Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell ft Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/321-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "THE CONSUMMATION OF EMPIRE": THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY BEDCHAMBER SUITE

Catherine L. Whalen

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with a major in Early American Culture

Summer 1998

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1391758

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "THE CONSUMMATION OF EMPIRE": THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY BEDCHAMBER SUITE

Catherine L. Whalen

Approved:

Bernard L. Herman, Ph.D.

Professor in charge of thesis

Approved:

JameyC. Curtis, Ph.D.

Directooof the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture

Approved:

John/C. Cavanaugh, Ph.D.

Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning

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

Firstly, I would like to thank my advisor Bernard L. Herman for the many fruitful

conversations and patient guidance that ultimately shaped the following work. Director James Curtis ensured that I came to Winterthur, for which I am most grateful. During my first year of course work, Professor Gretchen Buggeln provided an invaluable foundation for material culture scholarship and encouraged intellectual curiosity. Curators Wendy

Cooper, Donald Fennimore, Charles Hummel, and Sherry McFowble contributed their expertise and resources. Librarian Neville Thompson provided inestimable assistance and exercised remarkable tolerance on my behalf. Conservators Greg Landrey, Mike

Podmaniczky, Mark Anderson, and Linda Eaton were unfailingly helpful. Professor Wayne Craven and Ellen Miles, Curator, National Portrait Gallery, offered their insights regarding the Vansyckel family portrait Kathleen Milley kindly provided me with information gleaned from her unpublished notes regarding Philadelphia outward coastwise

shipping manifests as they pertained to cabinetmaker Isaac Jones. John Courtney shared his observations, research and conclusions regarding the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, for

which I am most appreciative. Roger Moss, Director of The Athenaeum of Philadelphia,

was extremely generous with his time, knowledge and resources as I researched objects owned by the Vansyckel family; his assistance to the project was invaluable. I also wish to thank Peter Strickland for contributing his recollections and suggestions. The Lois F. McNeil Fellowship made it possible for me to pursue my degree. My

friends and colleagues at Winterthur offered me the personal support and the opportunities

to exchange ideas that made my work more enjoyable and better informed. My parents

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. James and Barbara Whalen have unhesitatingly and lovingly supported my endeavors, as have my sister Beth and my brother Tom; to them I am profoundly grateful. Most of all, I am indebted to my husband Benjamin Caldwell, whose support and encouragement has ranged from drawing illustrations to inspiring me to believe in my own potential; it is to him that I wish to dedicate this work.

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

LIST OF FIGURES...... vii ABSTRACT...... xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 The Vansyckel Family History ...... 2 The Vansyckel Family Bedchamber Suite ...... 3 Artifact and Audience...... 4 Notes to Chapter 1 ...... 6

2 AMERICAN EMPIRE AND CLASSICAL TASTE...... 7 Federal Philadelphia: Republic or Empire? ...... 8 Empire's Capital: Philadelphia Versus New Y ork ...... 10 Notes to Chapter 2 ...... 15

3 THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF ANTE-BELLUM PHILADELPHIA 17 Notes to Chapter 3 ...... 21

4 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY EMPIRE...... 22 Notes to Chapter 4 ...... 34

5 THE VANSYCKEL HOUSEHOLD...... 37 Notes to Chapter 5 ...... 57

6 ELIJAH AND SARAH VANSYCKEL'S BEDCHAMBER...... 60 Notes to Chapter 6 ...... 76

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 THE VANSYCKEL BEDCHAMBER SUITE...... 78 Dressing Bureau ...... 81 Wardrobes ...... 84 Washstand...... 86 Secretary Desk ...... 87 Bedstead...... 88 Bed Steps ...... 90 A Cultural Hierarchy of Beds ...... 93 Finishes and Decoration ...... 97 Isaac Jones ...... 102 Late Neoclassicism in DomesticInteriors in Philadelphia ...... I l l Neoclassicism and French Empire ...... 114 Personal Taste ...... 117 Tradition ...... 119 Gender and Identity ...... 127 Notes to Chapter 7 ...... 131

8 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY PORTRAIT ...... 141 Notes to Chapter 8 ...... 146

9 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILYENCLAVE ...... 147 Notes to Chapter 9 ...... 155

10 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY PLOT...... 157

Notes to Chapter 10 ...... 165

11 K IN SH IP...... 167 Vansyckel Family Artifacts ...... 172 Notes to Chapter 11 ...... 175

12 CONCLUSION...... 177

APPENDIX A: FIGURES...... 180 APPENDIX B: ELIJAH VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY...... 252 APPENDIX C: ROBERT VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY...... 264 APPENDIX D: SARAH VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY...... 267 APPENDIX E: 519 ARCH STREET FIRE INSURANCE SURVEY ...... 270 APPENDIX F: PROVENANCE...... 272

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 274

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

1 Philadelphia Empire Bedroom. Vansyckel Bedstead, c. 1833; Isaac Jones.. . . 181 2 Vansyckel Dressing Bureau, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 182 3 Vansyckel Wardrobe, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 183 4 Vansyckel Wardrobe, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 184 5 Vansyckel Washstand, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 185 6 Vansyckel Bed Steps, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 186 7 Vansyckel Secretary Desk, c. 1833; Isaac Jones ...... 187 8 The Children of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel, 1842; L. S. De Bibory ...... 188 9 Vansyckel/Townsend/Pease Ewer, c. 1837-50; J. & W. L. Ward ...... 189 10 Vansyckel Family Plot, Shrubbery Section, Laurel Hill Cemetery ...... 190 11 Elijah Vansyckel's Gravestone, Laurel Hill Cemetery...... 191 12 Vansyckel Family Plot Plan, Lots 19 to 23, Shrubbery Section, Laurel Hill Cemetery ...... 192 13 The Course of Empire: Consummation o f Empire, 1836; Thomas Cole 193

14 "United States Bank, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.” Plate 2 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views o f Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity (1838) ...... 194

15 "Merchants' Exchange, Philadelphia.” Plate 3 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views of Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity (1838) ...... 195 16 Philadelphia [map], detail; 1840...... 196 17 "Fairmount, Philadelphia." Plate 1 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views of Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity (1838) ...... 197 18 The State Penitentiary, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1855; Samuel Cowperthwaite (convict no. 2954). Published by P. S. Duval & C o.. 198

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Smythe Stores, c. 1855-57; northwest comer of Front and Arch Streets, Philadelphia, 1997 ...... 199 20 Uncompleted c. 1848-50 survey map of Philadelphia showing the locations of 74, 75 and 77 N. Front Street ...... 200 21 First floor plan of 136 N. Second Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 8734 made for Elijah Vansyckel, April 6, 1848 ...... 201 22 Advertisement for Leary & Getz Booksellers and Publishers. In O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory d Circular for the Year 1853 ...... 202 23 North side of Arch Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets ...... 203 24 First floor plan of 519 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, December 30, 1862 ...... 204 25 521 Arch Street (right); 1911 ...... 205 26 521 Arch Street, rear (left); 1911...... 206 27 Advertisement for E. Vansyckel & Son. In The Mercantile Register, or Business Man's Guide (1846) ...... 207 28 "Arch Street, with the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia." Drawn, engraved and published by William Birch and Son in The City o f Philadelphia in the State o f Pennsylvania; as It Appeared in the Year 1800 ...... 208 29 [Second Presbyterian] "Church in Seventh Street:-Built in 1837." In E R. Beadle, The Old and the New, 1743-1876: the Second Presbyterian Church o f Philadelphia (1876) ...... 209 30 "The Plan of a Design for a twenty feet Front." Plate 40 in John Haviland, The Builders' Assistant, vol. 1 (1818) ...... 210

31 "Elevation of Plate 40." Plate 50 in John Haviland, The Builders' Assistant, vol. 1 (1818) ...... 211 32 Conjectural Floor Plan for 189 Mulberry Street ...... 212 33 James J. Vansyckel's Bohemian Glass Toilet Set, c. 1858 ...... 213 34 "Emmet Armstrong Van Syckel." In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943)...... 214

35 "Harry Van Syckel." In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943) ...... 215

36 Front chamber of house No. 42 South 8th Street. Residence of J. S. Russell in 1835, 1835; Joseph Shoemaker Russell ...... 216

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 Dressing Bureau, 1830; Walter Pennery ...... 217 38 "Bureau Feet; Sideboard Feet; Card, Breakfast and Loo table Feet; Sofa Feet." Plate 3 in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware (1828) ...... 218

39 "Cabinet-Maker." In Edward Hazen, The Panorama of Professions and Trades; or Every Man's Book (1839) ...... 219 40 Joseph Meeks & Sons' Manufactury of Cabinet and Upholstery Articles, 43 & 45, Broad-Strect, New York; 1833. Published by George Endicott and Moses Swett ...... 220 41 Pier Table, attributed to Anthony Quervelle ...... 221

42 Untitled Plate (Bed). In James Barron, Modern & Elegant Designs o f Cabinet & Upholstery Furniture (c. 1814) ...... 222 43 "Lit de Fantaisie ." Plate 142 in Pierre de La Mdsang&re, Collection des Meubles et Objets de Go&t (1802-1835) ...... 223

44 "A French Bed." Plate 23 in Rudolph Ackermann, A Series, Containing Fourty-Four Engravings in Colours, o f Fashionable Furniture (1823) ...... 224 45 "Bed Steps." In Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator (1826-27) ...... 225 46 Vansyckel Bedstead; detail of headboard during treatment ...... 226 47 Upright Piano, c. 1835; C. F. L. Albrecht ...... 227 48 "Greek Pateras." In Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator (1826-27) ...... 228

49 Vansyckel Bedstead; detail of column capital and cornice ...... 229

50 Corbit Sideboard, 1831; Isaac Jones ...... 230 51 "Design for a Mantle." Plate 24 in John Haviland, The Builders' Assistant, vol. 1 (1818) ...... 231

52 "Grecian Architecture." Plate 97 in John Haviland, The Builders' Assistant, vol. 2 (1819) ...... 232

53 Card Table from William Wain's drawing room suite, c. 1808-10. Designed by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, constructed by Thomas Wetherill, and painted by George Bridport ...... 233

54 French Empire Pier Table, c. 1800-10. Formerly owned by Joseph Bonaparte and installed at "Point Breeze," Bordentown, New Jersey ...... 234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 "Englifh State Bed." Plate 19 in Thomas Sheraton, Appendix to The Cabinet- Maker and Upholsterer's Drawing Book (3rd ed., 1802) ...... 235 56 Children o f Commodore and Mrs. John Daniel Danels, Albermarle Street, Baltimore, c. 1825-26; attributed to Robert Street ...... 236 57 The Coleman Sisters, 1844; Thomas Sully ...... 237 58 1518 and 1520 Arch Street, 1910 ...... 238 59 First floor plan of 1518 and 1520 Arch Streets, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 7972 made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 9, 1847 ...... 239 60 South side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets ...... 240 61 North side of Arch Street looking west from Fifteenth Street, detail; 1917.... 241 62 North side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets ...... 242 63 First floor plan of 1509 and 1511 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 12049 made for Elijah Vansyckel, July 27, 1850 ...... 243

64 First floor plan of 1505 and 1507 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 24554 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, August 12, 1856 ...... 244 65 1805 Walnut Street, 1922 ...... 245 66 2000 block of Walnut Street, south side, showing partial view of Second Presbyterian Church (right); c. 1920 ...... 246

67 "General View of Laurel Hill Cemetery." In Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1844) ...... 247

68 "Ground Plan of Laurel Hill Cemetery." In Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1844) ...... 248

69 "Mary Smith (Van Syckel) Townsend." In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943) ...... 249 70 "Pauline Townsend." In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943) ...... 250

71 French Compote, c. 1820-40; probably Paris ...... 251

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

The following study interprets the Vansyckel family bedchamber suite, executed by Philadelphia cabinetmaker Isaac Jones circa 1833 in the late classical taste or so-called Empire style, within a multi-layered conception of "empire." The many manifestations of "empire" encompass the intersection of imperialism (subjugation, colonization and exploitation), categories of art historical style (Neoclassicism, including Empire and Greek

Revival) and patriarchy. The Vansyckel family bedchamber suite is a relic of the small-

scale urban order that Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel constructed in ante-bellum Philadelphia through their business, real estate, children, personal possessions, and associations. As objects that concretized and enacted the Vansyckels' "empire," the bedchamber suite operated in concert with similar "monuments," such as a family portrait painted by L. S. De

Bibory in 1842, the family enclave that Elijah Vansyckel established on either side of Arch

Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets, and the family plot in Laurel Hill Cemetery.

In turn, the Vansyckels' realm flourished within the larger project of American empire

evident in Philadelphia during the first half of the nineteenth century. Situated within a complex network of social relations, the Vansyckel bedchamber suite and related artifacts were the loci of empire's operations commingled with those of intimacy, kinship and

display. Together, they staked and structured a family microcosm, concomitant with public

and private manifestations of imperialism ranging from Greek Revival architecture and decorative arts to ante-bellum political and social upheavals.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Objects exist not only in physical space, but also in the consciousness and memory

of those who encounter them. Realized through the minds and hands of their makers, artifacts are refashioned by the succession of individuals who interact with them. In the imagination, objects become linked with past events and future hopes; time and distance collapse in their physical presence. Dynamically situated within social relationships, artifacts are actors in human dramas. From moment to moment and person to person, their

meanings vary and shift as they are constantly negotiated. For all makers, "author” and

"audience” alike, cultural milieu and individual competency inform their practice; like history, objects are remade over and over again, never the same way twice, always for the present How, then, does one trace the what might be called the historical morphology of objects? How do they come to be, how do they continue to be, and in relation to whom? How might one unravel the network of "makings" or "practice" surrounding a particular group of artifacts?1

A group of objects linked by their common association with the family of Elijah

Vansyckel (1788-1855), a wealthy wine and liquor merchant in ante-bellum Philadelphia,

provoked the foregoing series of questions. Foremost among them is an enormous temple like bed and suite of matching furniture, executed circa 1833 by cabinetmaker Isaac Jones (c. 1794-1868) in the late "classical taste" or so-called Empire style (Figs. 1-7). Other extant artifacts that the Vansyckels once owned include a family portrait (Fig. 8), a silver

ewer (Fig. 9), and a biography of Napoleon; in addition, their descendants maintain a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. family plot in Laurel Hill Cemetery (Figs. 10-12). All are relics of the small-scale urban order that Elijah Vansyckel and his wife Sarah constructed through their business, children, homes, real estate, and investments as well as religious and civic affiliations.

The term "Empire" as it applies to decorative arts derives from the style of art and architecture that flourished during the early 1800s under the aegis of Napoleon Bonaparte; it also connotes the practices of imperialism epitomized by his regime. More generically, "empire” refers to a significant enterprise or holding under the control of a single powerful entity, as in the Vansyckel family empire. As artifacts that concretized and enacted their "empire," the Vansyckels' bedchamber suite, family portrait and other household objects operated in concert with similar "monuments." Notable among them were the series of

town houses that Elijah Vansyckel built or purchased for his married children in the 1840s and 50s, all located on Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets; and ultimately, the Vansyckel family plot at Laurel Hill Cemetery. The Vansyckels' realm, in turn, existed in relation to and was reified by manifestations of American imperialism in Philadelphia during the first half of the nineteenth century, ranging from Greek Revival architecture and decorative arts to ante-bellum political and social upheavals. Thus empire, encompassing

both its characteristic modes of subjugation, colonization and exploitation as well as

categories of art historical style (Neoclassicism, including Empire and Greek Revival)

describes a multi-layered construct in which one might situate the constellation of objects once owned by the Vansyckel family, and begin to uncover traces of their makings and re makings.

The Vansvckel Family History

In the fragmentary trail of material residue left behind by the Vansyckels, a family

history published in 1880 provides a starting point for retrospection. In the beginning,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. there were the Vansyckels; or so A History o f the Van Sickle Family, in the United States o f America would have us believe. Written by descendant John W. Van Sickle, it commences with the origin of the earth and concludes with the accomplishments of various

Vansyckels. The book's title alone suggests the author's desire to memorialize both his family and himself. Not only does he offer us "A History of the Van Sickle Family, in the United States of America" and "a Full Biographical Sketch of the Author," he presents them both as the culmination of centuries of evolution. Van Sickle begins his narrative

with "the Early History of the World" and "the Early History of the Aborigines," then commences to "the Early History of America" and "the Early History of the Netherlands." Having recapitulated these bygone eras in sixty pages, he devotes the next one hundred and seventy pages to the Vansyckels themselves, chronicling the derivation of their names, their

"Ancestral Lineage," genealogy, biographical sketches of their "Most Distinguished Members," and "Family Record." While one could categorize A History of the Van Sickle Family as a public document, most likely family descendants were its principal audience, for whom it constituted an origin story. A numerous but select group, they were connected

by their readings of a family history that placed them at the top of the human evolutionary

scale, glorified their Dutch-American heritage and distinguished them from an influx of more recently-arrived immigrants.2

The Vansvckel Family Bedchamber Suite

If A History o f the Van Sickle Family, in the United States o f America is one

artifact that monumentalizes the Vansyckels, the bedstead that Isaac Jones made for Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel in the early 1830s, now in the collection of the Winterthur Museum,

is another. When museum visitors first encounter the Vansyckel bed in its period room setting, they often express amazement at its sheer size and grandeur (Fig. 1). The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. surrounding suite of furniture, similarly finished in mahogany and rosewood with carved and gilt ornament, furthers such an impression. It consists of two massive wardrobes and a dressing bureau seemingly scaled to super-human height, a scroll-legged washstand; and perhaps most remarked upon after the bed itself, a set of bed steps that lead up to the

elevated plane of the mattress (Figs. 2-6). Opposite the bed hangs L. S. De Bibory's

portrait of four of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's eight children, lushly rendered in oil paint and surrounded by an ornate gilt frame (Fig. 8). A flamboyant secretary desk, once also part of the suite, is now in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Fig. 7).

Artifact and Audience

The Vansyckels' family history and bedchamber suite, works of different makers over time and space, attest to their trans-generational investment in imposing self- presentations. Yet each of these artifacts enacted different roles for distinct audiences. Published, literally "made public," A History of the Van Sickle Family announced to the

world the Vansyckels' rightful place in it, but presumably reached only interested descendants. Fifty years earlier, family in a more immediate sense constituted the primary

audience for Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's suite of bedchamber furniture. According to

Elijah Vansyckel's 1855 household inventory, the suite of bedchamber furniture occupied the front room in the second story of the Vansyckels' town house at 189 Mulberry (or

Arch) Street While one might assume the suite's principal audience was the married couple themselves, undoubtedly other family members, servants and visitors (including members of the medical profession) encountered it as well. Within the walls of 189 Mulberry Street, the bedchamber suite, family portrait and other household objects structured interactions between husband/wife, parent/child, master/servant, and host/guest.

Individuals associated meanings with them, meanings that they in turn interrelated to their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ongoing interactions with the rest of the Vansyckels' "empire," which included not only the family's places of residence and business, but also the interpersonal relationships that sustained them. In other words, in conceptualizing the Vansyckels as a bourgeois,

patriarchal conjugal family, one might locate their household within "the private sphere" and consign their bedchamber suite to "intimate space;" yet in the practice of their day-today lives so-called "public" and "private" spheres continually infiltrated one another. Inside the house, situated within a complex network of social relations, the Vansyckel

family bedchamber suite and family portrait were loci of the operations of "empire" commingled with those of intimacy, kinship and display. Outside the house, what

comparable dynamics vis-a-vis "empire" were taking place in the urban cultural landscape of ante-bellum Philadelphia?3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER 1

1 Cultural theorists have grappled with similar problems of causality, change and subjectivity, and have located cultural production within a variety of frameworks; Michel Foucault has posited a "positive unconscious of knowledge," while Pierre Bourdieu has described "habitus," an unconscious linguistic and cultural competence governing practice. Michel Foucault, The Order o f Things: an Archaeology o f the Human Sciences, (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. xi. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 170.

2John W. Van Sickle, A History o f the Van Sickle Family, in the United States of America (Springfield, Ohio: John W. Van Sickle, 1880), pp. i, 67. Various spelling of "Van Sickle" include Van Sickelen, Vansicklen, Vansickles, Vansiclen, Vansicklen, Vansicklan, Vansickle, Vansickel, Vansyckel, Van Syckel, Van Syckle, or Van Sickell, etc. John W. Van Sickle presented his own credentials with as much flourish as his family's; he informed his readers that he was a "Consulting Accountant and Physician; Founder and Proprietor of 'Van Sickle's Practical Business College,' Springfield, Ohio; Professor of Physical and Mental Hygiene in the 'American Eclectic Medical College of Ohio,' and Author and Publisher of a 'Practical System of Book-keeping by Single and Double Entry.'"

^For a discussion of the interrelationships of "spheres” in early modem Western societies- pditical public, literary public, social, private, intimate-see JUrgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation o f the Public Sphere, trans. Thomas Burger (Reprint, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991); "The Bourgeois Family and the Institutionalization of a Privateness Oriented to an Audience,: pp. 43-49; "The Tendency toward a Mutual Infiltration of Public and Private Spheres, pp. 1-41-51; and "The Polarization of the Social Sphere and the Intimate Sphere," pp. 151-59.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2 AMERICAN EMPIRE AND CLASSICAL TASTE

During the first half of the nineteenth century, imperialistic practices were by no means exclusively European phenomena, but part and parcel of the burgeoning U. S. expansionism evident in such catch-phrases as "Manifest Destiny," coined in 1845. A decade earlier artist Thomas Cole, in his series The Course o f Empire, gave representation to one vision of American "empire." A group of five paintings that Cole executed in his

New York studio from 1834 to 1836, The Course of Empire chronicled the rise and fall of a fictitious site as it progressed through the following stages: "Savage," "Arcadian," "Consummation of Empire," "Destruction of Empire," and "Desolation." While the series might seem like a cautionary tale decrying human hubris, the third painting in the group, The Course o f Empire: Consummation o f Empire (Fig. 13) clearly relied on classical

imagery to conjure up a scene of what Cole himself described as "the summit of human

glory,” in which "man has conquered man--nations have been subjugated." According to Cole's published description of his painting, "the architecture, the ornamental embellishments, &c., show that wealth, power, knowledge, and taste have worked

together, and accomplished the highest meed of human achievement and empire." Cole's

use of classical imagery may have reminded his audience that in Greek and Roman political history, decline followed moral corruption; it also signaled his awareness that for his contemporaries, classical taste connoted ideal beauty and cultural supremacy.1 The Course o f Empire was a critical and popular success, perhaps in part because American reviewers were quick to opine that their nation was destined to bypass the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. descent that Cole's paintings foretold. In the New-YorkMirror, one critic wrote that the series showed "what has been the history of empires and of man" but queried "Will it always be so?" and answered "Philosophy and religion forbid!" He further elaborated: Although such as the painter has delineated it, the fate of individuals has been, still the progress of the species is continued, and will be continued, in the road to greater and greater perfection. When the lust to destroy shall cease, and the arts, die sciences, and the ambition to excel in all good shall characterize man, instead of the pride of triumph, or the desire of conquests, then will the empire of love be permanent.

Virtue coupled with knowledge, then, would lead to the triumph of America's "moral experiment," a society that was both Christian and democratic. Moreover, the establishment of a new Arcadia, free from the burgeoning corruption of eastern cities,

justified westward expansion; thus pastoral paradise would evolve into an eternal empire sanctioned by God.2

While some scholars have argued "that Americans were attracted to classicism because of an affinity with Greek democracy and Roman republicanism," others, such as historian Richard Bushman, have pointed out that "democracy was only occasionally mentioned by authors and artists as a reason for emulating classical civilization." Indeed, Rome was thought to have "reached its highest glory under the emperors rather than during

the republic." Moreover, recent studies of American Neoclassicism suggest that urban

elites advantageously employed it "to articulate the distinctions of class and race and assert their cultural hegemony" rather than demonstrate egalitarian political sentiments.3

Federal Philadelphia: Republic or Empire?

