah— -DCphreia trra**' (IPI2-82) Dmgglat topco (J650-1732) loyce 'Daniel — Isaac Samiel Sarah-— Hatbaniel (1680-c.1753) John** Joiner/Turner Wallingford Wallingford Turntr (1670-1766) Joiner/ Wallingford Joiner Carpenter/ Hilllii|(ord Post tilth J o h n to?e« (1645-1688) gonrlcb Figure 24: Genealogical Chart Showing the lothrop-Royce Family ** Indicates extantprobate inventorywith woodworking tools

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

Figure 25: Joined chair, Wethersfield, Connecticut, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 40 1/2” , SH: 17", OW: 18 1/2", OD: 15 1/4". Privately owned. Descended in the Welles family of Wethersfield.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

Figure 26: Back view of chair in figure 25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

Figure 27: Joined chair, New London County, 1735-60, cherry. OH: 42 3/4", SH: 17 1/2", OW: 19", OD: 16". Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1964.38.9.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

Figure 28: TUrned armchair, Groton, C-.onnecticut, 1710-50, maple. OH: 47", SH: 17 1/2", QW: 23 1/4"; OD: 17 1/4*. Privately owned, descended in a Groton family.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

MIPS

Figure 29: Turned chair, Groton, Connecticut, 1710-50, mpale. OH: 44 1/2", SH: 18 3/4", OW: 19 1/2", OD: 15". Buckingham House, Mystic Seaport Museum, Mystic, Connecticut, acc. no. 54.1603

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

Figure 30: Turned chair, Groton, Connecticut, 1710-50, maple. OH: 42", SH: 16", OW: 19 1/4", OD: 15". Privately owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

Figure 31: Slatback armchair, attributed to the Buddinetons of Fair­ field, 1740-70, maple. OH: 49” , SH: 17 3/4w , OW: 23", OD: 17 1/2". Ogden House, Fairfield Historical Society, Fairfield, Connecticut, acc. no. 1976.18.5. Descended in the Ogden family of Fairfield.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

Figure 32: Detail of lower rail on chair in figure 31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 33: Detail of lower rail on chair in figure 17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 34: Corner chair, Wallingford, Connecticut, possibly by a member of the Lathrop-Royce family, 1735-60, maple. OH: 30 1/2"; SH: 15 3/4", OW: 18". Connecticut Historical Society, Hart­ ford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1969.55. Descended in the Royce family of Wallingford.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

flMOOB ISLKtib

Figure 35: Map of the Connecticut River Valley and coastal towns showing the pattern of networks 1720-60.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

Figure 36: Comer chair, New London, Connecticut, 1740-60. Privately owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

Figure 37: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1735-60, OH: 33 1/4"; SH: 17 1/2", OW: 19 1/2". Privately owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

Figure 38: Joined chair Boston Mo i OH: 40", SHt ’if8;‘w J ^ s^huaetts l73°-50, „al„ut. du Pont Winterthur Museum inn^ * Ifenry Francis acc. no. 54.523 m s e u m » Winterthur, Delaware,

Reproduced with permission of tho P ss,on of the copynght owner. Further reomn„rr reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

Figure 39: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1745-70, maple. OH: 41", SH: 16 3/4", OW: 19", 0D: 14 1/2". Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1983.16. Descended from General Israel and Deborah Lathrop Putnam.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

Figure 40: Fiddleback chair, New London, Connecticut, 1780-95, maple. OH: 38 3/4", SH: 16 3/4"; OW: 21", OD: 15*. Thomas Lee House, East Lyme Historical Society, Niantic, Connecticut, uncataloged.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

Figure 41: Fiddleback chair, New London, Connecticut, 1795-1810, maple. On loan at the Thomas Lee House, East Lume Historical Society, Niantic, Connecticut from the Lyman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1952.76.