The notion of an American empire was not novel to nineteenth-century

Philadelphians. Material evidence of certain recently independent citizens' belief in their

destiny appears on the inscribed plaque that adorns a Quaker meeting house built on the southwest comer of Arch and Fifth Streets in 1783, across the street from the block on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which the Vansyckel family would later reside. The plaque's inscription reads: "By General Subscription/ for the/ FREE QUAKERS/ Erected in the Year/ of OUR LORD 1783/ of the EMPIRE 8." An 1894 Quaker history recounts that one of the Meeting's members, when "questioned about the reference to the year 'of the Empire 8,'" replied "I tell thee, Friend, it is because our country is destined to be the great empire over all this world.” The quote has an apocryphal ring; late nineteenth-century Americans repeatedly revisited their history in search of sentiments with which to bolster U.S. imperialism abroad. Yet the inscribed plaque suggests that in 1783, at least some Americans envisioned themselves at the dawn of a new empire, perhaps one that in "enlightened" mind rivaled the classical world. Such a vision was fostered by the belief in sequential rise and fall of

civilizations: first Egypt, then Greece, Rome, Renaissance Italy, the court of Louis XIV, and so on to the present. Which culture had reached the greatest heights before its inevitable downfall? What past glory might a new nation aspire to supersede? As did their contemporaries in Europe, Americans of the early republic chose to build their would-be empires with classical taste.4 Around the turn of the nineteenth century, Philadelphians who fancied their city

"the Athens of the Western world" became enamored with Grecian-style architecture. By the early 1830s, the city was full of Greek Revival buildings. Several of the most

prominent were designed by architect William Strickland, such as the Second Bank of the United States, completed in 1824 (Fig. 14); and the Philadelphia or Merchants' Exchange, completed in 1834 (Fig. 15). Indeed, Strickland's buildings are remarkably similar to

those Thomas Cole depicted in The Course of Empire: Consummation of Empire, or vice versa, even though the painter implied that New York City was the model for his fictitious

metropolis. Clearly, however, some of the same ancient Greek buildings-the Parthenon and the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates-inspired both Strickland and Cole. Quite possibly Cole, like Strickland, derived his representations of them from engravings in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. James Stuart's and Nicholas Revett's Antiquities of Athens (London, 1762-1830), a canonical text for American proponents of the Greek Revival.5

Empire's Capital: Philadelphia Versus New York

Buildings such as the Second Bank and the Exchange were important icons for

Philadelphians. They are the sole two illustrations on a city map from 1840 (Fig. 16), for example, even though the Bank's federal charter had been revoked several years before. Moreover, in the coinage of empire-trade, population and wealth-Philadelphia had long since lost its once-preeminent position among American cities to New York. Nonetheless, Philadelphians' persistent deployment of images of their crumbling temples of commerce

suggests their tenacious desire to monumentalize themselves; that is, to claim enduring cultural achievement despite fading political and economic power.6

Early to mid nineteenth-century guide books offer glimpses at the ways in which Philadelphians characterized their city vis-a-vis "empire.1' The opening text of book after book recounted Philadelphia's former glory as first the nation's then as Pennsylvania's capital, its grand architecture, its growing industries, and its rivalry with and ultimate capitulation to New York as the center of U. S. trade. For example, John Adems Paxton's

1810 guide to Philadelphia commenced with "A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA" as follows: PHILADELPHIA, the largest city of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in estimation of size, splendour, and elegance of buildings (both public and private) is the chief city in the United States; contains very extensive manufactories of various descriptions; and in commercial importance, ranks as the second, yielding only to New York, whose vicinity to the ocean keeps her channels with a free intercourse.1

Thirty-six years later, the authors of The Mercantile Register or Business Man's Guide for 1846 were still lamenting the loss of Philadelphia's national-or imperial-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prominence, and offered schemes for recovering the city's former glory. In their guide's introduction, they stated that their purpose was to name the principal causes of Philadelphia's "present secondary rank" then indicate the "means by which we may regain our just metropolitan ascendancy." Once again, the guide's authors cited New York's advantages in foreign commerce, but further blamed Philadelphia's decline on its old- fashioned ways of doing business, both slow and insular. According to these business

men, "a race whose capital lay in their sinews and their hopes" found in New York "a hearty welcome for energy and enterprise-and they returned no more to the city of Fenn.-- Here was a cause, which more than all the others, gave Empire to our salt water rival." The authors' argument suggested that if Philadelphians were in part responsible for their own demise, they could also take charge of their own destiny and reclaim their lost dominion through the sale of their manufactures. Touting the city's capital wealth, proximity to agricultural production, two navigable rivers, and the water works that both protected industry from fire and provided water for its steam engines, The Mercantile Register averred that "no city on earth presents more natural advantages-more real elements of substantial greatness." According to the Register's authors, Philadelphians'

twenty million dollar investment in their "large factories for Woollens, Cottons, Iron,

Sugar, Machinery, &c.”--likened to the temples of ancient Greece-exemplified "productive industry in its highest stage," while the city's future prosperity depended upon the canals and railroads that could link Philadelphia to the markets of the Great Lakes and "the Great West."8 Paxton's 1810 The Stranger's Guide and the 1846 Mercantile Register, separated by over three decades and written for different audiences, offer overlapping but distinct renderings of a would-be imperial Philadelphia. Although both guides emphasized the

world of commerce and bemoaned New York's ascendancy over Philadelphia in that realm, the earlier, more general work foregrounded a systematized plan of Philadelphia, and the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. size and magnificence of its built environment The later guide, directed specifically at business men, exalted the productivity of its industry, founded on exemplary systems of service and transportation. Among Philadelphia's many superlative attributes, for example, The Mercantile Register's authors cited the quintessential emblem of its technological prowess, the Fairmount Water Works (Fig. 17). Completed in 1822 in order to satisfy the

city's growing demand for water, the Water Works were the marvel of their day, an engineering wonder cloaked in the monumental garb of Greek Revival.9 A decade earlier the Fairmount Water Works had been dubbed the "Great Lion" amongst the "Lions of Philadelphia" in Thomas T. Ash and Company's 1837 guide book of the same name, a compilation of over seventy sites to which visitors might pay homage. Similarly touted was the Eastern State Penitentiary (Fig. 18), designed by architect John Haviland. Built in phases from 1823 to 1836, the institution admitted its first prisoners in 1829. If the Water Works exemplified Philadelphians' mastery of their natural environment, the Eastern State Penitentiary materialized their quest for moral order. Its radial plan boasted arm after arm of double-loaded corridors lined with cells for the solitary

confinement of prisoners, who could be supervised from the central hub and by guards

patrolling up and down the various axes. The Quaker reformers and government officials who upheld the Bentham-esque panopticon believed that wrongdoers, forced into isolation except for contact with spiritual advisors, would repent and mend their ways. Instead,

inmates repeatedly went insane, and ultimately the Eastern State Penitentiary's solitary

confinement system fell out of favor. In ante-bellum Philadelphia, however, the institution became, like the Fairmount Water Works, an exemplar for other cities whose citizenry aspired to re-order their societies and re-direct their resources, human or otherwise.

Thousands visited the Penitentiary to witness architecturally-supported human redemption, and hundreds of similar institutions were realized in other cities around the world.10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ironically, Thomas T. Ash and Company's publication of A Guide to lions of Philadelphia coincided with the Panic of IS37, a financial crisis precipitated in part by the

demise of Philadelphia's own Second Bank of United States the year before. Yet in describing the one-time "lion" of national fiscal regulation, the guide's text glossed over the institution's recent demotion. It merely informed readers that the bank was now chartered by the state of Pennsylvania, and claimed that "Its previous history, as the Bank of the United States, is too well known to require any notice in this connection." The presumably familiar story began with the establishment of the first Bank of the United States in Philadelphia in 1791, based on Alexander Hamilton's call for a national bank with uniform

currency. Its initial twenty-year charter expired in 1811, and in 1816 Congress established a second Bank of the United States for another twenty years, once again in Philadelphia. In 1818 the Bank's directors held a design competition for a new building to be located on the south side of Chestnut Street between Fourth and Fifth Streets, near the old State

House. The directors stipulated that the new structure should be "a chaste imitation of Grecian Architecture;" hence William Strickland's winning scheme after the Parthenon in Stuart and Revett's engraving, albeit substantially simplified. Perhaps the Bank's directors

wished to endow the institution with the moral and political heroism of Greek Revival architecture, yet maintain the appearance of fiscal responsibility by employing least

expensive Greek order. The actual structure was unmistakably grand, however, and a potent symbol of Philadelphia's importance to national finances. Certainly the privately-

run Second Bank of United States was powerful enough as both an institution and an icon to rouse the enmity of President Andrew Jackson, who considered it "the embodiment of the monopolistic practices of eastern bankers" and thoroughly anti-democratic. Jackson

vetoed the bill to renew the Bank's charter in 1836 and contributed to the ensuing financial

chaos of the Panic of 1837, precipitated by fluctuations in the world economy, in which the United States was thoroughly enmeshed. Despite the state's re-chartering of the institution

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, it ultimately closed in 1841. Thus a preeminent Philadelphia "lion" was tamed, and New York readily emerged as the country's unrivaled financial center.11

While A Guide to the Lions of Philadelphia, "A Pocket Cicerone for Strangers," highlighted the city's "Objects of Curiosity and Interest" as of 1837, it also read like a eulogy of an erstwhile Philadelphia. The Second Bank of the United States, a long standing emblem of civic pride readily visible in downtown Philadelphia, was already in its death throes. Although the Fairmount Water Works and the Eastern State Penitentiary performed vital services for the Philadelphia, literally and symbolically, they were located outside the city and thus functioned unseen, unless visited during planned excursions or discerned through travel literature. In the context of the pages of Ash's publication, the aura of the lion, a centuries-old symbol of kingly power in western societies, shifted from one of regal masculine might to one of dutiful celebrity tinged with exoticism. Despite its many temples to commerce, industry and civic virtue, the earlier, nationally pivotal Philadelphia to which nineteenth-century guide books so longingly referred was no more.12

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

^George Brown Tindall and David E Shi, America, a Narrative History, 4th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1984), 563; Thomas Cole, printed description of The Course of Empire, published for the public showing of the series in the Exhibition Room of the National Academy of Design, Clinton Hall, New York City, October 17- December 15,1836; as quoted in Ellwood Comly Parry III, Thomas Cole's "The Course o f Empire:" A Study in Serial Imagery (Ann Arbor University Microfilms, 1970), p. 194.

2 "Mr. Cole's Five Pictures," New-York Mirror, 22 October 1836, p. 135; as quoted in Parry, Thomas Cole's "The Course o f Empire," pp. 138, 196-97.

^Richard L. Bushman, "Popular Culture and Popular Taste in Classical America," in Wendy A. Cooper, Classical Taste in America 1800-1840 (Baltimore: The Baltimore Museum of Art; Abbeville Press: New York, London and Paris, 1993), p. 15; Maurie Mclnnis, "The Politics of Taste: Classicism in Charleston, South Carolina, 1815-1840" (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1996), abstract For an example of an oft-repeated explanation for the popularity of the Greek Revival in the United States, see George Tatum, Penn's Great Town (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961) pp. 58-59. According to Tatum, its appeal "lay in the ideas then associated with the culture and institutions of the ancient Greeks. Much as the French had earlier considered the "republican" background of Roman art sufficient justification for its use to express the ideals of the French Revolution, Americans now found that the "democratic" qualities of Greek art made it an especially appropriate model for the new nation." He does not offer specific evidence to support his interpretation. Tatum also suggests that "This belief was re-enforced by the War of Independence (1821-29) by which the Christian Greeks won their freedom from Moslem Turkey in a fashion that seemed to Americans to parallel their own struggle with Great Britain. As a result, the Greek Revival in America achieved something approaching the status of a national style." In the latter instance he cites the widespread appreciation of Hiram Powers' 1843 statue The Greek Slave to bolster his argument. Yet The Greek Slave is a telling example of Christian morality masking what otherwise might have been construed as prurience, and of the mastering gaze outlined by Laura Mulvey in her influential essay "Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema," Screen 16, no. 3 (1975). Classicism was an equally-adept dissembler; Maurie Mclnnis points to ante-bellum Charlestonians' invocation of ancient Greek democracy and its predication on slavery to exculpate their own practices; pp. 67-68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Charles Wetherill, History of the Religious Society of Friends called by some the Free Quakers (39, Philadelphia, 1894) p. 39; as quoted by Edwin B. Bronner, "Quaker Landmarks in Early Philadelphia," "Historic Philadelphia:" Transactions o f the American Philosophical Society 43, Part I (1953): 213; Bushman, "Popular Culture and Popular Taste in Classical America," p. 15. Treatises such as Comte de Volney's The Ruins; or a Survey o f the Revolutions o f Empires, first published in Paris in 1791, popularized cyclical theories of history.

^Benjamin Henry Latrobe, "Anniversary Oration to the Society of Artists," in The Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers o f Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Vol. 3, ed. John C. Van Horne; as quoted in Beatrice B. Garvan, Federal Philadelphia, 1785-1825: The Athens o f the Western World (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art and the University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), p. 39; Parry, Thomas Cole's "The Course of Empire, * pp. 106-9; Agnes Addison Gilchrist, William Strickland: Architect and Engineer, 1788-1854 (Philadelphia- University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950), p. 4; and Agnes Addison Gilchrist, "The Philadelphia Exchange: William Strickland, Architect," "Historic PhiladelphiaTransactions of the American Philosophical Society 43, Parti (1953): 90.

^"Philadelphia" [map] (London: Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1840).

7john Adems Paxton, The Stranger's Guide . . . (Philadelphia: John Adems Paxton, 1810), p. 10.

^The Mercantile Register, or Business Man’s Guide ([Philadelphia], 1846), pp. 9-13.

9jane Mork Gibson and Robert Wolterstorff, "The Fairmount Waterworks," Bulletin, Philadelphia Museum o f Art 84, nos. 360 & 361 (1988): 21.

10a Guide to the Lions o f Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Thomas T. Ash and Company, 1837), pp. vi, vii, 59; Norman Johnston, Kenneth Finkel, and Jeffrey A. Cohen, Eastern State Penitentiary: Crucible of Good Intentions (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1994), pp. 36-43, 59-61, 76-77.

1U Guide to the Lions of Philadelphia ; p. 38; Tindall and Shi, America, a Narrative History, pp. 330-32,397-99,449-57; Tatum, Penn's Great Town, p. 66.

12a Guide to the Lions of Philadelphia, p. i.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3 THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF ANTE-BELLUM PHILADELPHIA

What changes had Philadelphia undergone since its heyday during the mid to late

1700s? To grasp what the city might have been like at the turn of the nineteenth century, one can turn to the model of urban cultural transformation in the United States during the early 1800s that Dell Upton articulates in his essay "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic." To summarize Upton's argument, by the 1810s and 1820s, U. S. cities encompassed three identifiable sublandscapes, each constituted by a particular myth and its artifactual mediators. Using Philadelphia as his case-in-point, he

defines these sublandscapes as the systematic, the competitive and the shadow landscapes.

While the various sublandscapes existed in tension with one another, all were "grounded in a common experience of life in an expanding commercial society."1 What constituted the various sublandscapes? According to Upton, the systematic

landscape was articulated and enacted by some members of the urban commercial elite as

attempt "to understand urban society and the urban landscape as a system," and thereby

"reform and reorganize both into a single, centralized, rational order." The systematic myth was founded on metaphors of unity and essence that linked physical, moral and economic

realms, and arose from Enlightenment thought, evangelicalism, and the growing predilection for quantification and commodification. It drove new schemes for commercial regulation, public utilities, and urban planning, and "reshaped familiar building types,

transforming the jail into the penitentiary, the counting room into the office building, the inn into the hotel, the commercial street into the arcade, and the burying ground into the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cemetery." Upton cites Philadelphia's grid plan as a fundamental expression of its systemic landscape, arguing it was not merely a centuries-old mechanism for real estate platting but, for denizens of the early republic, the supposed generator of urban prosperity. Comparable emblems of Philadelphia's systematic landscape included the afore-mentioned Fairmount Water Works, the Eastern State Penitentiary and the Second Bank of the United

States.2 The competitive landscape, on the other hand, "was the product of an individualized understanding of the commercial world," resulting in multiple, small-scale urban orders. While singly they might have resembled the systematic myth, collectively they "were discontinuous and decentralized." Upton contends that "as individual action took place in commercial and commercialized settings," overlap that between the competitive and systematic landscape encouraged "anti-social tendencies." In other words, "public life and public space were subsumed to a collective private; that is, the concept of the public was redefined as the sum of many private goods and actions.” If "the systematic myth assumed that a public order would emerge from this collective private," the competitive myth

disregarded such concerns.3 Competitive landscapes encompassed two distinct urban spatial orders: the

traditional aristocratic pattern of land use that allocated space on the basis of "social merit rather than economic value;" and intensive, proflt-drive commercial land use. In his discussion of the built environment that resulted from individual competitive landscapes in early nineteenth-century Philadelphia, Upton focuses primarily on commercial space,

which he characterizes as dense, rapidly expanding and chaotic. He cites stores that extended backwards, upwards and outwards onto the streets, as shopkeepers put up canvas

awnings over their sidewalk displays of merchandise, and installed glazed storefronts and

aggressively large signs. Regarding residential structures, Upton notes that even though some post-colonial elites continued to use "large amounts of center-city space

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unproductively as sites for large freestanding houses surrounded by gardens,* by the early nineteenth century such estates had disappeared from the urban landscape. Generally, those buildings that continued to be sited in garden-like settings were large public institutions such as the Second Bank. Given Upton's conception of systematic and competitive landscapes, the row house, Philadelphia's predominant housing form, can be interpreted as the outcome of the two sublandscapes' intersection. Frequently built in pairs or groups, sometimes entire blocks, these rows of uniform wood or brick dwellings often resulted from speculative residential development. Such projects were at once profit-driven ventures and architectural representations of an ordered community.4 Upton sees a third sublandscape, the shadow landscape, arising from the tendency

towards commodification present in both the systematic and competitive landscapes. According to Upton, *the cross-racial, cross-class frenzy of consumption engendered by both sublandscapes violated traditional moral and social beliefs in ascetic restraint and in innate social and racial hierarchies," resulting in "contradictory impulses toward unrestrained consumption" and "rigidly bounded behavior." The multiple urban orders that characterized the competitive landscape became "defined as disorder," "equated with moral disorder," and "translated into immoral order." For the genteel and the aspiring, the

shadow landscape existed in moral opposition to the systematic landscape and represented the subversive practices of others. In terms of the built environment, the shadow landscape "linked alley dwelling, tavern, oyster cellar, brothel, theater, dock and street in a system that was largely invisible to, but threatened, respectable society.”5

When applying Upton's model of U.S. ante-bellum urban cultural landscapes, understanding the interrelationships among the systematic, competitive and shadow

landscapes is crucial. The three sublandscapes-moral order, moral disorder and immoral disorder-operated in tension with one another; indeed, one could not exist without the others. If one re-reads Upton's systematic landscape as an imperial landscape, its foil, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. shadow landscape, can be thought of as the culture of resistance to the culture of

hegemony. Similarly, one might consider his competitive landscape as analogous to the small-scale "empires" that entities such as the Vansyckel family constructed for themselves in ante-bellum Philadelphia.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER 3

iDell Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," in Everyday Life in the Early Republic, ed. Catherine E. Hutchins (Winterthur, Delaware: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1994), p. 63.

^Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," pp. 63-66, 68.

^Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," p. 64.

4Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," pp. 95-98.

^Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," pp. 64, 126.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 4 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY EMPIRE

Elijah Vansyckel began constructing his empire when he left his father's prosperous farm in New Jersey and set himself up as a grocer in Philadelphia He first appeared in city directories in 1813 at 95 North Sixth Street at the comer of Race Street. Within a few years he was in business with his brother-in-law, John Garrison, on North Second Street near Race or Sassafras Street; eventually they sold wine as well groceries, and expanded their

operation to include an on-site distillery. In 1818, Elijah Vansyckel, age twenty-nine,

married Sarah Belinda Smith, age nineteen; later that year the Vansyckels had the first of their eight children to survive infancy, Amanda Garrison Vansyckel. In 1819, Elijah Vansyckel purchased the family's first town house, located on North Front Street near Arch Street, from a merchant, John McCutchen. In establishing his business, family and place of residence, Elijah Vansyckel laid the foundation for what would become his

considerable private domain. He would build a prospering business selling wine and

liquor, father ten children, acquire over forty pieces of real estate, and invest in railroads, canals and mines. By the time of his death in 1855, Elijah Vansyckel would amass an estate worth between one-half to an estimated one million dollars.1 Who were Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel? According to John W. Van Sickle's A

History o f the Van Sickle Family, in the United States o f America, Elijah Vansyckel was bom in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, on August 16, 1788. His father, Aaron Van

Syckel, was "High Sheriff" of Hunterdon County. As John W. Van Sickle described him, "He was a farmer by occupation; he also kept a hotel and a store; he owned a large amount

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of real estate; and was considered the wealthiest man in the neighborhood." Elijah Vansyckei's mother, Catherine Opdyke, reputedly was the daughter of George Opdyke, a one-time mayor of New York City. Sarah Vansyckel was bom Sarah Belinda Smith in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on April 25,1799. She was the daughter of Robert and Mary Armstrong Smith. The Smith family may have been carnage makers who later

established themselves in New Jersey. No record of Elijah Vansyckei's 1818 marriage to Sarah Belinda Smith in exists in the archives of the Hunterdon County Historical Society or Philadelphia's Second Presbyterian Church—of which they were both members by the early 1820s-so presumably their wedding took place in the Smiths' town of residence.2 In A History of the Van Sickle Family, in the United States of America, John W.

Van Sickle was quick to assure his readers that the name "Van Sickle” was of honorable derivation. With their centuries old lineage from "ancient Dutch stock,” the earliest Van Sickles' were "skillful farmers" who adopted their name from the sickle they used to reap their harvest According to John W. Van Sickle, "the prefix VAN is a title of distinction,

meaning o f ox from a person's landed estates." Thus he concluded that the Van Sickles

were agriculturists of the first rank. Whether or not Aaron Vansyckel descended from a long line of propertied farmers, agriculture most likely formed the basis of his prosperity.

Wheat and distilled alcohol were staple products of Hunterdon County during the mid to late eighteenth century; locals supplied both flour and whiskey to the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. Indeed, John W. Van Sickle laments that "probably more liquor was drank, per capita, in this county for more than two or three decades after the

war, than in any other county in the Union; so that its inhabitants were stigmatized as a

community of drunkards,” while "the county was full of taverns and distilleries.” While one might wonder if the author's moralizing led him to exaggerate the "intemperance" of area residents, his account suggests that Elijah Vansyckel probably knew of both the

process and profits involved in distilling liquor, an enterprise he would later pursue in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philadelphia. Van Sickle also notes that after 1790, the county's population decreased substantially as young people without land of their own emigrated to New York or Pennsylvania to seek their fortune. As the second son in a family of eight (four brothers, three sisters), a similar predicament may have propelled Elijah Vansyckei's move to

Philadelphia during the early 18-teens; perhaps his ambition outstripped his prospects in Hunterdon County.3 Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel inextricably intertwined family, business and home as they built their own empire in ante-bellum Philadelphia In its broadest concrete physical form, their realm was staked in the commercial and residential properties they owned

throughout the city and its environs. Including those holdings which Sarah Vansyckel and her children bought and sold after Elijah Vansyckei's death in 1855, the family engaged in over eighty real estate transactions between the late 18-teens and the early 1860s. While many of their properties probably provided rental income, others comprised the loci of the Vansyckel family's day-to-day life. Foremost among the latter were the stores Elijah Vansyckel ran on North Second Street, and the succession of town houses that the

Vansyckels occupied on or near Arch Street4 The first home that the Vansyckel family owned was located at 74 N. Front Street,

a few doors north of the intersection of North Front and Arch Streets, and just two blocks away from Philadelphia's bustling Delaware River waterfront The Vansyckels probably chose to reside there because of its proximity to both Elijah Vansyckei's place of business,

then at 131 N. Second Street (between Race or Sassafras and Vine Streets), and to the Arch Street Ferry, at that time a vital transportation link to the southern New Jersey farms that may have been his suppliers. The Vansyckels' house itself no longer exists, nor do any

known photographs, plans or written descriptions of it. Indeed, buildings on and near the northwest comer of Front and Arch Streets must have been obliterated shortly after Elijah Vansyckei's death when his son-in-law Samuel Smyth (and perhaps his widow, Sarah

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vansyckel) erected the five-story, Italianate cast-iron fronted building that stands on the site today (Fig. 19). However, an uncompleted c. 1848-50 survey map of Philadelphia shows

the location and size of the lot at 74 N. Front Street amongst a row of presumably similar dwellings, each probably no more than twenty feet wide (Fig. 20). An 1815 fire insurance survey made for Samuel Wetherill, Jr. (a prominent white lead manufacturer and a member of the Society of Free Quakers) described a neighboring house, 76 N. Front Street, as a three-story brick row house; most likely so was the Vansyckels'.5 During the colonial era, Philadelphia's waterfront was the site of combined residences and workplaces for both "gentlefolk" and so-called "mechanicks" or artisans. In

the city's eighteenth-century mercantile economy, proximity to the Delaware River front was frequently critical to commercial success. Elite merchants built substantial town houses along major streets close to both the docks and their warehouses, and often set up their first floor front rooms as counting rooms. Tradespeople typically lived in somewhat

more modest quarters above street-level shops. In the "face-to-face" society6 that developed in the densely populated port city, people of varying status often lived and worked near one another. Yet "betters" were able to maintain their social position over

"inferiors” by exercising their "cultural capital;”7 that is, their knowledge of and participation in elite behaviors in appropriate arenas of private and public display, whether they be staging a ball or occupying an expensive pew in one's church. While architectural

representations of differences in rank were not always readily apparent from town house facades, interior finishes and furnishings often signaled whether one could provide a

suitable setting for genteel social practices, such as hosting a private dinner party or serving tea.

By the late eighteenth-century, Philadelphia elites had already established discrete residential areas away from the waterfront, even though industrialization had yet to transform it into a less desirable place to live. As individual developers repeatedly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subdivided the large city blocks generated by Philadelphia's grid plan and built row houses from lot line to lot line, the largest house lots typically occurred along important thoroughfares and smaller ones along secondary streets or alleys. The interrelationships among location, land value, lot size and the predominant row house form frequently meant that one's residence on a fashionable main road versus a less prominent alleyway was directly related to one's wealth and social status. In other words, the well-to-do gentlefolk tended to occupy the rows of larger brick town houses along major street fronts, while smaller, more modest rows of dwellings for those of lesser rank filled the side streets.

Thus the built environment appeared to naturalize the existing social hierarchy. For elites, their participation in the mythical moral order embodied in the cityscape's organization masked the moral disregard they might have displayed in their own empire-building. When Elijah Vansyckel moved his family to 74 N. Front Street in 1819, he located them along the waterfront in the tradition of Philadelphia's great colonial merchants. Whether or not he conducted any business out of his residence is unclear, but he was near both his place of business and the ferry, by which he presumably obtained his sale goods. Yet a grocer and his family living in a three-story brick town house on North Front Street

in the second decade of the nineteenth century hardly connoted elevated status. Indeed, the

Vansyckels' continued to reside on North Front until the early 1830s, at which point the Water Street house of elite Philadelphia merchant Stephen Girard was considered an anachronism. By then, Philadelphia's mercantile economy was in decline and its

manufacturing base was growing; the waterfront had become industrial as well as commercial in character. Private development generated a chaotic built environment that belied any pretense of the moral order represented by grand civic institutions or blocks of

identical row houses. Moreover, the genteel well-to-do increasingly associated the docks

with what they considered underclass immorality; soon the area became "off-limits to the respectable."8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. During the mid-1820s Elijah Vansyckel and John Garrison started to sell wine and liquor as well as groceries. Whether their wares sustained waterfront taverns or more decorous private consumption, or both, their business flourished. By 1829 the pair had relocated their business to 136 N. Second Street, a larger structure on a site that was twenty-three feet wide and one hundred and ninety-two feet deep. According to a Franklin Fire Insurance survey made for Elijah Vansyckel on April 6,1848, the property included a

three-story brick building, a one-story counting house and a three-story back building, along with a three-story brick distillery at the end of the lot (Fig. 21). A partial visual record of the building is evident in an advertisement for a neighboring business, Leary &

Getz booksellers, in O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular for the Year 1853 (Fig. 22). The address of Leary & Getz's bookstore was 138 North Second Street, therefore Vansyckei's store at 136 North Second occupied the building to the left in the graphic that accompanies their advertisement; one can just barely make out the letters

"S-Y-K-E-L" over the doorway of appears to be a three-story, Federal-era brick building.9

In the early 1830s, fueled by their prosperity and perhaps the desire to distance themselves from both the docks and their store, the Vansyckels took significant action towards consolidating their social and artifactual respectability. By then, Elijah and Sarah

Vansyckel were the parents of six children. In 1832, two important events occurred in the Vansyckels' lives: their seventh child, Catherine, died in infancy; and Elijah Vansyckel purchased a "Three Story Brick Messuage or Tenement" on the north side of Mulbeny

(Arch) Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets from Thomas Elmes, a hatter. By 1833, the

family finally had moved away from the waterfront, first to 203 Mulberry, then to 187

Mulberry a year or two later. The Vansyckels lived at 187 Mulberry Street until the early 1840s, when they moved next door to 189 Mulberry Street (later 521 Arch Street) after

Elijah Vansyckel purchased the "Three Story Dwelling House, Back Buildings, Coach House and Stables and lot or piece of ground" from John Dalzell, a merchant.10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While no buildings are extant on the north side of Arch Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets, other records reveal fragmentary glimpses of the Vansyckels' two town houses. A block layout adapted from Hexamer and Locher's 1858-60 Maps o f the City of Philadelphia depicts the lot lines and architectural footprints of 519 and 521 Arch Street, previously designated 187 and 189 Mulberry Street; however, by the time of their survey,

the former building had been altered substantially for commercial use (Fig. 23). Deed records for 187 Mulbeny suggest that Thomas Elmes had built a three-story brick row

house on the site by 1828, while a Franklin Fire Insurance Company survey of 519 Arch Street (187 Mulberry Street) made for widow Sarah Vansyckel in 1862 provides a detailed

written description and floor plan of the remodeled structure (Fig. 24). Two Mutual Assurance Company surveys made in 1805 for Robert Ralston briefly describe his newly- built house and stable at 189 Mulberry Street Two 1911 photographs taken for the Philadelphia Contributionship offer partial views of the front and rear elevations of 521 Arch Street (189 Mulberry Street); see Figures 25 and 26. Chains of title for each property

suggest that the buildings described in the various documents correspond with those inhabited by the Vansyckel family.11

The Vansyckel family's move from Front and Arch Streets to Arch Street between

Fifth and Sixth Streets in the early 1830s appears to coincide with Elijah Vansyckei's elevation in status from "grocer” to "merchant,” as he was described in an 1833 city directory. By the mid-1830s, he was the sole proprietor of his business, which he

continued to operate out of 136 N. Second Street for the rest of his career. Indeed, in The Mercantile Register in 1846, the first advertisement under "Wine, Liquor & Wool Dealers" lists "E. Vansyckel & Son, Wholesale Dealers in Wines & Liquors, at the Old Established

Stand, No. 136 N. Second Street, Philadelphia" (Fig. 27). Clearly, the Vansyckels were successfully building their empire. But what did its particular manifestations signify?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Why, for example, did Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel decide to move their family's residence to 187 Mulberry Street?12 Apparently they did so because of their close ties to the Second Presbyterian Church. For the Vansyckels, the Second Presbyterian Church was the crucial mediator of moral order, intersecting their lives in significant ways. Although Elijah Vansyckel was baptized in New Jersey's Dutch Reformed Church, he joined the Second Presbyterian

Church soon after he came to Philadelphia Located in an impressive Georgian brick structure at the northwest comer of Arch and Third Streets from the mid-1700s until the

early 1830s (Fig. 28), the Second Presbyterian Church may have been the Dutch Reformed Church's closest parallel in Philadelphia upon Vansyckei's arrival. Similarly evangelical, it was undoubtedly more prestigious. The Vansyckels maintained a close relationship with the Reverend Dr. Jacob Jones Janeway, associated with the Second Presbyterians from

1799 through the late 1820s. Like Elijah Vansyckel, Janeway was brought up in a Dutch Reformed household, albeit it in New York City; according to one of his colleagues, "he was a firm and decided Calvinist of the CHd-School." Janeway baptized several of the

Vansyckels' children, and they even named their second son James Janeway Vansyckel

after him. Indeed, when Elijah Vansyckel purchased the house at 187 Mulberry Street, Janeway was renting the house next door at 185 Mulberry Street Janeway, in turn, most likely lived at that address because of its proximity to the Second Presbyterian Church's

burying ground, located on the same block.13

In the mid 1830s, Cornelius Cuyler, another one-time member of the Dutch

Reformed Church, became minister of the Second Presbyterian Church. The Vansyckels

not only maintained their affiliation with the Second Presbyterian Church but increased their proximity to it when the congregation erected a new church on the east side of Seventh Street just south of Arch Street in 1837 (Fig. 29). Church members had considered building the new church on a site on Arch Street near Thirteenth Street but deemed it too far

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. west, suggesting that the congregation was both conservative and strongly rooted in its current vicinity. The fashionable Greek Revival church was designed by none other than William Strickland. The Vansyckels1 occupied a prominent pew near the pulpit; Elijah Vansyckel paid $541 for the family pew in 1837, plus ongoing pew rent, and the family continued to occupy it well after his death.14 If the Second Presbyterian Church's social organization and architectural

representation perpetuated elite cultural hegemony, how did the Vansyckels' as church members relate to its foil, the culture of resistance? For example, Elijah Vansyckel, his brother-in-law, his sons, and one of his sons-in-law were all engaged in the wine and

liquor trade while the temperance movement was gaining force, in which many Second Presbyterians took part Several of them, including Robert Ralston, the Vansyckels' one time Arch Street neighbor, were morally opposed to the public sale and consumption of

"ardent spirits," and condemned those who participated in and profited from their production and sale. Some even advocated total abstinence. Particular outrage occurred

when members of one Presbyterian church discovered one of their own selling liquor out of the church's cellar. While Elijah Vansyckei's business may have dealt primarily in wine and liquor for private consumption, he also distilled liquor and owned a tavern in Kensington; thus he profited from "the traffic in ardent spirits" in a variety of ways.

Respectable society routinely associated the consumption of liquor with rough-hewn folk

and immoral behavior, and located all three in places like the grog shops or oyster cellars near the docks. The Vansyckels' move away from the waterfront allowed them to

psychically as well as physically distance themselves from its presumed immorality, even

as their prosperity depended upon their continued interrelationship with i t 15 How then might have the Vansyckels' negotiated their relationship with fellow Second Presbyterians, many of whom may have been antagonistic towards their means of livelihood? Certainly Elijah Vansyckel could have and most likely did support the church

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. financially in addition to the family's pew rent But just as the Second Presbyterian Church reified the dominant culture's vision of moral order, so too it offered a representation of its antithesis that may have been more appealing to the Vansyckels than the one it conjured up in its pro-temperance tracts. The Second Presbyterian Church virulently opposed the "the poison of popery," as the Reverend Janeway described it, and found its foe in Philadelphia's sizable population of Catholic immigrants as well as its drunkards; furthermore, they hardly considered the two separate entities. Thus Second Presbyterian

Church and like-minded Protestant "nativists" offered the Vansyckels, whose own practices verged on those deigned immoral, another opposition by which they could realign themselves with church-sanctioned moral order.16 In terms of architectural self-representation, the Vansyckels' 187 and 189 Mulberry Street row houses signaled the Vansyckels' place among Philadelphia's genteel well-to-do; they were situated along a major street rather than secondary one, made of brick rather than wood, and graced with stone or marble ornament. Presumably they fit into the streetscape rather than called attention to themselves, a useful strategy if one hoped to project

respectable conformity rather open oneself up for possible censure by one's neighbors. Built circa 1828,187 Mulberry may have been quite fashionable in its architectural details, especially the interior, when Elijah Vansyckel purchased it from Thomas Elmes in 1832 for $16,500 (Vansyckel purchased the ground rent rights for the lot from the American Fire Insurance Company in 1842 for $11,500, and thus owned a total property worth $28,000 plus or minus house's change in value). Most likely the floor plan and facade of 187

Mulberry Street was similar but not necessarily identical to those of neighboring residences on the north side of Mulberry Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets. Conceivably 187 Mulberry could have been comparable to town houses depicted in Philadelphia architect John Haviland's popular pattern book, The Builder's Assistant, published in 1818 and

republished in 1830 (Figs. 30 & 31). Indeed, given that the house was built just a few

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. years before the probable date of the Vansyckels bedchamber suite, around 1833, it is quite

possible that the two shared similar late classical, Grecian-style details. Almost certainly, 187 Mulberry was the house where the Vansyckels First installed their new bedchamber suite.17 Assuming 189 Mulberry next door was built circa 1805, it certainly would not have represented the latest fashion in residential architecture by the time Vansyckel bought it in 1840. Yet its cost, $40,000, suggests it was a grander house than 187 Mulberry. A year earlier, when John Dalzell acquired 189 Mulberry from Robert Ralston's heirs, its purchase price had been $31,000. Either Dalzell made substantial improvements to the house during the thirteen months that he owned the property, perhaps by adding service systems such as gas-lighting or indoor [dumbing, or renovating the interior architecture; or, the additional $9,000 that Vansyckel paid for the house and lot related to a series of transactions between Dalzell and Vansyckel concerning other residential properties. Financial and architectural considerations aside, however, most important to Elijah Vansyckel may have been 189 Mulberry's association with its former owner; Robert Ralston had been a highly respected member of the Second Presbyterian Church and temperance advocate. Ironically, perhaps Vansyckel also found the house desirable because of its cellar, where he ultimately stored

hundreds of bottles of wine.18 Thus far the artifactual representation of the Vansyckel family empire seems fairly

unremarkable. It appears to have encompassed a progression of valuable but not unconventional town houses, first on Front near Arch Street, then on Arch (Mulberry) between Fifth and Sixth Streets; and Elijah Vansyckei's rise from part-owner of a grocery and liquor store with an on-site distillery to a full-fledged wine and liquor merchant

Despite partaking in "traffic in ardent spirits," the Vansyckels' realm seemed decorously delimited by its proximity to and association with the Second Presbyterian Church. Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel continued to live at 189 Mulberry Street with their three remaining

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unmarried children until Elijah Vansyckel died at age sixty-six in 1855. Possibly the Vansyckels were on verge of moving into a more elaborate residence further westward on Arch (Mulberry) Street amongst the series of row houses that Elijah Vansyckel by then had purchased for his married children. Certainly by 1850, rapid industrialization was underway in the vicinity of Arch (Mulberry) Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets, and 189 Mulberry Street had become a distinctly unfashionable residential address.19

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

1 Philadelphia city directories, 1813, 1814, 1816 to 1818, as compiled by Donald L. Fennimore (unpublished manuscript); "Van Syckel Bible Records" (Genealogical Notes, vol. XXVIII; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John McCutchen, recorded April 20, 1819 (Philadelphia City Archives); John W. Van Sickle, A History o f the Van Sickle Family, p. 150.

2john W. Van Sickle, A History of the Van Sickle Family, p. 147; "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); interview with Smith family descendant Lila Lee of the Kansas Genealogical Society, July 16,1997.

3john W. Van Sickle, A History of the Van Sickle Family, pp. 67,76-77, 147-51. According to Van Sickle's account, Elijah Vansyckei's elder brother John remained a fanner in Hunterdon County; perhaps he eventually inherited the family homestead. As he had, Elijah Vansyckei's younger brothers sought alternate occupations and/or geographical locations. Daniel Vansyckel became a merchant and a farmer in Union County to the east, while Aaron Vansyckel was a merchant and a land speculator whom the town of Van Syckelville, New Jersey was named after.

^Grantor and grantee indexes to deeds (Philadelphia City Archives).

^Records from Philadelphia city directories, 1818 to 1824, as compiled by Donald L. Fennimore (unpublished manuscript); The Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide for 1825, Thomas Wilson, ed. (Philadelphia* Thomas Wilson & Wm. D. Van Baum, 1825); Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 28428, 28429,28430,28431, and 28432 made for Samuel Smyth, September 20, 1859 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); uncompleted survey map of Philadelphia c. 1848-50 (The Free Library of Philadelphia); Mutual Assurance Company Policy No. 3694 (Survey No. 2697) made for Samuel Wetherill, Jr., 1815 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Joseph Jackson, "Arch Street," Public Ledger, 23 November 1913 ("Arch Street," Campbell Collection; The Historical Society oif Pennsylvania); Ernest Hexamer and William Locher, Maps o f the City o f Philadelphia, Surveyed by Ernest Hexamer and William Locher, Civil Engineers and Surveyors (Philadelphia: E Hexamer & W. Locher, 1858-60). Little record remains of 131 N. Second Street, the location of "Vansyckle & Garrison grocers" from 1818 to until the mid-1820s. Hexamer and Lecher's 1858-60 Maps o f the City of Philadelphia does, however, show the architectural footprint of a small, probably two-story brick building no more than eighteen feet wide and forty-five feet deep; perhaps the structure depicted was once the site of Vansyckel and Garrison's business.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Gary Nash, et. al., as quoted in Stuart M. Blumin, The Emergence o f the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900 (Reprint, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p. 26.

^Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique o f the Judgment of Taste, p. 12.

^Upton, "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic," p. 100. Philadelphia city directories indicate that the Vansyckels lived at 74 N. Front Street from 1819 to 1824, then moved across the street to 79 N. Front in 1825; in 1828, they lived at 79 N. Front Street, then moved back to 74 N. Front in 1829. ir the Vansyckels did indeed make a temporary move across the street during the mid 1820s, they must have rented 79 N. Front Street as deed records do not indicate that they bought the property; or, that they sold 74 Front Street. Another possibility is that city directory compilers inadvertently changed a "4" to a "9" in the Vansyckels' street address, and later corrected the error.

9Desilver's Philadelphia Directory & Stranger's Guide, 1828, 1829 (Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1828-29); deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Peter Wager, recorded February 21,1828 (Philadelphia City Archives); Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 8734 made for Elijah Vansyckel, April 6,1848 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circularfor the Year 1853 (Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien, 1853), p. 84.

10«Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Desilver's Philadelphia Directory & Stranger's Guide, 1831,1833,1835-36,1837 (Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1831-37); [A.] M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory, 1837 to 1843 (Philadelphia: A. M'Elroy, 1837-40; Orrin Rogers, 1841-42; Edward C. Biddle, 1843); deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas and Lydia Elmes, recorded June 3, 1832; and deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John and Eliza Dalzell, recorded April 4, 1840 (Philadelphia City Archives).

llHexamer and Locher, Maps of the City o f Philadelphia; deed granted to Thomas Elmes by Stephen Kingston, recorded October 23,1827 (Philadelphia City Archives); Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, December 30, 1862, and Mutual Assurance Company Policies Nos. 2067 and 2068 (Survey Nos. 859 and 860) made for Robert Ralston, November 28,1805 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); photographs of 521-25 Arch Street, 1911, and 521-25 Arch Street, rear, 1911 ("Arch Street,” Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania). Street addresses in Philadelphia were renumbered during the 1850s. Mutual Insurance Company Policy records indicated that Robert Ralston's property at 189 Mulberry Street was re-designated 521 Arch Street; I have based my assumption of which houses were at what addresses on their records.

HDesilver's Philadelphia Directory & Stranger's Guide, 1833 and 1835-36; R. G. Dun & Co., credit ledgers, Philadelphia, 1849-59 (Hagley Library); The Mercantile Register, p. 240.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13"Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); S. Robert Teitelman, Birch's Views o f Philadelphia (Philadelphia: The Free Library of Philadelphia, 1982) plate 5; E R. Beadle, The Old and the New, 1743-1876: the Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: printed by J. B. Chandler, 1876) pp. 34-35; Rev. Samuel B. How, D.D., Funeral Service on the Death o f Rev. Jacob J. Janeway, D.D. (Philadelphia: William & Alfred Martien, 1859). pp. 7, 10; deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas and Lydia Elmes (Philadelphia City Archives).

^Beadle, The Old and the New, 1743-1876: the Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, pp. 56-58; "Plan showing the interior of the Second Presbyterian Church, Seventh Street below Arch, East side" (Philadelphia: James Little, Missionary of the Church, 1857); Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pew Book, 1830-1852 (Presbyterian Historical Society).

^Albert Barnes, The Immorality o f the Traffic in Ardent Spirits: A Discourse, delivered in the First Presbyterian Church, April 13,1834 (Philadelphia: George, Latimer, 1834); Othniel A. Pendleton, Jr., "The Influence of the Evangelical Churches upon Humanitarian Reform: A Case Study Giving Particular Attention to Philadelphia, 1790-1840,” Journal o f The Presbyterian Historical Society 25, No. 1 (1947); deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by James and Martha Hamill, recorded December 24, 1851.

^Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1855 no. 70 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); Jacob Jones Janeway, Antidote to the poison o f popery, in the writings and conduct o f Professors Nevin and Shajf, professors in the German Ref. Ch. U.SA. In 3 pts. (New Brunswick, NJ: Terhune, 1856).

^Hexamer and Locher, Maps o f the City of Philadelphia; deed granted to Thomas Elmes by Stephen Kingston, deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas and Lydia Elmes, and deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by the American Fire Insurance Company, recorded September 23,1842 (Philadelphia City Archives); John Haviland, The Builder's Assistant (Philadelphia: John Bioren, John Haviland and Hugh Bridport, 1818-1819), plates 40, 50.

l^Dced granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John and Eliza Dalzell; and deed granted to John Dalzell by John and Abigal Hazzard Proudfit, recorded March 9,1839 (Philadelphia City Archives); Cornelius C. Cuyler, Dr. Cuyler's Sermon on the Death o f Robert Ralston, Esq. (Philadelphia: William S. Martien, 1836). The $40,000 amount that Vansyckel paid for the house included a $17,000 mortgage plus $23,000; at the same time, Dalzell purchased for $31,200 some property that Vansyckel had bought from his son-in-law Samuel Smyth, which covered debts of $4,700 and $8,000, plus $18,500. By 1840, either Dalzell had improved the value of 189 Mulberry by $9,000 in the year since he had purchased in for $31,000; or he, Vansyckel and Smyth had some other financial arrangement.