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

Figure 42s Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1745-70, maple. OH: 40 1/2", SH: 17", OW: 21 1/4", OD: 20 5/8". Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 54.544.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 43s Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1745-70, maple. OH: 41 1/4", SH: 17", OW: 19", OD: 14 5/8". Privately owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

BBBeaajgSftgK» ■ « V11

V^i^nKi*St& i?.

Figure 44: Joined chair, Norwich or New London, Connecticut, 1745-70, maple. OH: 40", SH: 16 3/4", OW: 20 1/8", OD: 16 1/4". Lyman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, acc. no. 1968.74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

Figure 45; Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1760-95, cherry. OH: 40 1/2", SH: 17 1/4", OW: 19 1/2", OD: 17". Ashley House, Historic Deerfield, Incorporated, Deerfield, Massachusetts, acc. no. 57.238B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115

Figure 46: Comer chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1760-69, cherry. OH: 46 3/4", SH: 17", OW: 19 3/4". On loan at the Connecticut Historical Society from the Old State House, Hartford, Connecticut, uncatatloged. Belonged to Governor William Pitkin of Hartford.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

. . a id

Figure 47: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1760-69, cherry. OH: 42", SH: 17 1/2", OW: 21 1/4", OD: 16 1/2". Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1976.20. Belonged to Governor William Pitkin of Hartford.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

Figure 48: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1760-90, cherry. OH: 41 15/16 , SH: 17*, OW: 21", OD: 16 1/2*. Henry Francis du Font Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 55.133.1.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

Figure 49: Joined chair, Norwich or Colchester, Connecticut, 1770-1810, mahogany. OH: 37 1/2", SH: 16 3/4", CW: 21 1/2", OD: 17". Lyman Allyn Museum, New London, Connecticut, accession number 1972.383.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

Figure 50: Joined chair, Norwich or Colchester, Connecticut, 1770-1810, mahogany. OH: 37 1/2", SH: 17", OW: 21", OD: 17*'. Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1978.58.

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

120

Figure 51: Joined chair, Norwich or Colchester, Connecticut, 1770- 1810, mahogany. OH: 37 5/8"; SH: 17 1/4"; OW: 21 1/4"; OD: 17 5/8 . Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut, acc. no. 1968.15.2. Descended in the Hebard family of Lebanon.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

Figure 52: Joined chair, Norwich or Colchester, 1770-1810, mahogany. OH: 36 7/8” , SH: 18", OW: 20 1/2", OD: 17 1/2". Morris House, New Haven Colony Historical Society, New Haven, Connecticut, acc. no. 1971.305A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122

Figure 53: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1780-1810, cherry. OH: 37 1/8” , SH: 17 1/4” , OW: 20 1/4” , OD: 16 5/8” . Leffingwell Inn, Norwich, Connecticut, acc. no. 193.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

*" * !* ** ‘ i •* * *'“ f'i*tl" e

7 .v.j-’’1 ? -. -‘ i;,':*./ . ' - '4 j.“ t VJ *‘.''fy.v1ii"*,.v4

-"•'!• '■■■:'. ■ ■ , ! *j' mmmMmMi

^« g.«.. i«11->.

Figure 54: Joined chair, Norwich, Connecticut, 1780-1810, cherry. OH: 37 5/8", SH: 17 1/4", OW: 20 1/2", OD: 17 1/4". Ashley House, Historic Deerfield, Inc., Deerfield, Massachusetts, acc. no. 2039A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.24

Figure 55: Slatback chair, probably Colchester, Connecticut, 1790-1810, cherry. OH: 42 7/8"; SH: 16 1/2", OW: 20 1/4", OD: 15 3/8". Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Dela­ ware, acc. no. 57.103.4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 5

Figure 56: Joined chair, East Windsor, Connecticut, 1770-1810, cherry. OH: 38", SH: 16 1/2", OW: 22 3/4", OD: 22". Henry Francis du Font Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware, acc. no. 54.21.

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