19[A.] AfElroy's Philadelphia Directory, 1855 to 1857 (Philadelphia: E C. & John Biddle, 1855-57); "Van Syckel Bible Records” (The Historical S

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 5 THE VANSYCKEL HOUSEHOLD

If one examines the full extent of the Vansyckels' empire, including behind the

facades of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's town houses, a more complex picture of both them and their household begins to emerge. Based on the documentary sources cited thus far— including the room-by-room inventory taken at 189 Mulberry Street at the time of Elijah Vansyckel's death, the block layout of the north side of Arch Street depicted in Hexamer and Locher's 1858-60 Maps of the City o f Philadelphia, and the 1911 photographs of 521 Arch (189 Mulberry) Street-one can outline a sketch of their 189 Mulberry Street house. The Vansyckels' three-bay brick dwelling most likely consisted of a twenty-five by fifty

foot three-story front building with perhaps a ten by twenty foot three-story piazza and possibly a fifteen by forty foot three-story back building. At the rear of the lot was a two- story brick coach house and stable, accessible from Cherry Street. If the interiors of 189

Mulberry Street were anything like those described in the Franklin Fire Insurance Company survey of 519 Arch Street (187 Mulberry Street) made for widow Sarah Vansyckel in 1862

(see Appendix E), they would have featured white marble pilaster mantels, stucco cornices and centers on the ceilings, mahogany handrails on the stairs, and so forth. The 1855

household inventory of 189 Mulberry Street (see Appendix B), totaling nearly $12,000 in value, suggests that the Vansyckels dwelt amongst considerable material luxury, more than

may have been evident from the perhaps old-fashioned facade of their town house. Taken together, the inventory, block layout and photographs, plus fire insurance surveys for

neighboring houses at 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) and 527 Arch (197 Mulberry), provide a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. basis for a conjectural interior layout of 189 Mulberry Street (Fig. 32). They also offer a means by which to scrutinize aitifactual hierarchy and its implications within the Vansyckel household.1

Elijah Vansyckel's room-by-room inventory was taken by appraisers Martin Thomas and J. Nelson Davis on March 8, 1855, approximately a month after his death. The appraisers commenced the inventory with a space they designated as the "library," the total contents of which they valued at $2357.15. It was probably the First room on the second floor of the back building. The library contained an unspecified quantity of Brussels carpet valued at $32.50, a wool, looped-pile carpet that typically featured complex patterns. The presence of two Venetian blinds in the inventory indicate that the room had two windows; it probably also contained a fireplace with a marble mantel. The library's

furnishings suggest that a mixture of business and pleasure went on within its walls. Among its contents were $1,200 worth of books housed in four rosewood book cases; a

paper case and office table with an arm chair; eight additional chairs; a violin case and music stand; a costly clock and four bronze figures; and a gas chandelier. The latter's presence, along with a number of other gas fixtures listed in the inventory, indicate that at some point the house had been equipped with gas lighting, obtained from coal distillation

and first used in Philadelphia in 1836 for street lighting; perhaps gaslight was among the

improvements that John Dalzell made to the house during his brief ownership of it.2

The library also accommodated an extraordinary amount of glassware devoted to

the consumption of alcohol. It contained over one hundred and fifty pieces of cut glass, including decanters, tumblers and champagne glasses; it also held two spittoons. Clearly the library housed Elijah Vansyckel's stock-in-trade, as was often the case among his

bourgeois contemporaries: a physician's library might exhibit anatomical curiosities, while

a lawyer's contained law books, and so forth. Indeed, Elijah Vansyckel's library seems like a hybrid of the offices that merchants of previous decades might have had in the first

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. floor front rooms of their residences, and the mid-nineteenth century's bourgeois masculine refuges, the library and the smoking den. Assuming it was located directly above the dining room, the room easily could have been the site of gentlemen's after-dinner retreats.3

The appraisers called the next room on their inventory a "drawing room," and valued its total contents at $1,993. Most likely the room occupied the entire first floor of the house's front building. Also called a double parlor, such spaces consisted of two rooms, front and back, with a framed opening between them, either with doors or without. Each "room" would have had a fireplace, probably with marble pilaster mantels, and stucco cornices and centers ornamenting the ceiling. According to the inventory, the drawing room contained two chandeliers, each presumably hung from the center of each ceiling;

four mantel lamps, two at each chimney piece; and four curtains with ornaments, one set for each window, two in front and two in back. Further accouterments included six mirrors, and one hundred and twenty-two yards of carpet, valued at one dollar per yard. In more elegant rooms, carpet was installed wall-to-wall; the quantity of carpet in the Vansyckels' drawing room suggests it covered a sizable space, certainly larger than either a front or back room alone. The family furnished the room for entertainment and refreshment: it contained five sofas, eight chairs, five arm chairs, and a sofa table, all made

of fashionable rosewood; plus two tea trays, a refreshment table and a piano forte.4

Listed next on the inventory were the hall and stairs to the second story. The stair might have featured a mahogany handrail, turned balusters, and perhaps "scroll and curtail" steps, as did the one in 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) Street next door. Apparently the Vansyckels' furnished their hall sparsely; other than a lighting fixture and floor coverings, it contained only an iron hat stand and a barometer. Nonetheless, with its chandelier and

tapestry carpet, the hall probably impressed visitors with its materials, textures and pattern

as well as its architectural details. The tapestry carpet would have been the hall's most eye

catching feature, perhaps even considered "showy.” The process for making tapestry

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. carpet, patented in Scotland in 1832, involved weaving pre-printed yams; the technique allowed for colorful and highly-patterned carpet which required less wool and thus typically cost less than Brussels carpet, although it was also less durable. Yet the tapestry carpet in the Vansyckels' hall and stair up to the second story was the costliest carpet in the house, valued at a dollar and a half per yard. Perhaps it was quite new relative to other floor coverings in the house, and had yet to show signs of wear. Also, by 1849, Brussels carpet was being manufactured in the United States on a power loom; although still relatively expensive because the amount of wool yam required to make the product, it had become more affordable.5 The floor coverings in use in the Vansyckel home when the appraisers took their inventory either equaled or surpassed those recommended that same month by Godey's Lady's Book, the Philadelphia woman's magazine that had become the arbiter of bourgeois taste nationwide by mid-century. According to the March 1855 issue of the Lady's Book, Brussels carpeting was appropriate for parlors, libraries, or dining rooms. Tapestry carpet might be used on stairs, and was also acceptable for parlors and libraries. The Lady's

Book recommended more economical, longer-lasting Venetian carpeting or oil cloth for

hallways. As mentioned previously, the Vansyckels' library contained Brussels carpet, perhaps valued at eighty cents a yard, as was the Brussels carpet used in Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber. The Vansyckels' drawing room and dining room featured unspecified carpets, each of which was appraised at one dollar per yard. The tapestry

carpet used in the hall and stairs to the second story was valued at a dollar and a half per yard, while the tapestry carpet which covered the second story entry was appraised at a dollar and an eighth per yard. The remainder of the stairway was covered in a carpet

valued at eighty-five cents per yard. Unspecified carpet used in the hall and stair may have been Venetian carpet, while elsewhere in the house it may have been ingrain. (Both types were flatwoven and thus reversible, but the especially durable so-called Venetian carpeting

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was characteristically striped, while ingrain carpeting featured complex patterns). The only places that oil cloth appeared in the inventory was in the back entry to the hall and the china closet Thus in quality and probably in quantity, floor coverings in the most public areas of

the Vansyckel residence appear to have exceeded those prescribed for a middle-class, if not an upper middle-class home.6 The second and third floors of the front building of the Vansyckels' town house

were devoted to family bedrooms. On the second story, one of the three unmarried children still living at home must have occupied the back chamber, while the front room presumably belonged to Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel. Each of the other two Vansyckel children would have utilized the one of the two bedrooms on the third story. Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's second-story front chamber probably spanned the entire width of their

town house, while the back room was less wide in order to accommodate a passage to the front chamber. The third-story rooms may have been laid out similarly. As is evident from the 1911 photograph of 521 Arch (189 Mulberry) Street, its first and second stories were higher than its third; next door at 519 Arch (187 Mulberry), the second-floor rooms were twelve feet high, while those on the third floor were ten feet high. Windows in chambers in both stories of 189 Mulberry's front building most likely were recessed to the floor and

paneled below, with inside panel shutters "and boxes for them.” The chambers also may

have had marble pilaster mantels, stucco cornices and centers on the ceilings, washboards, and "plank passage doors." Often front rooms in front buildings were more elaborately

finished than back rooms; the fire insurance survey description for the third floor of 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) distinguished between the "white marble pilaster mantel and panel in the front room" and the plain marble one in the back room.

Not surprisingly, the appraised value of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's

bedchamber's contents was higher than those estimated for the bedrooms occupied by the rest of the family: $880.50 as compared to $594 for the back chamber on the second story;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. or, on the third story, $156 for the front room and $316.15 for the back room. In selecting the front room of the second story as their bedchamber, Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel located themselves in what was the most spacious and probably the most highly-finished room on

either the second or third floor of the front building of their town house. The chambers in the front building, in turn, undoubtedly were more commodious than those in the back building. In earlier eras of town-house living, second-story front rooms were often entertaining spaces rather than bedchambers. The practice stemmed from the precedent of the "piano nobile” in English town houses, in which the second floor was conceived of as the main floor of the house. Even as bedchambers came to occupy the second-story front

rooms, perhaps these rooms-occupying the full width of a town house, offering a vantage point from which one could survey the street below-retained some of their cachet as the premiere spaces in the household. Given the dimensions of the 189 Mulberry Street's front building (approximately twenty-five feet wide by fifty feet deep), Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber might

have been about twenty-three feet square. The amount of Brussels carpet that the inventory

specifies for the bedchamber roughly corresponds to the floor area of a room of such dimensions; eighty yards of Brussels carpet at a standard width of twenty-seven inches,

typically installed wall-to-wall, would have covered 540 square feet. The curtains and ornaments, valued at six dollars, might have adorned the couple's bed or the three windows overlooking Mulberry (Arch) street. Luxurious as well as spacious, the chamber housed, of course, the bedchamber suite, the total value of which equaled $490 or over half

the room's contents' appraised value. At that time, the suite included a second dressing bureau and a second washstand, two more pieces than are now known to exist. The values of the individual components of the suite exceeded those of any other pieces of bedchamber

furniture elsewhere in the house; nor were any others described as "rosewood." The appraisers estimated the suite's rosewood bedstead to be worth one hundred dollars and its

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. spring mattress sixty dollars, while values for bedsteads slept in by other members of the family ranged from eighty to twenty-five dollars, and mattresses and bedding from forty- five to thirty-five dollars. Presumably none of the Vansyckel children had beds the size of their parents; nor did any have bed steps, appraised at fifteen dollars. Servants' beds and bedding were judged to be worth considerably less; those listed in what was clearly a servant's room, for example, were valued at eighteen dollars. Similarly, the appraisers estimated the suite's two rosewood wardrobes to be worth seventy-five dollars apiece, while those listed elsewhere in the inventory were assigned values ranging from sixty to twenty-five dollars. The two rosewood dressing bureaus appraised at fifty dollars apiece

out-valued the dressing tables found in other chambers; those used by family members ranged in value from forty-five to fifteen dollars, while a servant's "Toilet Table" and

"Glass" might be worth of total of three dollars and fifty cents. The estimated worth of the suite's two rosewood washstands was thirty dollars apiece; values for washstands in the Vansyckel children's rooms ranged from twenty-eight to fifteen dollars, while that in the nursery was appraised at fourteen dollars. Servants' quarters contained no washstands differentiated from toilet tables. Finally, the suite's bookcase and secretary, valued at sixty-five dollars, stood unrivaled when compared to analogous forms listed in other

bedchambers in Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, which were appraised at thirty or thirty-five dollars apiece. Of course, the family did not provide servants with such items.

The next single most valuable item in Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber was a mantel mirror, appraised at one hundred dollars. Reputedly it was quite large, with a frame decorated with gilt motifs similar to those on the bedchamber suite, and hung over

the fireplace. On either side of the mirror were two mantel lamps, appraised at eight dollars

apiece, most likely solar-type or fluid-burning lamps. Appraisers specifically identified the chandelier, valued at ten dollars, as gas-burning.7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Also listed in the inventory were the couple's two toilet sets, appraised at thirty

dollars apiece, ir their son James Vansyckel's circa 1858fifteen-piece Bohemian glass

toilet set is any indicator, a toilet set could be a grand affair (Fig. 33). Again, one cannot know when and where Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel acquired theirs, but their appraised value suggests they were both extensive and expensive. The remaining furniture in the room included a sewing chair, valued at twelve dollars; nine chairs, valued at six dollars apiece; two ottomans valued at four dollars apiece; and a foot stool valued at fifty cents.8 Which Vansyckel children were still living in their parents' household in 1855, and which bedchambers did they occupy? According to an 1855 city directory, the two unmarried brothers, thirty-four year-old Robert Vansyckel and twenty-seven year-old Emmet Vansyckel (Fig. 34), lived at 189 Arch (Mulberry) Street. The youngest member of the family, Helen Vansyckel, age thirteen, presumably lived at home as well. The rest of the siblings-Amanda Smyth, Mary Townsend, James Vansyckel, and Sallie Heberton—

were married and living in their own households. Catherine Arnold, the remaining sister, had married and given birth to a son, then died at the age of twenty just two years before. (See Fig. 8 for L. S. De Bibory's 1842 portrait of Robert, Mary, Sallie, and Catherine

Vansyckel).9 Given Elijah Vansyckel's household inventory and fire insurance survey descriptions of comparable houses, the parental bed chamber, or "master bedroom” in present-day real-estate parlance, was probably the most grand of those at 189 Mulberry

Street in terms of interior architecture and furnishings. However, it is not immediately

apparent how the other bedrooms ranked in the household's artifactual hierarchy, who lived in each of them, or whether any of them once had more than one occupant

According to the inventory, the next most lavishly furnished bedroom was the second-story

back chamber; its contents were appraised at $594, almost twice the estimated worth of

those in the third-story back room, valued at $316.50. Like the bed room directly above it,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the second-story back chamber contained fifty yards of carpet, so conceivably the two rooms could have had the same floor area. Although the second-story back chamber contained fewer items of furniture than its upstairs counterpart, they were appraised at much higher values. For example, its French bedstead together with a spring mattress and bedding were valued at $147 as opposed to sixty dollars, and its cheval glass was deemed to be worth sixty dollars rather than twenty-five. Besides the bed and cheval glass, the room featured such requisite bedchamber items as two wardrobes, a dressing table, and a washstand. It also was furnished with a marble-top cabinet, four chairs, two ottomans, a mantel mirror, two lamps, and a clock.

Unlike the upstairs bedrooms, the second-story back chamber lacked any sort of desk. Thus one might conjecture that Helen Vansyckel inhabited the room, while her two older brothers, who presumably at least had personal correspondence to perform at home,

occupied the third floor rooms. Perhaps Helen Vansyckel would have acquired a piece of writing furniture in the near future; certainly once she was married she would be expected to manage household accounts. One might also suppose that the two elder male siblings would be given a little more distance from their parents than the youngest sister.

Which brother might have lived in which third-floor room? The third-story front

room may have been larger and have had more elaborate architectural details than the room

directly behind it, or the second-story back chamber. Yet according to Elijah Vansyckel's household inventory, its contents were sparse; the appraisers estimated their total worth to be $156, considerably less than those of other family bedrooms. The chamber contained relatively little furniture and apparently no floor or window coverings, or lighting fixtures. The presence of the mahogany secretary bureau, center table and four chairs, lot of glass ware and tea box suggests that some personal business may have transpired in the room.

Given his involvement in the family business, perhaps the front bedchamber was that of Robert Vansyckel. If so, undoubtedly the room held numerous items that do not appear in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elijah Vansyckel's inventory because the son rather than the father owned them. Robert Vansyckel died later that year, and his inventory (see Appendix C) reveals that he possessed some luxurious furnishings, many of which seem to complement-and a few of which overlap-those listed in the third-story front chamber in Elijah Vansyckel's inventory.10

Of Robert Vansyckel's total estate, estimated to be worth $164,257.03, his personal possessions were appraised at $8,614.50. Of the latter amount, works of art and

decoration accounted for $3,095.50; jewelry and personal accessories for $2,400; furnishings for $1,530; a horse carriage and harness for $650; books for $400; weaponry for $380; musical instruments for one hundred dollars; and cigars and spittoons for fifty- four dollars. While the limited range of items confirm that Robert Vansyckel had not established his own household after his father's death, certainly not all of them were

housed in 189 Mulberry's thiid-story front room. Obviously the horse carriage and

harness were kept elsewhere, presumably in the stable and coach house at the back of the lot Robert Vansyckel's sizable art collection may have adorned a number of other rooms in the Vansyckel family home, such as the hall, drawing room, library, and dining room. Indeed, one of the paintings he owned may have been on public view; Sir Walter Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth by Peter Frederick Rothermel (1817-1895) was exhibited at the

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1855.11

Other items Robert Vansyckel possessed, however, may have rounded out the relatively few third-story front chamber accouterments listed in his father's inventory. Apparently Robert Vansyckel owned the carpets beneath his feet, valued at fifty dollars; the

damask curtains that covered the windows, valued at one hundred dollars; a five-dollar fender for the fireplace; and the two chandeliers which lighted the room, valued at fifty dollars, along with a bronze clock and two candelabras, valued at two hundred dollars.

Notably, the only other family bedchamber that contained any curtains was Elijah and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sarah Vansyckel's second-story front room. If their curtains were for their windows rather than their bed, and given that all the family bedchamber windows probably had inside panel shutters for privacy, perhaps the family deemed curtains necessary only for those chambers

which overlooked the street and thus could be seen from outside the house, further intimating that Robert Vansyckel occupied the front room on the third floor. Presumably matching his curtains was the upholstered furniture described as "damask,” including two

armchairs, two fancy chairs and a lounge, valued at a total of eighty dollars. Robert Vansyckels' seating furniture was worth considerably less than comparable forms in his parents' drawing room; indeed, he may have obtained their cast-off parlor set Nonetheless, such a grouping would have allowed him to entertain guests in a fashion

consistent with other objects found in the room. Robert Vansyckel's bedchamber furniture encompassed a bedstead and mattress appraised at one hundred dollars; a wardrobe valued at one hundred and fifty dollars; and a

dressing bureau and a washstand each estimated to be worth twenty-five dollars. None of these forms save a bedstead and bedding valued at thirty-four dollars were listed among Elijah Vansyckel's possessions in the third-story front room. Had the son acquired a new,

more costly bed since his father's death? Or did the room contain two beds, one of which

might have been used by Robert's younger brother James before he moved out of the family home? Likewise, Robert Vansyckel owned a rosewood escritoire appraised at one hundred dollars; did it replace the thirty-five dollar mahogany secretary bureau listed in the

room in his father's inventory, or had there been a need for two writing desks because the

room accommodated two occupants? Notably, the estimated worth of both the wardrobe and the escritoire exceed those of analogous forms located elsewhere in the house,

including those used by the heads of household. The wardrobe may have been a winged-

type, or double size, and thus equivalent in capacity or monetary value to the sets of two

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wardrobes found in other family member's bedchamber. The rosewood escritoire, however, must have been a rather choice piece of furniture. Robert Vansyckel also owned a plethora of items related to toilet and dress. They included a toilet set appraised at fifty dollars; and several dressing cases, shaving equipage, and "fancy" boxes and bottles, totaling two hundred and forty dollars. Again, the toilet set that Robert Vansyckel owned "out-valued" those his parents possessed. Additional

furnishings listed in Robert Vansyckel's inventory include another clock, one pier glass, three pier tables, two small etageres with knickknacks, a music rack, a rocking chair, and six chairs. While the amount of seating furniture was typical for well-to-do bedchambers of the period, were all the remaining items located in the third-story front room, or were some placed elsewhere in the house? Did they co-exist with the furniture previously found in the chamber, or supersede it? Regardless of the particulars, his inventory suggests that

Robert Vansyckel lived among luxury that equaled or exceeded that enjoyed by his parents and outranked that experienced by his siblings. Assuming that Robert Vansyckel occupied and partially furnished the third-story front chamber, the third-floor back room's contents were lowest in estimated value among

the family bedchambers unless the room's occupant, presumably Emmet Vansyckel, also

provided some of his own furnishings. But even if the room contained only the $316.15 worth of furnishings listed in Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, they represented a level of domestic richness and comfort well beyond the means and experience of most

Philadelphians. If the third-story back chamber was smaller than the front room on the same floor and comparable in size to the bedchamber directly below it, it must have been full of furniture. It was coveted in fifty yards of an unspecified carpet valued at eighty-five cents a yard, lighted by three candelabras along with two lamps stands, and decorated with

two engravings. Besides the bedstead, mattress and bedding, its furnishings encompassed

those items then considered essential to a well-appointed bedchamber a bedstead with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mattress and bedding; a wardrobe, in this instance two; a dressing table; a washstand; a cheval glass, or large mirror in a stand; and toilet ware. The room also contained a number of chairs, a table, and card table in addition to a secretary bookcase. Among the chamber's equipage were a number of devices related to heating—a bellows and brush, a thermometer and match pots, and a warming pan-suggesting that the room's inhabitant may have been particularly sensitive to cold. As the appraisers made their way up the front building, the house's service spaces become more apparent. Indeed, the individual who actually wrote the inventory of the Vansyckel household seems to have encoded a distinction of "rank" among the various rooms. He capitalized all the letters in the names of those rooms where important activities commenced and where the family held sway: the LIBRARY, the DRAWING ROOM, HALL, STAIRS in the piazza, various CHAMBER(s), NURSERY, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, even Elijah Vansyckel's SUNDRIES. The names of spaces devoted to

service, however, he wrote in upper and lower case letters: Closet, Back Attic, Front Attic, Small Back room, Table and Bed Linen, Plated Ware, Silver &c., Bath Room, China Closet, and Cellar. Although the inventory did not distinguish between artifactual and human service, the Vansyckels' did employ live-in servants. According to the 1850 Federal census, four

Irish female servants in their early twenties—Rebecca Shields, Nancy Bell, Margaret McLaughlin, and Mary Williams—and George Price, a thirty-five year-old black coachman, lived with the Vansyckels.12 Yet the appraisers did not identify any rooms as servants'

quarters. Only by examining the contents of a given space can one conjecture just what kind of service they were devoted to. The third story entry, for example, contained a closet where the family kept quilts, blankets and old curtains, while the front attic appears to have been dedicated to general storage. It housed a jumble of what must have been dozens of household accouterments, valued at $90.25. Among its contents were a mahogany French

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bedstead, a trundle bedstead and "Lot Bedding," presumably the sleeping equipage for some of the Vansyckel children in their younger days.

The back attic, however, may have been occupied by servants. Sparsely furnished, it contained a feather bed, estimated to be worth twenty-two dollars; a bedstead and bedding, valued at ten dollars; covers for furniture, appraised at thirty-five dollars; and two small tables and glass, valued at one dollar and seventy-five cents. Other than the covers

for furniture, the appraisers estimated the room's contents to be worth $33.75. Had it also held other items that the appraisers did not record because they belonged to someone

besides Elijah Vansyckel?

Coming down from the attic, the appraisers then commenced with the remaining rooms in the back building. The next room they listed was the "nursery," probably the third-story front room. A separate space set aside as a nursery was a luxury for most families; even those who did have such rooms often later converted them to other uses once

their children were old enough to move into bedchambers. Perhaps visiting grandchildren used the Vansyckels' nursery, but it also may have been occupied by Harry Vansyckel (Fig. 35). Bom circa 1855, he was Emmet Vansyckel's son by a "common law wife,"

Harriet Vansyckel. The 1860 census indicates that five-year-old Harry Vansyckel was then residing in the household of his grandmother, Sarah Vansyckel; perhaps he was already living in his grandparents' house in March 1855. The room contained, of course, a "Cradle &c," valued at three dollars; along with a French bedstead valued at thirty dollars; a

straw bed valued at one dollar and fifty cents; a mattress, bolster and pillows valued at

sixteen dollars; and a recumbent chair valued at twelve dollar. In a well-to-do household like the Vansyckels', a nurse attending to an infant or a young child may have slept in the

nursery. A mother, too, might occupy a nursery while breast-feeding. The recumbent chair may suggest that infant-feeding took place in the room, although not how recently; still, it was the only such chair the appraisers noted in the entire inventory. Additional

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. bedchamber furnishings encompassed a washstand, valued at fourteen dollars, a wardrobe valued at fifty, and toilet ware valued at two dollars and Fifty cents. Other furniture included two workstands, a cherry table, five cane-seated chairs, and a Windsor rocking chair. On the floor was a carpet appraised at fifteen dollars; two blinds covered two windows. Altogether, the appraisers estimated that the nursery's contents were worth $170.55.13

The room's location and function as well as its mix of furnishings and the wide disparity in the values of various pieces prompt a variety of interrelated interpretations. First of all, the family used the room privately rather than displayed it to visitors. Second,

in terms of its artifactual representation, motherhood and childhood were increasingly important to the household, yet still subordinate to male-dominated activities and identities

articulated elsewhere in the house through more public and more costly interior environments such as the library. Third, more so than anywhere else in the Vansyckel home, in both its usage and furnishings the nursery seems to embody the clash of socio economic classes. Presumably located in the third-story front room of the back building, it was accessible to and used by both master and servant Here the mistress of the

household, Sarah Vansyckel, might have encountered a nurse for her youngest child,

Helen, bom in 1841. Here the younger Vansyckel children may have been tended to by

their mother as well as a nurse. The room's equipage ranged from a fifty-dollar wardrobe to a dollar-and-a-half Windsor rocking chair; while each item may have been intended for

members of one social class—the wardrobe for children's clothes, the rocker for the use of a nurse soothing an infant-they could have just as readily been used by the other. Indeed,

the act of a women rocking a baby itself blurs the distinction between maternal care and

servitude. Furthermore, the presence of an infant fathered by one of family's sons with a

"common law wife" would have created an atmosphere further charged with the friction of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. class difference. Presumably Emmet Vansyckel did not wed his child's mother because she was not his social equal; two years later, in 1857, he married a woman who was.14 The nursery's apparent location in the first room on the back building's third floor is corroborated by the room next in sequence in the inventory, a "Small Back room, 3d Story back building." Sparingly furnished, the "Small Back room" was most likely a servant's room; its contents were estimated to be worth $37.50 total. It contained the most basic components of bedchamber furnishings: a bedstead, mattress "&c," valued at

eighteen dollars; two cases of drawers, valued at three dollars and fifty cents apiece; a toilet table, valued at one dollar; a (looking) glass, valued at two dollars and fifty cents; and

brushes, valued at one dollar. On the floor was a carpet appraised at four dollars, while two blinds covered two windows, which probably overlooked the rear yard.

Next on the inventory were a series of service functions, all of which must have occurred in the back building: storage for an enormous array of table and bed linen, plated ware, and silver; a bathroom; and a china closet Where were the various ancillary spaces located? How did the appraisers make their way through the back building to get to them?

Either they came back to the main staircase in the piazza in order to go downstairs; or, more likely, they descended from the third floor of the back building to its second floor by way

of another set of stairs. Often Philadelphia town houses did have a secondary means of vertical circulation. It allowed servants to move from floor to floor without resorting to the

primary staircase in the piazza, leaving it for the use of the resident owners and their guests. In 197 Mulberry Street, another town house on the same block, a Franklin Fire Insurance survey made for Joseph Sharp in 1840 described the house's back building as

having "3 flights of common winding and square steps of heart and white pine boards in

back room from the cellar to the garrett, pannel doors to two flights." The survey's

accompanying floor plan showed a set of stairs in the back building within the first-floor back room, the kitchen, that led down to a cellar and up into the back room of the second

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. floor, presumably they continued up into the back room of the third floor as well. If a similar secondary stair existed in the Vansyckels' house at 189 Mulberry, it would have split vertical circulation between the front and back parts of the house consistent with the

way the appraisers named, described and progressed through the rooms in their inventory. The Vansyckel family would have been able to circulate up and down the primary staircase in the piazza to access the rooms in the house's front building--the drawing room and the bedchambers-and the front rooms on each floor of the back building-the nursery, the library and the dining room. To circulate horizontally on each floor, servants could have

passed through doors between the front and back rooms of the back building, and have continued through the piazza to the front building. To circulate vertically, they could have traveled from floor to floor via the piazza stairway as needed, but they also could have done so using the secondary stairway in the back rooms of the back building. By using the latter set of stairs, they would have bypassed the back-building front rooms used by the family.

Thus masters or mistresses and servants might remain separate from each other, and the bulk of servants' activities take place unseen by household visitors except when deemed appropriate by the proprietors.15

Thus the appraisers may have descended from the back building's third-story back room to its second-story back room. Did they then encounter the places where the

Vansyckels' kept their extensive holdings of table and bed linens, plated ware, and silver, as they were listed sequentially on the inventory? Presumably the most valuable items were

kept locked up. The appraisers valued the silver, primarily flatware, at over $1,000,

versus the plated ware at $93.50. They estimated the linens at $229.58. Bed linens

included literally dozens of sheets and cases for bolsters and pillows; while among the table linens were twenty-six table cloths and one hundred and seventy-four "Doylies.1'

What about the bathroom, which followed next on the inventory? It may have been appended onto the back building on the second floor, as was often the case, to put it within

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reasonably proximity of the family's second floor bedchambers. It contained only a settee and five chairs, two meat trays and a washstand and glass, worth an estimated twenty dollars total. Only the description of the china closet, the following space on the inventory, contains any reference to interior architecture that might locate it within the house. Along with a vast assemblage of "Painted" and "White & Gold Band” china, cut-glass table wares such as "Celleries” and "Salts & Stands,” and one hundred and twenty-five glasses described as "Tumblers," "Wines” or "Champagnes," the china closet included two Venetian blinds and an oil cloth. Thus it might have been located in the first-story back room, which may have had windows in the back wall that overlooked the rear rather than side yard, thus requiring blinds. The oil cloth may have been present because the space contained an outside door. (Alternately, the china closet may have been a windowless enclosure in which blinds and an oil cloth merely were stored.) In the household inventory, the appraisers listed the contents of the dining room immediately after the china closet It seems plausible that the family kept their dining

accessories adjacent to their dining room, most likely the first-story back building's front room. The Vansyckels' furnished their dining room for an estimated $361.25; outfitted

with their many epicurean accessories stored elsewhere, it would have been a sumptuous stage for eating and drinking. The quantities of table wares and furnishings suggest the Vansyckels' were accustomed to hosting large dinner parties. Furniture included a "range" (extension) dining table valued at eighteen dollars, an armchair at fourteen (presumably for the head of household), and seven chairs at three dollars and fifty cents apiece; an additional "Lot Chairs" were appraised at two dollars. The table's adjustability and

potential mobility, and the many chairs, suggest that the rooms' furnishings could readily be reconfigured to accommodate groups of varying sizes. The room also contained a "Lounge & Cushion,” plus two sideboards. Other dining accouterments included a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rosewood box, a terra cotta barrel, an ice pitcher and tray, three tea trays, nine table cloths, cloth table covers, and two spittoons. Glassware was present here as well as in the china

closet and the library. As for the room itself, two Venetian blinds shaded the windows, and forty-five and a half yards of carpet valued at one dollar per yard covered the floor; depending on its width, the carpet may have encompassed anywhere from three hundred to four hundred square feet A crumb cloth protected the carpet directly underneath the dining room table, while presumably the chandelier hung over it Two ormolu candelabras and shades plus

two other lamps also lighted the room. One pair might have been placed on or near a fireplace's marble pilaster mantel, along with a clock and a "Gilt Frame Glass.”

The kitchen, listed next in the inventory after the dining room, was probably downstairs in the ground level or cellar of the back building. Although the appraisers judged its contents to be worth less than one hundred dollars, it was well-outfitted for preparing what certainly may have been lavish meals. The storage cellar, too, would have befit frequent entertaining; it was stocked with nearly two hundred bottles of wine and

seventy-one bottles of champagne. Elijah Vansyckel's inventory also included the contents of a well-equipped stable:

two carriages, one worth a five hundred dollars and one worth two hundred; two horses valued at six hundred dollars; plus a sleigh, harnesses and such. Finally, Vansyckel

possessed some rather extravagant "Sundries” conducive to both self-regulation and masculine identity, appraised at $669.25 total. Among them were numerous gold accessories, "Lot Dental Instruments & Knives,” mathematical instruments, an "Alarm

Watch," and two sets of "Gold Mounted Pistols & Case." Elijah Vansyckel also owned a gold watch engraved with "E VanSyckel,” which his son James inherited.16

Thus, the interiors of the Vansyckels1 town house at 189 Mulberry Street

comprised an artifactual self-representation aimed at a considerably more private audience

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. than its exterior; that is, members of the immediate family, domestic staff and relatives, but also visitors such as friends, patrons or business associates. Embedded amongst the interactions that transpired between various household occupants—husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant, or host and guest-constellations of objects both concretized and contested hierarchical relationships within the Vansyckel home, whether in the library or bedchamber, nursery or attic. While the facade of 189 Mulberry Street

projected an architectural identity in accordance with the imagined, systematized moral order represented by the Philadelphia row house and the dictates of the Second Presbyterian church, life inside existed in tension with its exterior decorum. Provocation was manifest in the material means for the excessive consumption of alcohol, and the proximity of four serving girls from Ireland and one black coachman in the wake of Philadelphia's anti-abolition and anti-Catholic riots. Within the family circle, moral order and moral disorder could and did give way to immoral order, as evidenced by the birth of Harry Vansyckel.

As described in Elijah Vansyckel's ioom-by-room inventory, the interiors of 189 Mulberry Street suggest that the Vansyckels were engaged in the unabashed consumption that characterized the expanding commercial world of ante-bellum Philadelphia. Unlike the house's staid exterior, they seem more consistent with the value of the one-half to one

million dollar estate that Vansyckel supposedly amassed by the time of his death in 18SS.

Yet they also suggest that the Vansyckels' domestic environment was not solely driven by

the dictates of fashion. In the case of their bedchamber suite, for example, Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel continued to live with a group of furnishings that probably were no longer stylish, yet undoubtedly had great significance for them. Like the "Lions of Philadelphia,” perhaps they embodied the glory of a bygone era.

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

1 General note for Chapter "The Vansyckel Household:" Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1855 no. 70 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); Hexamer and Locher, Maps of the City of Philadelphia; photographs of 521-25 Arch Street, 1911, and 521-25 Arch Street, rear, 1911 ("Arch Street," Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, and Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 3244 made for Joseph Sharp, October 24, 1840 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania). See Appendix B for a transcript of Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, March 8,1855; and Appendix E for the fire insurance survey for 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) Street

^Helen Von Rosenstiel and Gail Caskey Winkler, Floorcoverings for Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting Reproductions (Washington: The Preservation Press, 1988), pp. 22, 122; Gail Caskey Winkler, Influence ofGodey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home: Contributions to a National Culture (1830-1877) (Ann Arbor, University Microfilms, 1988), pp. 236-38. If the library carpet was valued at eighty cents per yard as was Brussels carpet listed elsewhere in the inventory, it may have encompassed forty yards. Given that Brussels carpet was characteristically twenty-seven inches wide, the area of the library carpet could have been 270 square feet. Conceivably the area of the carpet equaled that of the room, if it was installed wall to wall as was typical. Although the Vansyckel's lighting fixtures could have come from any number of sources, it is quite possible that they were obtained from Cornelius and Baker. Not only was the firm Philadelphia's-and the nation's—largest lighting manufacturers, but also their factory was located at nearby 181 Cherry Street Certainly the company offered high-quality, fashionable fixtures ornamented with gilt and cut-glass, appropriate for town house interiors of the Vansyckels' ilk.

^Philadelphia inventory studies, University of Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Program (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia).

^Per Elijah Vansyckel's accounts as of 1855, he owed $594.50 to Klauder, Deginther & Co., upholsterers and cabinetmakers "for furniture repairs." The company advertised themselves as "French Cabinet Makers" and "French Upholsterers" in O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular for the Year 1850. They executed furniture in fashionable mid-century styles; for photographs of attributed examples (Rococo Revival settee, Gothic Revival chair), see the Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Visual Resources, Winterthur Library. Given the size of the sum Vansyckel owed them, perhaps Klauder and Deginther had supplied the family with re-upholstered or even new furniture for their drawing room or library, as the two first-floor rooms were most "public" and therefore probably the most stylish in the household. The rooms also contained some of most expensive pieces of furniture that the Vansyckels owned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5Von Rosenstiel and Winkler, Floorcoveringsfor Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting Reproductions, pp. 78, 122-12. Before the 1830s, almost all Brussels carpets in the United States were imported from England, where weavers wove them on handlooms.

^Godey's Lady's Book 50 (March 1855): 285-86; as quoted in Winlder, Influence of Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, p. 255; Von Rosenstiel and Winkler, Floorcoverings for Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting Reproductions, pp. 78-81.

interview with Peter Strickland, January 24,1998; deed-of-gift records, December 1, 1979 (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia). According to The Athenaeum of Philadelphia's deed-of-gift records, the mantel mirror in Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bed chamber may have been as large as eight by ten feet.

^Object file 66-33-1 through 15a,b (Philadelphia Museum of Art). All the pieces of James Vansyckel's highly ornate toilet set are made of dark green transparent glass cased with white opaque glass cut away in various patterns to reveal the green glass underneath. The opaque layer is decorated with polychrome enamel flowers and gilding, plus the monogram "JJVS" on each item. The set features a type of Bohemian glass made during the 1840s through the 1850s.

9[A.] M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory, 1855; "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (Media, Pennsylvania, 1943; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

lORobert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations). For subsequent references to Robert Vansyckel's estate and household inventory, see Appendix C for a transcript of Robert Vansyckel's inventory [c. September 1855].

^ lAnna Wells Rutledge, ed., Cumulative Exhibition Record o f Exhibition Catalogues, The Pennsylvania Academy o f the Fine Arts, 1807-1870 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1955), p. 188.

^"Population Schedule of the Seventh Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1850 (National Archive Microfilm Publications).

l^Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); agreement between Emmet A. Vansyckel and Harriet A. Vansyckel, recorded September 27,1858 (Philadelphia City Archives); "Population Schedule of the Eighth Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1860 (National Archive Microfilm Publications); Catherine M. Schdten, Childbearing in American Society: 1650- 1850 (New York and London: New York University Press, 1985) pp. 67-75; Karin Calvert, Children in the House: The Material Culture o f Childhood, 1600-1900 (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992), p. 67-68,75.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

^Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

16james J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 6 ELIJAH AND SARAH VANSYCKEL'S BEDCHAMBER

Based on the information contained in Elijah Vansyckel's 1855 household inventory and the 1911 photographs of 521 Arch (189 Mulberry) Street, and extrapolating from the 1862 Franklin Fire Insurance survey of 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) Street made for Sarah Vansyckel, one can deduce the following description of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber in 1855. It occupied the second-story front room of a circa 1805 town house, possibly remodeled in 1839 to incorporate new lighting and plumbing systems, if not updated interior architectural details. The room extended the full width of

the house, and may have been approximately twenty-three feet square with a twelve-foot ceiling. Three windows along the south wall of the room overlooked Mulberry (Arch) street Each window contained twelve lights of glass and Venetian shutters outside; inside

each was probably "recessd to floor" and "paneld below" with "inside panel shutters and boxes for them." Perhaps they also were draped with curtains and ornaments. The room probably was finished with a "Stucco Cornice" and "centre" on the ceiling, with a gas chandelier suspended from the latter, while the walls most likely featured a "washboard" or

base molding. The chamber presumably contained a fireplace in the center of the west

wall, most likely with "a marble pilaster mantel" adorned with the two mantel lamps and an immense mantel mirror. Presumably "a plank passage door" in the north wall opened into the second floor stair hall. A Brussels carpet—wool, level-loop, patterned, and probably

installed wall-to-wall-covered what were most likely yellow pine floor boards.1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Printed and pictorial sources-such as household advice and pattern books, or engravings, drawings and paintings that might be found in ante-bellum Philadelphia-offer a means for elaborating an interpretation of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber beyond what can be gleaned from the afore-mentioned fire insurance survey and household

inventory. Although prescriptive literature cannot substitute for specific documentary evidence, written or object-based, it can corroborate details and situate them in a larger historical context Local and foreign domestic advice literature and furniture pattern books, for example, offered changing definitions of bed-chamber furniture during the second

quarter of the nineteenth century. A. F. M. Willich, M.D., and Thomas Cooper, M.D., authors of the second American edition of The Domestic Encyclopedia , published in Philadelphia in 1826, provided lengthy discourses on beds, bedrooms, bedsteads, and even bedtime from viewpoint of medical professionals. They did not, however, list the components of an ideally-furnished bedchamber. Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson, on the other hand, authors of a contemporaneous pattern book, The Practical Cabinet Maker,

Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator, published in London in 1826-27, readily defined bedroom furniture as "bedsteads, dressing-tables, drawers, washing-stands, dressing

glasses, clothes-horses, [and] night conveniences;" although they did decline to identify all the "various small articles, so well known as not to require enumeration." Certainly their

audience of craftspeople would have been most concerned about the initial group of items, which they themselves were engaged in making. The two works illustrate what decorative

arts historian Gail Caskey Winkler calls "the traditional separation between housekeeping guides and pattern books” still in operation during the 1820s. The former were written for and often by women, while the latter typically were composed by architects, cabinetmakers or upholsterers for their predominantly male professional peers.2

Subsequent household compendia blurred the distinction between the two genres

and began to address a lay audience of middle and upper-middle class men and women;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gail Caskey Winkler proposes that the first of the new hybrid publications was John Claudius Loudon's Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and

Furniture, put out in London in 1833. According to the 1839 edition, appropriate "Grecian

and Modem Furniture for Bed-rooms and Dressing-rooms" included bedsteads, bed steps, bed cupboards (for holding and disguising "night conveniences"), wardrobes, dressing tables, dressing glasses, cheval glasses (large freestanding mirrors), "wash-hand stands," and small waiters or trays for "holding jugs, &c., of hot water, for the washing table." Loudon included sixteen pages of descriptions and illustrations detailing tasteful and functional examples of furnishings for a well-appointed bedchamber, but still stopped short of listing every possible necessary item. As he put it, The truth is, that there are hundreds of small articles required in furnishing a house, which might have been introduced in a work professing to describe and figure all the utensils, implements, and instruments used in private houses: but our principal object is, to communicate our ideas on the taste or not taste of the more conspicuous articles of furniture at present generally fabricated.3

Loudon influenced a number of subsequent important household publications. Apparently Louis Godey frequently used Loudon's designs, without attribution, in his Godey's Lady's Book, published from 1830 to 1898 in Philadelphia and distributed

nationally from mid-century onward. Loudon is also credited with bringing the ever- popular An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy into being. Authored by Thomas Webster and Mrs. William Parkes, and first published in England in 1844, the book was repeatedly reprinted in America from 1845 through the 1850s. The 1845 New York edition, co-

authored with D. Meredith Reese, M. D., offered eighteen pages of detailed descriptions and depictions of appropriate bedroom furniture. In addition to the items Loudon discussed, Webster et al.'s work also encompassed bedding, mattresses, chairs, couches,

"box-stools," small boxes (or a "settee or ottoman made to open”), towel stands,

nightstands (like bed cupboards, for containing and concealing "night conveniences"),

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. portable water closets, chests, traveling boxes, linen presses, chests of drawers, commodes, foot pans, baskets, and fire guards. They even included a list of "The principle articles requisite for the dressing-room and toilet table:" that is, wardrobes; commodes; wash-stands; dressing-glasses; dressing-case, with razors; shaving boxes; hat, and clothes, and bonnet brushes; hair, tooth, and nail brushes; shoe lifts; boot and button hooks; tongue scrapers; cap and wig blocks; wardrobe powder for dry-cleaning silks; com rubbers; toilet cushions; braid combs of various sizes; powder boxes and puffs; towel airers; toilet covers; work-boxes, and loaded pincushions; candlestick stands; bonnet boxes; sponge and sponge bags; flesh brushes; soaps of various kinds. Apparently the authors of An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy preferred not to leave their readers with any doubts as to what constituted proper grooming equipage; both their text and the objects themselves codified genteel mid-century personal hygiene practices. Elijah Vansyckel possessed a number of the accessories favored by Webster et a!.; among the "sundries" listed in his inventory were a "Silver Shaving Box & Mug," two tongue

scrapers, two "Razor Straps & Glass,” and two cologne bottles.4 A popular publication with what may have been the most comprehensive discussion of bedrooms was Miss (Eliza) Leslie's The House Book; or a Manual o f Domestic Economy, first published in Philadelphia in 1840. In a lengthy chapter on bedchambers, she devoted separate sections to chamber furniture in general; bedsteads in particular, including how to put them up; bed curtains; bedding; bed covers; washing quilts; making beds; and cleaning a bedroom. According to Miss Leslie, essential chamber furniture included: a rocking chair or stuffed easy chair; a foot stool or two; low chairs "to sit in on when sewing, or when washing your feet;” a sofa or settee; trunks and square wooden

bonnet boxes that doubled as seats, and similarly chamber ottomans; a wardrobe and

commode or bureau; leather trunks or wooden boxes for traveling; a toilet or dressing table and accompanying accessories; various types and sizes of looking-glasses; a washstand and requisite accouterments, including a "slop-bucket" for waste water, plus towels and a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "towel-horse;" and a table for sewing and writing, along with a shelf for books. In newly constructed houses, she also recommended separate dressing rooms and built-in closets.5 Regarding bedsteads, Miss Leslie opined that "For a large and handsomely furnished chamber, no bedstead looks so well as the square, high post, with curtains.” She also described canopy beds and French low post bedsteads, "preferred by many persons, who have objections to curtains." Miss Leslie herself had no such aversions; she

advocated the use of bed curtains for both their comforting appearance and warmth, especially given "the winter climate of most parts of America." She did, however, advise her readers against hanging bed curtains in the rooms of children, or "persons that are not habitually careful," because of the danger of fire. Miss Leslie's opinion on the latter issue

echoed those of Willich and Cooper, the authors of The Domestic Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1826) who Fifteen years earlier had outlined their "strong and serious

objections" to "the prevailing custom of providing the bedsteads of children with curtains ."

Besides being a fire hazard, Willich and Cooper warned that such hangings prevented "a free access of air for the renewal of that mass which has been rendered unfit for respiration.” Furthermore, they were "pernicious receptacles for the finest particles of

dust," which were "inhaled by the person confined within such curtains, on the least motion of the bedstead." From just such an incident, "many young and blooming

innocents may date the first period of their consumptive attack." Despite their grim prognostications for children who slept in beds hung with curtains, the pair of physicians

did not extend the same to adults, in deference to modesty: "We do not, however, mean to insinuate, that curtains ought to be universally abandoned, as there may occur a variety of instances, in which the laws of propriety and decorum, might render them useful and necessary.” Willich and Cooper's delicately-worded statement suggests that in 1826 there were still plenty of people without the luxury of separate bedchambers. In small two-room

domiciles, a parental bed may have occupied a space that accommodated both other family

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. members' beds and daytime use as a parlor. For Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel, however, who had a private bedchamber-and most likely, adequate heating—bed hangings were no longer essential to warmth or decency. In a bedroom like the Vansyckels,' such drapery was more apt to serve the interests of luxurious display.6 Integral to the great bed curtain debate was the concern over "vitiated air" in

bedchambers, caused by breathing "over again a portion of that air which [one] has expired." Webster et al. recommended avoiding anything that might impede ventilation. In small bedrooms, for example, they thought it "best to do without curtains, or at least to have them only partial, and not enclose the bed;" as "When curtains are drawn close round a bed, it is, in fact, nearly equal to sleeping in a small room." The authors of An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1845) also remarked that in rooms with low ceilings, "beds should be as near the floor as possible." They acknowledged that "It

has been for some time the fashion to raise beds high above the floor;" such beds,

however, were appropriate only for lofty chambers. In 1826, even though Willich and Cooper believed that proper ventilation was essential to good health, they considered it "dangerous practice to sleep with open windows." Sarah Josepha Hale, the editor of Philadelphia's famous and influential Godey's Lady's Book , thought otherwise. In the May 1848 issue, Hale not only invoked a medical authority who disapproved of "closed,

heated bedrooms and thick bed-hangings" but also revealed to her readers "that she always

slept with the window open." No doubt the Vansyckels' commodious bedchamber would have met with the approval of many an expert on the topic, including Willich and Cooper, whose text for The Domestic Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1826) offered the following definition of a "BED-ROOM:" an apartment or chamber, devoted to the enjoyment of nightly repose, after the usual labour and fatigue of the day. Those happy few who, from their respective situations in life, are enabled to choose a spacious and lofty room

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for breathing in, at least, one-third of their existence, may consider themselves peculiarly fortunate.7 Domestic economy books provide clues as to how Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel might have arranged their bedchamber furniture. Author after author concurred that beds

should be freestanding in order to ensure proper ventilation. According to Willich and Cooper, "A bed, or couch, ought to stand free on all sides, and, if possible, in the middle of the chamber;” yet away from windows, so that the room's occupant was less likely to be disturbed by a thunderstorm, or struck by lightning. In The House Book, (Philadelphia, 1841), Miss Leslie suggested a comparable disposition: "Unless the room is so small, that it cannot be fixed otherwise, no bed should be placed with one side against the wall,

particularly in the summer, as that position impedes the free circulation of air around the sleeper, greatly increases the heat, and seldom fails to produce insects." The 1845 edition of An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy cautioned its readers that "The comer of a room is a bad situation for a bed, as it cannot be got round without moving it. It should be placed, if possible, nearly at the middle of the side, but should not quite touch the wall."

Presumably, then, the Vansyckels' would have positioned their bed in the middle of one wall with the headboard next to but not touching it, with the foot of the bed projecting towards the center of the room. The undecorated back side of the headboard likewise

suggests that the Vansyckels' placed the head of their bed against a wall. However, the bed's configuration and position may not have been constant. The headboard is removable and thus could have been taken out during hot weather for better air circulation, while the

bed posts feature casters; on particularly stifling occasions, perhaps one could have moved the seemingly static bed into the path of a breeze.8

Which wall would the Vansyckels' have placed the head of their bed against?

Although either the east wall, opposite the fireplace, or the north wall, facing the windows,

had sufficient space for the bed to be positioned perpendicular to its midpoint, the latter

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. location seems more likely. It would have been farthest away from the windows and whatever outside disturbances or dangers they entailed, nor would it block light entering through them. Moreover, if the bed occupied the center of the east wall, the door to room would have opened directly on to it, neither a private nor ceremonious mode of entry. Joseph Shoemaker Russell's 1S3S watercolor of the front chamber of his house at 42 South Eighth Street in Philadelphia suggests how a comparable though less grand bedroom than the Vansyckels' might have looked from the vantage point of a bed located against the entry wall (Fig. 36). From a similar situation Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel may have surveyed their bedchamber; indeed Russell depicted the interior of what was also a second- story front room extending the full width of a three-bay town house. As he rendered it,

Russell's interior lacks many of the elaborate details and accouterments of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber, but the two rooms may have shared some common features: wall-to-wall carpeting, a fireplace, washboard molding, and three twelve-light windows recessed to the floor and paneled below with exterior Venetian shutters.9 J. S. Russell's watercolor suggests how the rest of Vansyckels' bedchamber might

have been laid out and provides a basis for comparing presumably contemporaneous

bedroom furnishings, even though the Vansyckels' were of greater quality and quantity.

For example, Russell showed a dressing bureau, the form of which is similar to the one in the Vansyckel suite, situated along the window wall near natural illumination. Webster et al.'s An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy (New York, 1845) implied that such a disposition was typical: a toilet or dressing "table is commonly placed against the window

for the advantage of good light." Russell also depicted a low cabinet and a washstand with

a basin, ewer and small pull-up dressing glass similarly located, with simple turned

wooden chairs underneath each window. A massive wardrobe, again comparable in form to although less ornate than the Vansyckel wardrobes, occupied the center of the wall across from the fireplace. Thus situated, it was less likely to obscure light entering the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. room, but still close enough to the windows to receive some illumination. Perhaps the area in front of the wardrobe also enjoyed the heat generated by the fireplace, particularly desirable while dressing on a cold winter morning.10 Given that the Vansyckels' bedchamber contained many more pieces of furniture

than J. S. Russell illustrated in his watercolor, where did the couple put them all? Perhaps they too placed their pair of dressing bureaus along the window wall, with their pair of washstands at the comers; or vice versa. The two wardrobes certainly could have stood

opposite the fireplace, while the secretary desk, only four feet wide, may have occupied the

west wall between the fireplace and the windows. Positioned thus, it would have been adjacent to both heat and sunlight, and perhaps even obtained some illumination from the one of the mantel lamps. The bed steps, of course, sat adjacent to one long side of the bed.11 Besides the case pieces, the Vansyckels' bedchamber contained a variety of seating furniture; that is, nine chairs, a sewing chair, two ottomans and a foot stool. One of the

nine chairs may have been stationed at the secretary desk, with the rest were scattered around the room. As described in both J. S. Russell's watercolor and domestic advice

literature, bedchambers of the period typically contained a number of lightweight, relatively inexpensive chairs, often placed along the perimeter of the room or in comers when not it use. According to Webster et al., "bedroom chairs are most usually made light, the seats of cane or rush, and they are generally painted or jappaned.” Suitable chairs might also be

made "of beech stained to imitate rose-wood, with cane seats" and loose cushions; the

authors observed that "when well made, they form very tolerable cheap substitutes for

rose-wood chairs." Miss Leslie was of the opinion that The most convenient chairs for bed-rooms are of curled maple, with cane seats; but if the other furniture is elegant, they will be considered too plain. In this case, handsome painted and gilt chairs will be more in accordance, the colour corresponding with that of the curtains. Mahogany chairs are generally considered too heavy and cumbrous for a chamber.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Given the overall level of finish and furnishing quality in the Vansyckels1 bedchamber, one might imagine their chairs were fairly elegant, at least stained or painted and gilt, if not

cushioned or upholstered. Still, they were far from being the costliest chairs recorded in Elijah Vansyckel's inventory. The best seats in the house must have been two "Arm Chairs” appraised at forty-five dollars apiece; one was in the library, and other was in the drawing room. Both may have been for Elijah Vansyckel's use, either at his "Office Table”

in the library or as a ”gentleman's chair” among what was probably a parlor suite in the drawing room. Not surprisingly, some of the least expensive chairs in the household were those that servants probably used; for example, the appraisers valued the two chairs listed

in the ”Small back room” on the third floor of the back building at seventy-five cents each.12 A sewing chair characteristically had a low seat; if one was stitching a large and weighty item, it could thus drape to the floor. Sarah Vansyckel's sewing chair was

probably armless, either caned or upholstered, and perhaps placed near a window for access to natural light Miss Leslie recommended such ”low chairs, to sit on when sewing, or when washing your feet* She also thought bedchambers should have "one or two foot

stools,” as the Vansyckels* did, plus ottomans. Miss Leslie described "chamber ottomans" as having a "wooden frame made hollow inside, like a long box, for the purpose of containing the bed linen, &c. They stand in the recesses, and have seats and cushions." It

is quite likely that the two ottomans in Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber were of

type Miss Leslie described; perhaps they served as window seats as well.13 Among the remaining items that the Vansyckels' bedchamber contained were two toilet sets. Essential to a toilet set were a large basin and a pitcher. According to Miss

Leslie, it should also include ”a water-bottle that holds at least a quart, a glass tumbler and a china mug;” and "the various china receptacles for soap, tooth-brushes, nail-brushes, &c.,"

all of which were to be placed on the washstand top. She also recommended a deep

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. footbath "either of white ware, or to match the basin and pitchers," placed underneath or beside the washstand. (The afore-mentioned Bohemian glass toilet set owned by Elijah and

Sarah Vansyckel's son James encompassed fifteen matching components: a water pitcher and basin, a carafe and stopper, a tumbler, a smaller basin, a dish, a chamber pot and cover; plus, in varying sizes, three covered boxes, two covered pomade jars, and two

covered scent bottles; see Fig. 33).14 Related to but separate from the washstand were two toilet accouterments that Miss Leslie also considered indispensable. She advocated having close by a "slop-bucket, for receiving the water that has been used;" and a "towel-horse," which "no chamber should be without" as "the paint of a chair will soon become much defaced by the practice of hanging a wet towel over the back.” Perhaps the Vansyckels followed the latter abhorrent procedure; their bedroom contained plenty of chairs, but apparently no towel-horses.15 According to Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, he and his wife had a spring mattress

on their bedstead. By 1855, well-outfitted bedchambers often contained spring mattresses; in the Vansyckel household, they appeared on the beds of two family members. According to Webster et al., the authors of An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy (New York,

1845)," Mattresses stuffed with elastic iron wire are a recent and valuable improvement"

Alternately, if one could afford it one might have slept on a feather bed laid over a mattress stuffed with horsehair, wool or less costly materials such straw; or directly upon the mattress itself if one preferred a harder bed. The spring mattress' "superior elasticity" provided a comfortable sleeping surface without the expense of or upkeep required by a feather bed. Appropriate bedding was a source of vigorous debate among household

manual writers. Authors made varying recommendations, based on issues of comfort,

health and hygiene, maintenance, and cost. They identified those materials they believed

were especially prone to infestation, and stressed the importance of regular airing and cleaning. In The Domestic Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1826), Willich and Cooper

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. declared that "A mattress filled with horse-hair, is preferable to a feather-bed, which heats and relaxes the body, and disposes it to pulmonary and hectic complaints.” Fifteen years later, Miss Leslie averred that We believe there are few grown persons who, during the severity of an American winter, would really find their health impaired by sleeping with the feather-bed on the top of the mattrass; and few that, in the summer, would find themselves too warm by having a feather-bed, instead of a paillasse, underneath a mattrass of moderate thickness. She also cautioned that ”Domestics and working people, when they sleep on very hard bedding, frequently complain of rising in the morning as tired as when they went to bed, and of feeling as if they had not the strength to go about their work." She then added that

"Children, no doubt, suffer much from the same cause." Her comments may have been prompted by more than solicitude. Most likely the majority of Miss Leslie's readers were

middle and upper-middle class women who ran their households with the assistance of family members if not servants; thus she may have offered her advice to promote their domestic laborers' productivity.16 Beyond the relative merits of a feather bed versus a mattress, discussions of bedding in domestic advice literature also encompassed bolsters, pillows, bed linens, and bed coverings. According to Willich and Cooper's The Domestic Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1826)

The bolster should be stuffed with horsehair, and covered with a small pillow filled with feathers. The bedding might consist either of sheets, with blankets and a counterpane, or a single cover, thinly quilted with cotton wool: the latter might be easily washed, and will last for several years. In veiy cold seasons, a counterpane quilted with a few pounds of soft feathers, might be substituted for the former; but it should not be used in summer. In The House Book (Philadelphia, 1841) Miss Leslie's detailed comments regarding

bedding reflected her usual concern for comfort, fashion and utility. In her opinion, "Beds, bolsters, and pillows are not comfortable unless they are large and full, and well stuffed with feathers." She instructed her readers that "In making pillow-cases, let them be

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. large enough to admit the pillow easily;” and elaborated that pillow-cases were "frequently frilled at the ends, and fastened with buttons." Miss Leslie was of the belief that "Linen bed-ticking is far the best," as "that of cotton stripe" wore out too quickly. She also notified her audience that "Linen bedding is universal in genteel families; except when winter sheets of thick cotton may be preferred, as somewhat warmer in very cold weather.” She even specified that "Except in very cold climates, it will not be necessary to allot more than three blankets to each bed," adding them one by one as winter wore on.17 The House Book likewise offered lengthy suggestions about bed coverings, specifically quilts, and outlined the pros and cons of white Marseilles quilts versus knotted white counterpanes. According to Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, the family owned three "white counterpanes." Whether hand-made or woven, patterns in knotted counterpanes resulted from areas of raised loops of roving yams. Marseilles quilts featured raised designs that were either done by hand or, by the 1830s, predominately loom-woven. Miss Leslie averred that "White Marseilles quilts keep clean much longer than the knotted white counterpanes. The are not, however, so durable; as the surface of a Marseilles quilt, being fine and thin, soon wears off. They may afterwards be covered with an outside of fine,

white, thick muslin, and quilted over again.” She gave the following advice about the

choice of fabric for whole-cloth quilts: Quilts are now made entirely of the same sort of dark calico or furniture chintz; the breadths being run together in straight seams, stuffed with cotton, lined with plain white or buff-dyed muslin, and quilted simply in diamonds, shells, or waves. For a large double bed, a quilt or any other cover should be three yards long, and about three yards wide. It is usual to have a quilt or bed-spread of the same chintz as the curtains. For very elegant beds, the covers are generally of silk or damask, (also to match the curtains,) with a silk lining, and a trimming of fringe to correspond. Perhaps Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's "very elegant bed" sported a silk or damask bed cover, lined with silk and trimmed with fringe. Whatever their bed covering was like, it may have matched the "Curtains & Ornaments" that adorned either their bedstead or their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. windows, valued at six dollars. Bed coverings also varied seasonally. For summer, The House Book recommended covers made of the afore-mentioned chintz or dimity; the Vansyckels owned a half dozen of the latter variety. (Both chintz and dimity were made of cotton, but the former characteristically featured multi-colored printed patterns while the latter was typically a stout, white fabric, frequently textured with woven patterns such as stripes or diamonds.)18 When it came bedding, Miss Leslie drew a clear distinction between master and servant She remarked that "For servants' beds, Russia sheeting is the best and most durable;" apparently it was a coarse grade of linen. Likewise, she declared that "Patch work quilts of old calico are only seen in inferior chambers; but they are well worth making for servants' beds." Households that followed Miss Leslie's advice encoded class difference in their sheets and quilts; thus artifactual hierarchy operated at the level of the skin as well as the eye.19 Elijah Vansyckel's inventory does not explicitly delineate all the elements of each

bed in the household, rendering comparisons among them general rather than specific. Moreover, precise terminology for bed sub-components is elusive. An Encyclopedia o f

Domestic Economy (New York, 1845) defined beds as "the description of bedsteads, the

bed itself, bed furniture, and bedding;" then identified the various parts as follows: Bedsteads are the solid constructions or frame work upon which the bed itself rests, together with the canopy over it. Bed furniture comprises the curtains which generally enclose the bed, or which are suspended from the canopy or top. Bedding includes beds and mattresses of all kinds, whatever the may be stuffed with; also the bolster, pillows, sheets, blankets, and counterpane. Bedding, then, might have been understood to include bed coverings. In Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, the appraisers listed bedsteads and bedding, identifying spring or

unspecified mattresses in the family bedchambers; or a feather bed, a straw bed and unspecified mattresses in the nursery and presumed servants' rooms. They did not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. necessarily list separate values for each sub-component; in some cases, they calculated the worth of the mattress and bedding together and the bedstead separately, in others they estimated one lump sum for both bedstead and bedding.20 Other than the spring mattress on the bedstead, Elijah Vansyckel's inventory made no mention of bedding in the second-story front chamber. Bed linens listed separately

elsewhere included thirty linen sheets appraised at two dollars apiece versus twenty-one cotton sheets valued at thirty-seven and a half cents each. Similarly, twenty-seven bolster cases and twenty-eight cotton pillow cases were estimated to be worth thirty and twenty- five cents apiece respectively, while eleven unspecified bolster and pillow cases were valued at a dollar and half each; perhaps the latter items were of a more decorative type and

used in family members' bedchambers. Along with the sheeting, the appraisers noted three blankets worth seven dollars total, the afore-mentioned three white counterpanes at five

dollars apiece as well as the two dimity spreads at one dollar each and four small dimity spreads at fifty cents apiece, plus a "Lot Valance" worth a dollar and a quarter. In a closet at the entry to the third story, the family kept two more blankets and six quilts, worth an estimated eighteen dollars total.

What do the Vansyckels' various bedclothes imply about them? The quantities of

sheets, bolster and pillow cases indicate that the Vansyckel household had a large supply of

bed linens; thus they could be changed frequently if personal hygiene were paramount. Clearly there were more and less expensive types of sheets, pillow cases and bolsters, perhaps encoding distinctions between their users' ranks. What about bed coverings?

Again, Elijah Vansyckel's household inventory does not specify what bed had which quilt, counterpane or bedspread. Most likely the appraisers who took the inventory included

whatever covers were on the beds that day in their estimate of "bedding” for each bed. Given that Elijah Vansyckel's inventory was taken in early March, most likely the half

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dozen dimity spreads would not have been taken out until summer, while the six quilts in storage were on hand for particularly cold winter nights rather than in regular use. Without other surviving artifacts or further documentation, one can only hypothesize about what the interior of Elijah and Sarah's bedchamber may have been like. Their bedchamber suite, however, comprises an extant constellation of objects that provide a basis for further exploration of one of the most intimate spaces in the Vansyckel household. Moreover, ultimately at stake in its materia] form are issues of self- representation vis-a-vis hierarchical social relations, and the construction of gendered

identities.

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

1 General note for Chapter "Elijah and Sarah Vansyckels1 Bedchamber Vansyckel:" Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1835 no. 70 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); photographs of 521-25 Arch Street, 1911, and 521-25 Arch Street, rear, 1911 ("Arch Street," Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); and Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania). See Appendix B for a transcript of Elijah Vansyckel's inventory, March 8, 1855; and Appendix E for the fire insurance survey for 519 Arch (187 Mulberry) Street.

^A. F. M. Willich and Thomas Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, 2nd American ed. (Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1826), pp. 173-76; Peter Nicholson and Michael Angelo Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator (London: H. Fisher, Son & Co., 1826-27), p. 1; Winkler, Influence o/Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, p. 201.

^Winkler, Influence o/Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, p. 202; John Claudius Loudon, Loudon Furniture Designs from the Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and Furniture, 1839 (Reprint, with an introduction by Christopher Gilbert; East Ardsley, Wakefield, Yorkshire: S. R. Publishers Ltd.; London: The Connoisseur, 1970) pp. 1079-86.

^Winkler, Influence o/Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, pp. 151,202; Thomas Webster, the late Mrs. William [Frances Byerley] Parkes, and D. Meredith Reese, M.D., An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy, rev. ed. (New York: Harper Sc Brothers, 1845) p. 306. See Paul A. Shackel, Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology o f Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1993 for a substantive discussion of the material culture of self regulation.

^Miss [Eliza] Leslie, The House Book; or a Manual of Domestic Economy (Reprint, Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1841), pp. 296-318.

^Leslie, The House Book, pp. 303-4; Willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, p.

^Webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 290; Willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, pp. 174-75; Sarah Josepha H ie, Godey's Lady's Book 36 (May 1848): 308; as quoted in Winkler, Influence o/Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, p. 344.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, p. 174; Leslie, The House Book, p. 304; Webster et al., An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy, p. 290.

^Joseph Shoemaker Russell, Front chamber o f house No. 42 South 8th Street. Residence ofJ. S. Russell in 1835 in Elisabeth Donaghy Garrett, "The American Home, Part III: The Bedchamber” The Magazine Antiques 123, no. 3 (1983): 624.

l^Webster et al.. An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 300.

11 Apparently there was no specific convention for locating bed steps along one side of the bed versus the other. Furniture drawing books depict them on either side; a plate from Thomas Sheraton, for example, may show a set by a bed's right side, while one issued by George Smith illustrated them on the left.

12 Webs ter et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 299; Leslie, The House Book, p. 297.

^Leslie, The House Book, pp. 296, 298.

^Leslie, The House Book, pp. 301-2; object file 66-33-1 through 15a,b (Philadelphia Museum of Art).

l^Leslie, The House Book, p. 302.

l^Webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, pp. 297-98; Willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, p. 174; Leslie, The House Book, pp. 308-9.

l^Willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, p. 174; Leslie, The House Book, pp. 309-10.

^Leslie, The House Book, pp. 311-312; Susan Burrows Swan, Plain and Fancy: American Women and Their Needlework, 1650-1850, rev. ed. (Austin, Texas: Curious Works Press, 1995), pp. 230,236-37; Florence M. Montgomery, Textiles in America, 1650-1870 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984), pp. 218-22.

1 ^Leslie, The House Book, pp. 309,311; Florence M. Montgomery, Textiles in America, 1650-1870 , pp. 223, 277-78.

20Webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 289.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 7 THE VANSYCKEL BEDCHAMBER SUITE

To establish a context for interpreting the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, one might begin by comparing it to examples produced contemporaneously or described in period prescriptive literature. Extant bedroom suites from the early 1830s are quite rare, although matching wardrobes and dressing bureaus are less so; currently no comparable

Philadelphia-made suites are known. If a suite of furniture does not remain intact, it is very difficult to tell from surviving pieces, inventories or receipts whether or not individual components were once part of a larger ensemble, unless documents verbally or visually describe them as such. The basic types of chamber furniture found in the Vansyckel suite--

high-post bedstead, bed steps, wardrobe, bureau, washstand, and secretary desk-can be found in domestic advice compendia, furniture drawing books and The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Book o f Prices of 1828; nonetheless, some components do

manifest unusual characteristics. While the pieces in the Vansyckel bedchamber suite are massive in scale, as furniture produced in the 1830s often was, for the most part their construction is straightforward. At the time it was made and now, much of what makes the suite so dazzling is its showy carved, vert antique and gilt ornament, juxtaposed with bold

expanses of rosewood veneer. Perhaps most impressive, however, is not only that the

Vansyckels1 bedchamber furniture was made en suite, but that it has remained so.1 Was a suite of bedchamber furniture unusual in circa 1833 Philadelphia? Although none comparable to the Vansyckel suite have come to light, outfitting one's bedchamber en suite was not a new fashion. In the previous century, affluent Philadelphians' achieved en

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. suite chamber furnishings through textiles. Given the expense of hand-woven and hand worked textiles, a bed's hangings typically comprised the greatest portion of its monetary value. The truly genteel endeavored to obtain matching bed "furniture" (hangings,

including curtains, valance, headcloth and tester) and covers, upholstered goods and possibly window curtains. The very wealthy could proclaim even greater refinement if they possessed chamber furniture carved en suite, which might have included a high chest,

dressing table and chairs. Nineteenth-century bedroom suites comprised of the components found in the Vansyckel suite became increasingly prevalent by the 1840s. By the 1850s, so-called "cottage" chamber suites-inexpensive, painted, but unmistakably matching groups of bedroom furniture—were so commonplace that they were featured in

illustrated advertisements in Philadelphia city directories.2 In his 1835 watercolor of the front chamber of his house, Joseph Shoemaker Russell depicted a relatively coherent group of furniture. Whether actual or ideal, he portrayed his wardrobe, washstand and dressing table as if made of the same wood, presumably mahogany, with the latter two items having white marble tops. The three pieces also appear as though they shared the same basic construction: frame-and-panei cases with doors or drawers, and a front projecting top supported by two columns. Was

Russell representing a furniture suite? Or had cabinetmaking styles and construction techniques become so uniform that one could easily assemble a visually compatible set of bedchamber furniture? In The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840,

Deborah Ducoff-Barone's comparison of The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware published in 1828 with The Journeymen Cabinet and Chair Makers Pennsylvania Book o f Prices o f 1811 reveals that

by the later price book, furniture forms had indeed become more standardized. With its detailed breakdown of pay rates for piece work, the 1828 price book assumed greater task

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. segmentation than did the 1811 price book, which codified complicated cabinetmaking techniques predicated on an individual cabinetmaker's ability to complete a piece of furniture from start to finish. Ducoff-Barone summarized changes in cabinetware production in ante-bellum Philadelphia as encompassing "division of labor, standardization of prefabricated parts, quantity production, efficient use of production time, and reduction of workshop costs." All factors are evident in the differences between the 1811 and the 1828 price books. The earlier publication is significantly longer than the later one because it contains many more shaped furniture forms, all of which required more time, materials and skill to produce than the rectilinear ones that predominated the 1828 price book. Over time, the forms themselves became more standardized; the later publication did away with the distinction between a gentleman's and a lady's dressing table, for example, and instead offered a basic model that could be elaborated with a series of added details. The 1811 price book featured a similar format; it too outlined a form in its most uncomplicated state at

a base price, then incrementally listed "extras" and the corresponding charge for each. By reducing the range and complexity of furniture types to begin with, however, the later book limited both the number of possible variations and the repertoire of skills needed produce them. The 1828 price book also suggests that cabinetmakers increasingly conceptualized pieces of furniture as series of parts rather than discrete entities.3 The character of The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices

for Manufacturing Cabinetware for 1828 and the shifts in cabinetmaking practices that it represents suggest that the missing second dressing bureau and second washstand in

Vansyckel suite most likely matched the extant ones, just as the two surviving wardrobes are essentially identical. Marks inscribed on the dressing bureau also imply that it was one

of matching pair. As seen in Figure 2, the lower case piece of the dressing bureau contains four drawers, while the upper section is comprised of a case with four small drawers surmounted by a pair of columnar standards which support a framed looking glass.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Throughout the piece, the inside of drawers fronts exhibit chiseled quasi-Roman numerals and the case frame bears corresponding identical marks, inscribed to ensure that the correct drawers were fitted into the correct case location. The dressing bureau's lower drawers

were numbered "I" through "IIII." Similarly, among the upper case of four small drawers, the two inner, shallower ones were marked "I” and "11" on both the inside drawer fronts and case frame, while the drawer bottoms bear pencil inscriptions "1" and "2" respectively.

However, the two outer, deeper drawers (which extend the full depth of the case) and their corresponding locations within the case frame, were designated five ("V" and *5”) and seven ("VII" and "7"). Why were they not numbered one through four, as the lower

drawers were? Perhaps because they were made in conjunction with another group of like drawers for an identical dressing bureau. If so, the corresponding drawers in the small case of the second dressing bureau might have been marked three, four, six and eight.

Dressing Bureau

How might the Vansyckel dressing bureau relate to both contemporaneous Philadelphia examples and The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of

Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware for 1828? Another dressing bureau in the collection

of the Winterthur Museum, made in Philadelphia in 1830 by Walter Fennery, a journeyman in the shop of John Jameson, provides a basis for comparison (Fig. 37). The Vansyckel

and Fennery dressing bureaus are similar in form. Both include a chest of four locking drawers, as does the standard bureau in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union

Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware for 1828. The lower cases of each piece also approximate the case dimensions of the price book's basic model: three feet six inches

long, two feet six inches high and one foot eight inches deep. The upper sections of the

Vansyckel and Fennery dressing bureaus, however, consist of standard and extra features

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that the 1828 price book described for dressing tables rather than bureaus; hence their appellation "dressing bureaus." In each one, the tops of the lower case pieces are inset with marble and surmounted by small cases with drawers that bear substantial minors. While a looking glass was a standard component of the price book's basic dressing table, both an inset marble top and a "loose case" of drawers were separate add-ons. In the Vansyckel dressing bureau, for example, the entire upper section rests atop the lower case piece, rather than being secured to it While the inset marble top implies the upper and lower pieces formed an entire ensemble from the outset the modularity of the individual components suggests that similar forms could have been sold separately to clients with less ready income. Another extra that both dressing bureaus featured were carved front paw feet; the 1828 price book pictured, described and priced various options for "Bureau Feet" in Plate 3 and Table No. 36 (Fig. 38). Unlike the Vansyckel dressing bureau, however, Pennery's

features buried maple rather than mahogany and rosewood veneer. The Pennery dressing bureau also sports carved scrolled foliate console supports and a shell crest above the mirror, and vert antique and gilt finishes including classically-inspired motifs such as anthemions and scrolling acanthus leaves. Given its elaborate decoration, the Pennery

dressing bureau is more akin to the Vansyckels' than the one pictured in Joseph Shoemaker

Russell's watercolor. Even though all three shared such "extras" as projecting top drawers and carved paw feet, the Vansyckel and Pennery dressing bureaus' lavish ornamentation clearly distinguished them from lesser specimens.4 Beyond wood veneers, notable differences between the Vansyckel and Pennery dressing bureaus involve their respective histories and modes of looking glass attachment

John Jameson entered Walter Pennery's dressing bureau in the Franklin Institute's

exhibition of mechanical arts, where it won the first-place premium, a silver medal. The

committee of judges particularly admired Pennery's innovation, "an unusual mechanism

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that allows the mirror to swivel as well as slide backward and forward.” The report issued by Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions stated that, regarding "the manufacture of cabinetware and house furniture,” they had observed with regret that there seems to prevail too little anxiety to innovate in the designs, and that while the workmanship continued to improve from day to day, the forms remained unaltered. A slight deviation, and it is generally believed a real improvement in the mode of attaching the looking glasses of toilets, was manifested in a very beautiful specimen of maple work, exhibited by John Jameson of this city, and with a view to evince their anxiety to promote such innovations, the Committee have agreed that a silver medal be presented to him. They understand that this piece of furniture was the exclusive work of Walter Pennery, a youth apprenticed to Mr. Jameson. Although submissions to the Franklin Institute's exhibitions were by no means

representative of the furniture being produced in Philadelphia in a given year-only a small number of cabinetmakers, chair makers or manufacturers participated, and several were

from other cities~the judges comments suggest that furniture forms had become fairly standardized, while technological innovations were increasingly the source of product

differentiation.5 Domestic advice literature offers some context for the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions' fascination with Pennery's sliding mirror mechanism. The attention that they

in 1830 and Miss Leslie in her The House Book a decade later paid to the adjustability of looking glasses attests to intensifying expectations for the artifactual support of self-culture, plus the desirability of dressing bureaus such as the one made by Walter Pennery or owned by the Vansyckels. According to The House Book, T he most elegant dressing tables are of mahogany, with marble tops, having at the back a large mirror, with candle-branches or

lamp brackets on each side, and furnished with drawers to hold all the conveniences of the toilet” Miss Leslie deemed a large, adjustable mirror ideal because by tilting it one could

see most if not all of one's body. She averred that "The small movable looking-glasses,

standing on feet are much out of favor for dressing tables, as they scarcely show more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. than your head, and are very easily upset.” However, many of her readers must not have enjoyed the luxury of owning a dressing bureau that incorporated a sizable mirror, as she described the following makeshift arrangement as commonplace: "it is now customary to

fix a large glass upon the wall at the back of the table and bureau; suspending it by a double ribbon to a strong hook, and making the string long enough to allow the glass to incline forward, so as to give the persons that look into it a better view of their figures.” Similarly popular were cheval glasses, which allowed one to view oneself entirely, hence their alternate name, 'Psyche." Perhaps larger glasses were increasingly useful as women's fashions gained volume. Miss Leslie's suggested manipulation of one's looking glass also

provides an explanation for the size and height of the Vansyckel dressing bureau's minor. If left fully upright, its midpoint is sixty-five inches high, well beyond the eye level of most

women and some men. Tilted, however, it undoubtedly provided viewers with a sizable reflection of themselves, which they could thoroughly inspect.6

Wardrobes

The same distinction that exists between the Vansyckel dressing bureau and the one

Joseph Shoemaker Russell represented in his watercolor applies to his depicted wardrobe

and those owned by the Vansyckels' (see Figs. 3 ,4 & 36). The similarity between forms, however, suggests that their basic design was not an uncommon one in Philadelphia in the

mid 1830s, at least in more modest incarnations. A comparable wardrobe is illustrated in Edward Hazen's The Panorama of Professions and Trades; or Every Man's Book,

published in Philadelphia in 1838 (Fig. 39). Accompanying the chapter that described T he Cabinet-Maker, and the Upholsterer” is a graphic depicting the interior of a

cabinetmaking shop, featuring a large wardrobe with a projecting comice supported by columns, and paneled doors with figured veneer. The arched frieze underneath the comice,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the turned and carved "squash” feet are characteristics of wardrobes made in New York during the period; not surprisingly, Hazen's book was published in New York as well as Philadelphia. Joseph Meeks and Sons of New York illustrated a similar form of wardrobe

in an 1833 trade advertisement (Fig. 40); indeed, without their gilded decoration, several components of the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, such as the dressing bureau and the washstand, are also comparable to furniture forms illustrated in the Meeks broadside.7 "Forming an arch in front of comice” was an available option for "A Plain Wardrobe" in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for

Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828. Instead of an arch, however, underneath the Vansyckel wardrobes' cornices are pairs of locking drawers. The price book contained a separate table detailing sizes, styles and charges for drawers not included the basic models, and another one for "Putting on Brass Work," such as locks. With their added drawers, the Vansyckels1 wardrobes were higher than the standard size wardrobe; they also

exceeded it in width and depth. Moreover, given that their wardrobes' drawers were six and a half feet off the floor, perhaps Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel found it necessary to use

their bed steps to access them.8

Both the 1828 price book and period prescriptive literature detail a variety of interior partitions and compartments for wardrobes, although the price book standard contained just four shelves. Miss Leslie recommended two wardrobes for "spacious rooms occupied by two persons," a description that fit the Vansyckels' situation. Hailing a wardrobe "an

almost indispensable article of furniture for a chamber, particularly if there is no large closet

or press,” she opined that "Those are perhaps most convenient that have a tier of shelves on

each side, and a space in the middle, furnished with two rows of large brass or iron hooks,

on which to suspend dresses or coats; the linen and smaller articles to be laid on the shelves.” The interiors of the Vansyckels' wardrobes might have had hooks from which clothing could be hung-the primary advantage a wardrobe offered over a bureau,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. especially if one lacked closets--but no original hardware remains. The wardrobes also may have had a few removable shelves that extended their full width. Apparently they did not contain drawers, perhaps not surprising if each member of the couple had their own

dressing bureau. Likewise, the Vansyckels may have stored any linens they wished to have on hand in their ottomans. It is also possible that they preferred to spend their money on visible extras rather than private convenience. At some point, the insides of the

wardrobes were finished with Prussian blue paint; its chemical content is consistent with paints in use since the early nineteenth century. The blue paint may have been applied to ward off vermin, a constant concern; it sometimes contained arsenic, although the paint on the Vansyckel wardrobes does not. Thus the space inside the wardrobes was encoded for

service, while the locks on their doors and drawers restricted access to their contents.9

Washstand

The form of the washstand is perhaps the most generic among the suite's components (Fig. 5). While the dressing bureau and wardrobe evidence circa 1S30 Philadelphia forms, one can readily imagine a washstand or pier table similar to the

Vansyckels' made in a city like Baltimore. Indeed, its particularly dense profusion of

freehand gilded designs suggests a Maryland origin; in fact, the Vansyckel suite had been

attributed to an unknown Baltimore maker before curators at the Philadelphia Museum of

Art discovered cabinetmaker Isaac Jones's signature on the secretary desk. It is perhaps more comparable, however, to such examples as the pier table attributed to Philadelphia cabinetmaker Anthony Quervelle illustrated in Fig. 41.10

Although The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices for

Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828 did describe a basin stand, the Vansyckel washstand is more like "A Plain Pier or Toilet Table,” which the publication also outlined. At

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. approximately two feet eight inches wide by one foot eight inches deep, the Vansyckel washstand is two inches wider and four inches deeper than the price book's standard. It also features options listed under both "Dressing Table" and a plain pier or toilet table,

including a drawer, a low shelf between the legs, a marble top, paw feet, and shaped rather than turned legs. (In addition, the washstand's front "scroll standards” are similar to those labeled No. 1 in Plate 2.) Thus the Vansyckel washstand evidences a form that could just as readily have become a pier table, demonstrating the increasing standardization of furniture components characteristic of The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union

Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828.11 Despite numerous "extras," the Vansyckel washstand was not nearly as complex as many of those pictured in either furniture drawing books or domestic economy compendia Nonetheless, its sumptuous finishes proclaimed its distinction. As Miss Leslie remarked. The most elegant washing-stands are of mahogany, with marble tops; they generally having a closet underneath. To any washing-stand, (even to the plain ones that are made simply in the form of a table, with a drawer, and shelf below,) a marble top is useful as well as ornamental; mahogany or stained wood becoming very soon disfigured with wet and soap-stains. With its rosewood veneer, carved and gilt decoration, and marble top, the Vansyckel

washstand must have surpassed that which was merely genteel, although by the time Miss

Leslie published The House Book the less ornamented, "plain Grecian" style had come into

vogue.12

Secretary Pe$k

The secretary desk now in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art is the

only signed piece in the Vansyckel suite and thus the basis of its attribution; it bears the

hand-written inscription "Isaac Jones No. 75 and 77 North Front St Makers.” Surmounted by a gilt eagle and pair of lions, and fitted with mirrored panels, the secretary desk is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. perhaps the most conspicuously ornate of all the Vansyckels' suite components (Fig. 7). It is also the only piece with gilt bronze mounts at the column bases and capitals. Although the Vansyckel secretary desk differs considerably from "A French Secretary" described in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828, the designs for both may have been variants of a French secretaire & abattant; that is, a compact fall-front desk and bookcase.13 Despite its atypical features, the secretary desk's overall similarity to the rest of the pieces is undeniable, as its shared provenance. Although grandiose in spirit, it is

surprisingly diminutive in scale, perhaps because of its intended location, a bedchamber. According to The House Book, "A table, to use when writing or sewing, is an indispensable article of furniture to a chamber. Writing materials ought to be kept in every bed-room, that they may be ready for use, when wanted." Miss Leslie's comments raise the question as to whether the secretary desk was used by Elijah or Sarah Vansyckel, or both. Given that Elijah Vansyckel probably utilized the "Office Table" in the nearby

library, perhaps Sarah Vansyckel employed the secretary desk in their bedchamber for

writing her own correspondence or other tasks, such as the management of what must have been extensive household accounts.14

Bedstead

The centerpiece of the Vansyckel suite is, of course, the bedstead (Fig. 1). Surely

its towering structure dominated Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber. While well-to- do ante-bellum Americans frequently possessed elegant high-post beds, to date no extant bedsteads in Philadelphia or elsewhere evidence the same highly architectural, classically- inspired form of the Vansyckel bed. Earlier Federal-era high-post bedsteads made in

Philadelphia might had evidenced elaborate cornices, for example, but overall were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. composed of significantly sparer elements, while later specimens could be even more massive in scale than the Vansyckel bedstead. Neither the standard description nor extras enumerated for a high-post bedstead in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828 suggest a bedstead similar to the one that the Vansyckels' owned. Nor does the Vansyckel bedstead correspond to illustrated examples in popular design books published circa 1800 to 1833, although its

individual elements relate to aspects of some. For example, the Vansyckel bedstead's heavy comice is reminiscent of English high-post bed designs pictured in John Claudius Loudon's Encyclopedia o f Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and Furniture (London, 1833) or earlier furniture drawing books such as James Barron's Modern & Elegant Designs o f Cabinet & Upholstery Furniture, published in London in 1814. Furthermore, in the style and placement of its gilt ornament, the Vansyckel bed somewhat

resembles one Barron depicted (Fig. 42). On the other hand, the form of Vansyckel bedstead is akin, although by no means identical, to designs found in Pierre de La Mdsangfere's Meubles et Objets de Gout, such as the "Lit de Fantaisie " illustrated in Plate 142, published in 1804 (Fig. 43). In La Mdsangdre's depiction, a white temple-like

structure creates an "alcove" for a French bed. Although the "Lit de Fantaisie " differed from the Vansyckel bed in both type and finish, its form likewise consists of four columns

on pedestals supporting an entablature. Indeed, both beds are like miniature buildings; in each the canopy or tester overhead defines a ceiling or roof plane, while one must climb

steps to access them. Entering either would involve passing from outside to inside; the space occupied by each bed is clearly demarcated from its surroundings.15 Were the "Curtains & Ornaments” that the appraisers who took Elijah Vansyckel's household inventory listed in the second-story front room hung at the windows or on the

bed? The Vansyckel bedstead does show evidence that it once had hangings. At the bases

of each of the bedpost columns are pairs of screw holes and the oval impressions of what

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. must have been metal mounts, which would have provided places to swag curtains to. To date, however, the precise means for attaching hangings to the canopy is unknown.

Unless drapery was hung from the interior fascia of the bed canopy or the tester itself, it would have obscured the gilt decoration on the soffit and the ornate bed-posts. Moreover, the present upholstered tester is a conjectural recreation. It echoes one featured in a bed design published by La Mdsangbre in 1810 and republished by Rudolph Ackermann in 1823 that is comparable to the Vansyckel bed in form and finish (Fig 44). The illustration also suggests how drapery may have been applied to the Vansyckel bed, as it depicts lengths of fabric suspended from the tester center and secured midway down the columns.

As plate No. 321 in La Mdsang&re's Meubles et Objets de Gout, the design bore the title "Lit en Racine d'Orme, d lideaux de Taffetas, dans une Alcove Gothique. ” As plate 23 in Ackermann's A Series, Containing Fourty-Four Engravings in Colours, of Fashionable Furniture, he identified it as "A French Bed” and described it as ”an English bed with comer posts, decorated agreeably to Parisian fancy, with a framework ”made of rose wood, ornamented with carved foliage, [and] gilt in mat and burnished gold." Although

the Vansyckels1 bedstead lacks the actual devices from which the illustrated bed's curtains

were hung, it is likely that a bed as grand as theirs would have had some sort of drapery, if

only for decorative purposes. Ultimately, of course, one of the bedstead's owners removed its hangings and corresponding hardware, but it is impossible to determine who and when.16

Bed Steps

The bed rails in the Vansyckel bed probably raised the top of the mattress as much as three and a half feet above the floor, hence the need for bed steps. Bed steps restricted access to the bed, and egress from it; they provided only one way up and one way down,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. unless one was agile enough to hop up into and down out of the bed. The latter activity may have been particularly challenging with a feather bed, which the Vansyckels might have used on their bedstead before they obtained a spring mattress. Apparently restful repose in a feather bed was predicated upon positioning oneself centrally rather than peripherally upon a mass of up to forty pounds of feathers, an act best accomplished with

the aid of bed steps. Certainly considerable coordination must have been involved when couples entered and exited such beds.17 In some instances, beds may have had two sets of bed steps, either a more egalitarian or less cooperative arrangement. Not only did bed steps make it easier to get in to and out of high beds, they also could provide storage for items such as chamber pots.

For example, J. C. Loudon suggested that when there was a set of bed steps on each side of a bed, one might contain "a night convenience” and the other a bidet. The bed steps in the Vansyckel suite appear to have had a drawer along the back side in which one could have placed such items. As with the bed, a like example of bed steps is not known. However, a plate in Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson's The Practical Cabinet Maker,

Upholsterer, and Complete Decorator (London, 1826*27) illustrates bed steps comparable to those realized in the Vansyckel suite (Fig. 45). They are rendered to suggest rosewood

or mahogany veneer with gilt ornamentation, but have carpeted treads; as Miss Leslie described in The House Book: "Bed steps are generally of mahogany, covered with

Brussels carpeting.” The Vansyckel bed steps are noticeably wider than those pictured by the Nicholsons or described in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of

Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828. According to the price book, standard bed steps were comprised of three steps and had overall dimensions of "one foot four inches

long, two feet three inches from front to back, two feet high;” the Vansyckel bed steps were comparable in height and shorter in depth, but almost twice as wide. The 1828 price

book did, however, offer such optional extras as "Hinging the middle step, and a night

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stool to draw out, the loose seat clamped," or "Sinking round the edges for cloth and carpet, each step" and "Laying the cloth, each step." Incidentally, both the Vansyckel bed steps and bedstead have rather unusual "Etruscan" feet, undoubtedly "extras." The ogee- profile feet further set them apart from the rest of the bedchamber suite, which all have paw feet Given their distinctive features relative to the other pieces in the suite, perhaps bed and bed steps relate to some yet undiscovered pictorial source.18 Bed steps accompanying high beds were not a new phenomenon in nineteenth- century Anglo-American bedchambers, but they may have been particularly favored by those outfitting grander bedrooms. Household advice-givers writing in the early to mid 1840s expressed both tacit approval and outright condemnation of them. Miss Leslie

merely stated that "By the side of a high bed it is customary to have steps for the purpose of ascending it easily," while the authors of An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1845) likewise remarked that bed steps "are necessary to ascend some beds that are

made very high." Archetypal home economist Catharine Beecher, however, thought bed

steps unnecessarily dangerous and implied that they were a vanishing trend. In her 1841 A Treatise on Domestic Economy, she wrote that "The recent absurd fashion of very high

bedsteads, seems to be passing away; and it would be wise for those, who have bedsteads so high that children endanger their lives in sleeping on them, and stairs are needed to mount them, to saw off the legs, to reasonable height" At some point during the Vansyckel bedstead's usage, someone agreed with Catharine Beecher about its

"unreasonable" height, and repositioned the rails approximately nine inches further down

on the bedposts. There is a noticeable depression in the top center of the left long rail of the bedstead, as if caused by repeated stepping onto it to get in and out of the bed. Whether the wear occured before or after the bed rails were lowered is difficult to determine, but the bed

steps do not seem to evidence as much wear as other components of the suite. Perhaps the Vansyckels found their bed steps inconvenient, or lowered the bed rails when they obtained

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their spring mattress to eliminate the need for them altogether. Otherwise, subsequent owners (family descendants) must have made the alteration.19

A Cultural Hierarchy of Beds

What did the Vansyckels1 choice of a high-post bedstead with bed steps imply, not to mention an entire suite of matching bedchamber furniture? Most likely, in their experience of beds and bedchambers, it indisputably placed them at the apex of both contemporary and historical artifactual hierarchies. Household advice literature of the period explicitly codified such rankings. Indeed, in defining a bed, many authors began their narratives with a discourse on its primitive origins, just as John W. Van Sickle opened his family history with T he Early History of the World" and T he Early History of the Aborigines," while Thomas Cole commenced The Course o f Empire with a depiction of the "Savage State" of man. In The Domestic Encyclopedia (Philadelphia, 1826), Willich and Cooper began their entry for bed with the following statements: "BED, a convenience for

ease, or sleep. It was the general practice in the first ages for mankind to sleep upon the skins of beasts." In An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy (New York, 1845), after identifying and defining the bed's various components, Webster et al. proceeded with eight paragraphs of "Historical remarks.” They too invoked primitive man in language very

similar to Willich and Cooper's: "In the first and ruder ages of mankind, it was the general practice to sleep upon the skins of beasts, as was the case with the ancient Britons, and this custom still prevails in many of the Asiatic countries, and other parts of the world." The

authors then followed the well-established pattern of citing the practices of first the Greeks then the Romans. They described the simple form of a Grecian couch, and the more

elaborate Roman triclinium, "which was for the purpose of resting upon at meals" and "usually occupied by three persons." According the authors, such beds "in the luxurious

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. times of the emperors, were of the most surprising magnificence; and we are informed by Pliny that they were frequently formed of ivory, adorned with plates of silver and gold, and covered by the softest mats and counterpanes." They also apprised their readers that "The

use of feather beds is not modem, for Pliny informs us that they were in use among the Roman gentry." Thus Webster's An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy established a link between the habits of elites in ancient Rome and those of their contemporary audience.20 Given that its authors were British, it is not surprising that An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy next turned to the beds used by nobility in medieval England: In the houses of the wealthy, and even in the royal chambers of England, beds stuffed with straw or chaff were used so late as the close of the thirteenth century; the bed furniture was of a very costly description, and made of such durable materials as to last for many years; a few have descended down even to the present times, and are preserved in old manor houses. The hangings were sometimes of silk damask, or of velvet, and embroidered with coloured silk, or of rich stuffs. Despite the evident splendor of such beds, Webster et al. opined that "The effect of the

whole was heavy,” and "calculated to have an air of gloomy grandeur suited to the times." They also assured their readers that current chamber furnishings were far more healthful,

observing that during the former age "The testers were generally low, the necessity for plenty of air not having been then understood." Earlier bed hangings were also suspect, as

"Their great expense prevented their frequent removal, and the nature of the materials collected dust, and rendered it difficult to clean them so often, or so effectually, as might be desirable." The authors affirmed that "Our modem light furniture is much preferable, and with care may last sufficiently."21

An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy then offered a glimpse of curious and quaint beds in other countries. According to the authors, Among Eastern nations, beds are seldom raised from the ground. In the evening, mattresses stuffed with cotton, of which they keep a considerable number in great houses, are brought into the room, and laid down on the floor often they have no other beds than the divan used in the day. The poorer people lie only on mats spread on the ground.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. They also discussed German beds, noting that they "differ remarkably from our mode in England." The authors described them as follows:

They make the upper part so high by means of many pillows placed underneath, that they rather sit than lie in bed; some do not use blankets, but, instead of them, have a wadded counterpane over the sheets; and, in winter, a light feather bed, sometimes of down, is added as a couvre-pieds. This custom, though sometimes spoken of with ridicule, is said to be extremely comfortable in very cold countries. Returning to Great Britain, An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy reported that bedding for common use in England and Scotland "during the feudal period of our history" was often nothing more than a pile of straw. As for later periods, the authors quoted an "account given by Hollingshed:" Our fathers, and we ourselves, have lain full often upon straw pallettes, covered only with a sheet under coverlets made of dogswain or hoperlots (I use their own terms), and a good round log under their head instead of a bolster. If it were so, that the father or the good man on the house had a mattress or a flock bed, and thereto a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he though himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town. So well were they contented. Pillows (said they) were thought meet only for women in childbed. As for servants, if they had any sheet above them, it was well: for seldom they had any under their bodies, to keep them from the prickling straws, that ran oft through the canvass, and razed their hardened hides. By inference, contemporary English beds were far superior to those used in Great Britain

in the past or in foreign lands in the present; presumably "Eastern nations" colonized by the British empire would reap the benefit of better beds. An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy's brief history also naturalized class differences in bedding; moreover, it implied

that present-day servants were fortunate if their beds no longer "razed their hardened

hides."22 Webster et al. then outlined a circa 1845 hierarchy of beds and bedrooms for their Anglo-American audience. As mentioned previously, the authors deemed a high bed

appropriate for the ideal large, lofty chamber. Beyond its persistent fashionability, they rationalized that a high bed had "the convenience of admitting sweeping under it.”

According to An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, "Four-post bedsteads, as they are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. called, are the sort most generally used in England for the best beds. These consist of four lofty pillars, with a bed frame, and canopy with curtains." Such beds "are generally made of mahogany, but occasionally of other fine wood, as satin wood;" and, "as they are made of solid wood, the thickness increases the expense considerably." As the authors described it, "The bed-frame is fixed to the four posts by strong screws, which must be unscrewed when the bed is taken to pieces; and a particular implement, called a bed-screw, is kept for that purpose." They also advise that "in the best beds laths, are put across to lay the bedding upon" rather than sacking bottoms. Headboards typically dropped into grooves in the head-posts, and in some instances footboards followed suit. Bedstead cornices were

"best made of mahogany," and "at present made extremely plain” for fear of harboring dust For hanging bed curtains, a "tester lath" was "fixed on top of the posts," which carried valances and curtain rods.23 Following their account of the four-post bedstead, Webster et al.'s An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy outlined a variety of French beds, including both a "cottage French pole-bed" and more elegant examples based on classical models. In the following order, the authors described: tent beds; half-tester bedsteads; press bedsteads;

chair beds; sofa and couch beds; cots or hammock; stump bedsteads; box bedsteads;

folding camp or tressel bedsteads; and iron bedsteads. Their sequence was roughly hierarchical. Tent beds, for example, they categorized as "in very general use in England." Half-tester bedsteads and press bedsteads were folding bedsteads that could be shut up when not in use. The authors recommended them for small rooms, perhaps servants' quarters, although they did caution that the case pieces which concealed press beds were prone to infestation as such beds did not receive proper airing. Fold-out chair, sofa and

couch beds were convenient "means for accommodating an accidental visitor;" sofa beds

were particularly "useful and cheap pieces of furniture." Cots and hammocks provided another means of temporary bedding or outfitting a small bedroom. The authors

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. considered stump bedsteads "the humblest in common use; they are usually made of wood with sacking bottoms." They described the folding camp or tressel bedstead as "one of the cheapest made," with "the great convenience of being easily put aside to make room when folded, consisting merely of two frames connected by the sacking." An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy concluded its discourse with iron bedsteads, which the authors stated were in very general use and easy to keep clean.24 If by form alone the Vansyckel bed's high-post bedstead occupied a place at the top

of a culturally-constructed hierarchy of beds, its particularly opulent manifestation of that

form clearly distinguished it from lesser high-post bedsteads, such as those outlined in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828. Although all the forms in the Vansyckel suite exceeded the price book's standard models (and thus presumably more commonplace executed examples), the bedstead and the secretary desk represented the most radical departures and thus perhaps

were the most significant pieces in the suite. Beyond form, however, finish constituted the bedchamber suite's most conspicuous feature, as exhibited by its rosewood and mahogany

veneer, gilt and vert antique carved ornament, and freehand-gilt decoration.

Finish and Decoration

All the pieces of the Vansyckel suite are veneered in rosewood. Highly

fashionable, its variegated figure created visual interest over otherwise unrelieved flat

expanses found in large components such as the wardrobes. (Some mahogany veneer does occur on the dressing bureau; its three lower drawer fronts feature a "feather" pattern). The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing

Cabinetware of 1828 provides some indication of the relative labor costs involved in various veneer choices. The standard descriptions in 1828 price book do not specify wood

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. finishes, but the extensive tables detailing veneering options suggest that many levels of upgrades were available. Table No. 1, for example, pertained to "Banding with Striped or Mottled Wood," and distinguished between long, cross and feather banding, and banding

with "pieces of curl." Pricing also took into account veneer widths and lengths, and whether the proposed substrate was flat or curved. Subsequent tables dealt with numerous options and charges for "Veneering with Plain Wood on Flat Work," "Jointing Veneers," "Making and Veneering Raised Pannels with Mottled or Shaded Wood," "Veneering Whole and Three Quarter Columns, Pillars &c. with Mottled Wood," and "Veneering Half and Three Quarter Circles, Tops, Base, Surbase, Plinths, &c." In the latter table, the most expensive types of veneer to apply were "rose, king, tulip, or other hardwood;" presumably their material cost was among the highest as well. However, according to Deborah Ducoff-Barone, "By the 1830's steam powered lathes and circular saws provided cabinet and chairmakers with cheaply manufactured prefabricated parts and sawn lumber." The relative thinness and lavish use of rosewood veneer on the Vansyckel suite suggests that it was pre-cut with a circular saw, both reducing its cost and making it more readily

available.25

The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for

Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828 also contains information relevant to the suite's carved ornaments. It included separate tables for types and prices of the following elements: fillets; reeds; pilaster caps and bases; lyres; flutes, various moldings; coves and rounds; paw feet for bureaus, sideboards and various table forms; and sofa scrolls. Plates depicted

many of the elements detailed in the tables or among the extras listed in the price book text,

such as cornices, scroll standards, sofa feet, dining and dressing table standards, and

designs for glazed panels with elaborate moldings. Certain carved elements in the suite- column capitals, paw feet-seem comparable to those described or depicted in the 1828 price book, while others-the bedstead capitals, the "Etruscan" feet, the lions and eagle atop

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the secretary desk, and the ubiquitous echinus molding~do not. The latter item, for example, may have been produced by carvers and gilders who fabricated architectural elements and picture frames. The noticeable variation among the various specimens of

carving suggest that they were the works of several different hands, perhaps purchased prefabricated outside the cabinetmaker's shop. With the exception of the two wardrobes, which are virtually identical, none of the paw feet on the various pieces in the suite match

each other, nor do their column capitals.26 The suite's carved elements also demonstrate the additive nature of its individual

components' designs. A photograph of the bedstead headboard during conservation illustrate that its echinus molding was a separate piece sandwiched between a series of parts that formed a cornice once assembled together (Fig. 46). Likewise, the bases of the bedstead columns (at the pedestals) were comprised of several pieces that when put together looked like a complete unit; that is, a two-part square base with a round opening

plus a circular ring-shaped molding placed over it, all of which were then nailed into

position. The impact of the Vansyckel suite's carved decorations was heightened with a variety of metallic finishes, accomplished through several different techniques. For

example, the echinus moldings on the bedstead, wardrobes, dressing bureau, and secretary

evince water gilding. Although water gilding resulted in a less durable finish than could be achieved through oil gilding, it imparted a surface coating of gold leaf that could be highly burnished, as it was on all echinus moldings in the suite except those on the dressing

bureau. (The form of the dressing bureau's molding also varied slightly from those used elsewhere; perhaps the interval of its "egg-and-dart" motif had to be adjusted to coincide

with the relatively short width of the looking glass.) Throughout the suite, elements such

as the column capitals and paw feet evince a vert antique finish with oil-gilded highlights;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the mottled greenish metallic surface was achieved through the application of various pigments and bronze powders.27 Perhaps the most finely executed detail of the Vansyckel bedchamber suite was its freehand-gilded decoration. Presumably such elaborate work would have been executed by a skilled ornamental painter. The flat, outline-style of freehand gilding exhibited on the Vansyckel suite can be found on many Philadelphia pieces made in the 1820s and early

1830s, especially square or upright pianos (Fig. 47). Often described as a less expensive way to achieve the effect of ormolu (gilt bronze) or brass mounts, it became a prevalent type of decoration in and of itself. Presumably it appealed to customers such as the Vansyckels, who could get more glitz for their money with freehand gilding rather than costly metal mounts.28 As opposed to stenciling, freehand gilding "refers to a method of applying gold leaf

to an oil size painted in a pattern on a smooth two-dimensional surface;” once the size had

cured, the painter or gilder scribed the leaf with a stylus or a fine brush in order to create the fine lines that gave the oil-gilded decoration the illusion of depth. The outlines for the motifs themselves may have been transferred to the surface with paper patterns. Conservator John Courtney, who studied and worked on the Vansyckel suite extensively, suggests that the painter or gilder may have used either a pricked pattern or lithopone transfer technique to lay out the motifs to be gilded. In the former process, the craftsperson

pricked holes through the outline of a design drawn on a piece of paper, then placed the

pricked paper pattern on the surface to be decorated and pounced it with chalk, leaving behind a dotted outline. In the latter method, the painter or gilder applied lithopone, "a greasy white pigment," to the reverse of a piece of paper with the desired design drawn on

it, then placed the pattern on the surface to be decorated and traced over the design with a stylus or equivalent to transfer the outline.29

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In "'All That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820- 1840," John Courtney outlines possible design sources for the freehand-gilding motifs often found on Philadelphia furniture dating from the 1820s and 30s. Comparable classically-inspired designs occur in books of ornament and furniture design dating from

the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries, including those published by Thomas Sheraton, Charles Percier and Pierre-Franfois Leonard Fontaine, Thomas Hope, and George Smith in the early 1800s. They likewise appear in trade catalogs for brass ornaments, composition ornament, wallpaper, textiles, and porcelain. Indeed, any number of sources could have provided the basis for freehand-gilded designs. For example, Courtney suggests that a plate such as that illustrating Greek Pateras in Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson's The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, and Complete Decorator

(London, 1826-27) might have inspired motifs like those found on the Vansyckel suite

(Figs. 48 & 49). However, very rarely do actual designs correspond to published ones. Extant specimens of gilding vary considerably, even though many classical motifs, such as the anthemion (honeysuckle) or scrolling acanthus leaves, were used over and over again. Indeed, the specific designs on the Vansyckel suite vary from piece to piece. Motifs were combined and recombined to create decorative ensembles of the desired length, width and composition. The dressing bureau and the secretary desk, for example, have certain

figures in common with each other but not the rest of the suite. Beyond the ubiquitous anthemions and "S" and "C scroll acanthus leaves, the individual motifs on the suite include various floral and foliate forms, plus pineapples and baskets of fruit Perhaps unintentionally so, their connotations of fecundity were particularly apt for a bedchamber suite.30 In sum, the components of the Vansyckel bedchamber suite were more elaborate

than those discussed in either the 1828 price book or subsequent domestic economy books.

It must have stood at the apex of bedchamber furniture produced contemporaneously in

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philadelphia Yet for the most part the individual pieces in the Vansyckel suite drew on standardized forms and were accomplished with relatively simple construction techniques. With its rosewood veneer and carved and gilt ornamentation, the bedchamber suite exhibited a high level of finish and evinced a unified appearance. But although pieces of the suite look alike at first glance, there are distinct variations among their respective veneers; carved, vert antique and gilt elements; and freehand-gilded decoration. Thus they

evidence a much looser definition of "matching1' than would be the case later in the century, as more machine-assisted production assured greater regularity, and chamber suites became more commonplace.

Isaac Jones

To date those responsible for the Vansyckel suite's lavish gilding or its by-gone bed hangings are unknown. The cabinetmaker whose shop executed the Vansyckels' bedchamber furniture, however, was Isaac Jones (c. 1794-1868). Jones is among the

lesser known Philadelphia furniture craftsmen active in the 1820s and 30s. According to city directories, he was a cabinetmaker from 1818 to 18S3, and a vamishmaker from 1854 to 1861. First listed as a cabinetmaker at 4 Perkin pine Court in 1818, the following year Jones moved to 25 Brewers Alley; by 1820 he had established a shop at 77 N. Front

Street, three doors north of Arch Street on the east side of Front, where he would remain

for the next forty years. The Jones family moved next door to 75 N. Front Street in 1830,

where they stayed until 1852. Physical proximity, then, must have led the Vansyckels to Isaac Jones, as they resided across the street from him at 74 North Front from 1819 to circa 1832 (Fig. 20).3i

The dates by which Jones occupied both 75 and 77 N. Front Street narrows the range of possible dates for the Vansyckel bedchamber suite. Given that the inscription on

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the secretary bookcase mentions 75 and 77 N. Front Street, and Jones is not listed at 75 N. Front until 1830, the Vansyckels' bedchamber suite could not have been made before that

date. Most likely its production coincided with the Vansyckels' circa 1833 move to their new home at 187 Mulberry Street.32 Along with Isaac Jones, many Philadelphia cabinet and chair makers populated North front Street during the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Their workshops

and warerooms were close to potential customers, who were concentrated in the city's densely-populated eastern wards; raw material sources, such as lumber yards; and services,

such as shipping. Despite the transient nature of the profession itself-cabinet and

chairmakers frequently shifted in and out of the trade--the furniture craftsmen who had established themselves in the area by 1820 tended to stay put, as Jones did. By doing so, they had access to not only markets, supplies and services, but also professional and personal support. A still extant "face-to-face" society connected Isaac Jones with clients

like Elijah Vansyckel and fostered mutually beneficial transactions with other cabinetmakers, who might provide each other with products, labor or opportunities for

work.33

Since there were many cabinetmakers on North Front Street to choose from, one wonders what else besides propinquity drew the Vansyckels to Isaac Jones. Both moved

to the area at approximately the same time, and if Isaac Jones' primary contact was Elijah

Vansyckel, the two men did have a few things in common: they were fairly close in age, both married with children, and both bom in New Jersey. Most likely, however, it was the quality and price of Jones' wares that attracted Vansyckel's attention, especially if he kept a

showroom or wareroom in the ground floor of his shop, as did many cabinetmakers at the

time in order to entice customers. Although by the mid-1800s women were increasingly involved in procuring furniture for their homes, according to Gail Caskey Winkler, "Before the second quarter of the nineteenth century, furnishings were purchased directly from the

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. workrooms of craftsmen or artisans; husbands, not wives, conducted these negotiations." Yet if Jones displayed his products so that they were readily visible to passers-by, it is just

as likely that Sarah as well as Elijah Vansyckel would have seen them. Thus both husband and wife may have been involved in commissioning Isaac Jones to make their bedchamber suite. Moreover, although the magnitude and probable expense of the Vansyckel suite implies that it was "bespoke" or custom work, it is quite possible that Jones had completed

pieces in his shop that appealed to the Vansyckels and perhaps even formed a basis for certain components in their suite. After all, The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828 was a trade publication,

used for determining the piece work rates that a master craftsman might pay his journeyman, not a tool for communicating design options to potential clients. More likely a conversation between Jones and the Vansyckels regarding their bedchamber suite involved actual examples in front of them, descriptions of items one party may have seen, or

available illustrations of furniture designs.34 What was Isaac Jones' shop like? The same uncompleted c. 1848-50 survey map

that shows the location of the Vansyckel home at 74 N. Front Street also includes 75 and

77 N. Front Street (Fig. 20). The two lots appear to be the same width and depth, less than half the length of the shallow block between Front and Water Street. A Mutual

Assurance Company Are insurance survey made in 1810 for a William Singleton at 75 N. Front Street provides some indication of what the Jones' home was probably like; that is, a

three-story brick house twenty feet wide by twenty-four feet deep. Most likely Isaac

Jones's shop at 77 N. Front Street occupied a similar building. According to the Tire insurance survey description of 75 N. Front, the first story, which may have consisted of one room plus a counting room, featured "1 Bulk window large glafs," plus mantle,

surbase and washboards. The second story was divided into two rooms, with "1 Breast, Clofets, washboard & windows Cafed.” The surveyor described the third story as similar

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to the second, and further noted "Garret plaister'd. Trap door, Kitchen in Cellar, finished in usual manner. Common winding Stairs, Floors yellow pine. Roof suppos'd one third worn.” By 1852, the Jones family had moved to 608 South Sixth Street, and 75 N. Front had become a tavern. The next surveyor found: the bulk window Removed, and its place is 1 window of 12 lights, glass 11 x 16 in., double hung & 1 Square has folding sash front door 6 lights, glass 14 x 16 in. Circular fan sash neat Jambs & Moldings, and 1 Arch head front door, neat Jambs & frontispiece, Gas pipes in the first & second stories. As of 1867,75 N. Front also had "Communicating doors with building on the North;" that is, 77 N. Front Street Apparently by then the two buildings were occupied as a boarding

house and hotel.35

During the first half of the nineteenth century, many a Philadelphia cabinetmaker operated out of one of the city's row houses. Isaac Jones may have set up shop in a "Bandbox" house, assuming that the building at 77 N. Front Street was comparable to the

family's residence next door. In her analysis of fire insurance surveys of Philadelphia cabinet and chair making shops from 1800 to 1840, Deborah Ducoff-Barone found that in row house shops, "The wareroom was, without exception, in the first floor of the main house;" and, that "If this floor was in two rooms, the wareroom was always in the front

one." Likewise, she determined that "If the cabinet or chairshop was not a separate entity

or if it was not attached to the backbuilding, then it was positioned in the upper floor of the main house or backbuilding." The c. 1848-50 survey map depicting the block between

Front and Water Streets north of Arch Street, and the 1810 fire insurance for 75 N. Front Street, suggest that neither 75 nor 77 N. Front had back buildings; rather, directly behind them were comparable structures fronting Water Street. Thus, if Isaac Jones' shop at 77

N. Front Street occupied a twenty feet wide by twenty-four feet deep building, it seems

plausible that the first floor functioned as a wareroom and the second floor as a shop. A

good-sized wareroom allowed for the simultaneous storage and display of finished items,

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. plus a sales area isolated from the workings of the shop. On the second story, existing or new partitions may have created separate spaces for woodworking and finishing. Assuming there was a third floor, it probably served as lumber storage, as Ducoff- Barone's study indicates was often the case in three-story row house shops. If 77 N. Front Street contained a trap door in the roof, as 75 N. Front Street apparently did, lumber could be hoisted or carried up to the roof via a ladder and deposited through it directly into the garrett without interrupting the work going on elsewhere in the building. As did his many colleagues, Jones most likely organized his shop's production vertically; labor transformed raw materials into finished products as they descended from floor to floor. Architecturally, then, the probable configuration of Jones' operation at 77 N. Front enacted the growing separation between marketing and production that characterized ante-bellum Philadelphia's furniture trade.36 What forms of furniture did Isaac Jones produce? Who were his clients?

Knowledge of Isaac Jones' oeuvre and patrons would provide further context for interpreting the Vansyckel bedchamber suite in terms of its location in a culturally- constructed artifactual hierarchy. At this time, there is only one other known piece of

furniture made by Isaac Jones' shop besides the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, a mahogany sideboard (Fig. 50). According to an accompanying bill dated May 13,1831, a "Miss Corbit" bought the sideboard from Isaac Jones for forty-five dollars. The form of the

sideboard is comparable to the basic model outlined in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair

Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828, although its heavily carved, curving back-board crest aligns it with more elaborate extant examples. Unlike the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, the Corbit sideboard does not exhibit any gilding.

It does, however, share certain characteristics with the suite, particularly the dressing

bureau: massive, rectilinear form; frame-and-panel case construction; veneered columns

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with carved composite capitals that support an overhang with projecting torus-molded top

drawers; and veneer laid cross-wise around the drawer fronts and along the top edge.37 Documents such as outward coastwise shipping manifests and receipts suggest that Isaac Jones produced a range of furniture forms for a variety of patrons. Jones advertised himself as a "cabinet and sofa manufacturer" in Harris' Commercial Directory and Merchants' Guide for Philadelphia in 1838, and outward coastwise shipping manifests from Philadelphia concur with Jones' self-description. In 1826, he sent seven pairs of chairs to New York. During the 1830s, he sent two shipments to Savannah, Georgia; that is, six boxes of cabinet wares and one can of varnish in 1834, and twelve chairs and one settee in 1837. Even though Isaac Jones did export some furniture, evidently he did not do so regularly or on a large scale; presumably his clients were largely local. Among them was the renowned Philadelphia merchant Stephen Girard, for whom Jones made a screen for the price of six dollars and seventy-five cents in 1826. Jones' clients also included

other craftsmen, such as George Ritter, a cabinetmaker turned undertaker for whom he made a Held bedstead with sacking bottom for seven dollars in 1835.38 Unlike some of his more high-profile competitors, Jones does not appear to have advertised regularly in newspapers or competed for awards at the Franklin Institute's

exhibitions. He did, however, run a successful, long-lived shop, staying in business as a cabinetmaker for thirty-seven years during an era of high attrition in the trade. But like many of his fellow practitioners, he did not metamorphose from a master craftsman with a moderate-sized shop into large-scale furniture manufacturer and marketer. Census records provide some indication of the scale of Jones' operation. In 1820, according to the census for the Lower Delaware ward of Philadelphia, Isaac Jones' household included one person

engaged in manufactures, himself (approximately twenty-six years old); his wife Catharine

(approximately twenty-four years old); two free white males, age ten to fourteen years old, perhaps apprentices; and one free white male under age ten, perhaps a son. By the 1830

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. census, Jones' household had grown considerably. Presumably he and his wife had had two daughters, listed as two white females under age five; also residing with them is another white female, age ten to fourteen years old, perhaps a daughter, servant or relative. Most notable, however, is the number of young white men who were present five who were age fifteen to nineteen years old, most likely apprentices or journeymen; and one age

ten to fourteen years old, again perhaps Jones's son, who also could have been an apprentice. Although traditionally apprenticeships had begun around age twelve and lasted seven years, during the nineteenth century they could be considerably shorter.39 What might Isaac Jones' shop practices have been like? Without specific documentation, one can only conjecture, but period documents, previous studies and the extant furniture itself suggest possible interpretations. If in 1830 Jones was running his shop with the assistance of five young men between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, he

was utilizing still relatively inexperienced craftsmen. Most likely the growing division of labor that characterized furniture production in ante-bellum Philadelphia was also taking place in Jones' shop. Apprentices and young journeymen may have learned only a few

parts of the process rather than how to make a piece start to finish. Task segmentation meant that one worker in a shop may have made drawers, for example, while another fabricated other components; only the shop's master craftsman may have had the ability to execute an entire piece. Rather than doing so, however, he may have managed the labor of others who performed particular parts of the cabinetmaking process. The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828

codified and refined a fully-entrenched piece-work system, in which journeymen were to

be paid certain sums for completing particular tasks. The 1828 price book also represented journeymen's attempts to uphold the value of their skilled labor. Master craftsmen who relied on the work of apprentices rather than journeymen, or paid journeymen less than the going rates, threatened their livelihood. Moreover, by organizing production so that

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. individuals repeatedly performed similar tasks, the proprietors of cabinetmaking shops both achieved greater efficiency and restricted their workmen's opportunities to learn all aspects of the trade. Such practices, of course, also allowed a shop owner to price his wares more competitively and realize greater profits.40 With increasing specialization, a cabinetmaker did not necessarily fabricate all parts of a given piece of furniture in his shop; greater economy could be achieved through buying ready-made components. As may have been the case with the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, veneer and lumber could be purchased pre-cut with a steam-powered circular saw from a lumber yard; stock carved elements, such as paw feet or column capitals, were available from a carver; and turned items, such as columns or stump feet, could be obtained from a turner. Finishing may have been done by a cabinetmaker or a specialist, depending on the master craftsman's preference or the degree of complexity involved in completing a particular item; certain forms of elaborate decoration required the services of an ornamental painter or gilder.41 Apparently the Vansyckel bedchamber suite was a product of labor organized and

controlled by a single individual, master craftsman Isaac Jones, attested to by the signature he inscribed on the secretary desk. However, two other components of the suite bear pencil inscriptions that may be the signatures of makers other than Jones, although neither is legible. While performing conservation work on the suite, John Courtney discovered one inscription on the top left side of the dressing bureau case frame, and another on one of

the wardrobe bases, hidden when the piece is fully assembled. While the significance of

the inscriptions is unclear, the possibility exists that they were the marks of journeymen in Jones' shop who, in signing their work, however inconspicuously, contested the authority of the master cabinetmaker. Alternately, if Jones had many orders to fill at the same time

the Vansyckels wanted their bedchamber suite ready for their new house, perhaps he hired established craftsmen outside his shop to help him complete the suite more quickly, who in

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. turn inscribed their work. Indeed, the drawers on the wardrobe with the pencil inscription are marked differently than those of the other wardrobe; for example, the word "Right” is scrawled in pencil on the underside of the right drawer, while the corresponding opening in the case frame bears a penciled Roman numeral "II." The other wardrobe's drawers, however, evince the same chiseled, quasi-Roman numeral numbering system evident on other suite components.42 Jones' commission for the Vansyckel bedchamber suite appears to have coincided with a peak in his overall furniture production in the early 1830s. However unrepresentative the surviving evidence of Jones' work uncovered thus far may be, it dates from either 1826 or the early to mid 1830s. Analogously, available census records from 1820, 1830 and 1850 suggest Jones' shop was largest in 1830. Given that Isaac Jones in at least one instance supplied a customer with a can of varnish along with his cabinet wares, and later became a full time vamishmaker, perhaps he supplemented his cabinetmaking income by producing and selling varnish to his fellow tradesman throughout his career. According to Deborah Ducoff-Barone, "The special circumstances associated with the manufacture and application of varnish, in addition to the increasing demand for it among cabinetmakers and consumers, resulted in the establishment of firms in the late

1820s-early 1830s that manufactured and supplied varnish to the trade or to finishing specialists;" often, vamishmakers were former cabinetmakers. The long life of Jones' cabinet shop might be due to a varnish-making sideline that later became his primary business. Product diversification may have allowed him to weather the Panic of 1837, for

example; even if his furniture orders decreased, he did not go out of business as many of his fellow craftsmen did. Certainly many cabinetmakers provided a range of services for a variety of clients in order to supplement their income.43 In terms of furniture production, what may be most impressive about the Vansyckel bedchamber suite is its grand design; that is, the additive process of planning and

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assembling parts into furniture, and pieces of furniture into an interrelated whole. As for craftsmanship, the suite's freehand gilding may be its most finely executed element. The

variations in carving and veneer matching reflect less attention to detail than one might anticipate in the best quality work; perhaps Jones had to make do with readily available carved elements, a given amount of pre-cut veneer, or the varying skill levels of his young

workmen.

Late Neoclassicism in Domestic Interiors in Philadelphia

What aspects of late classical taste in domestic interiors in Philadelphia might have

informed the work of Isaac Jones or the various artisans who made the Vansyckel bedchamber suite? Given that the Vansyckels' chose to commission their bedchamber furniture en suite, what impact did their preferences have on its ultimate appearance? While

the previously mentioned design books by Pierre de La Mdsangfere, Rudolph Ackermann, James Barron and Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson were available through lending libraries in Philadelphia, it is impossible to determine whether Jones, the Vansyckels, or anyone else involved in producing the bedchamber suite were aware of them.

Alternatively, perhaps Elijah Vansyckel in his dealings as a wine importer had access to

less widely-available European design literature. Besides published material, influences could have come from imported or locally-made goods, or the literally hundreds of other

cabinetmakers in the city. For instance, many craftsmen involved in Philadelphia's

furniture trade were German dmigrds or their descendants, and incorporated Germanic design sources and cabinetmaking practices into their work. Clearly, however,

Philadelphia cabinetmakers working in the late classical style developed their own idiom.44

Whether intentional or not, it is quite likely that the Vansyckels' bedchamber suite echoed the presumably Greek Revival interiors of the 187 Mulberry Street town house that

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elijah Vansyckei purchased from Thomas Elmes in 1832. According to the 1827 deed Elmes obtained from the site's previous owner, Stephen Kingston, within one year Elmes

was to build "a brick dwelling house not lefs than three stories high and to occupy the entire front of the said lot on Mulberry Street of sufficient value to secure the said yearly Rent hereby incurred.” Apparently he did so and subsequently sold it to Vansyckei. While no known records of the house survive, popular architectural pattern books such as John Haviland's The Builder's Assistant, first published in Philadelphia in 1818 and 1819 and republished circa 1830, offer some inkling of what the interiors of a genteel Philadelphia town house built in the 1820s might look like. Designs such as those illustrated in Plate 3,

"A design for a double folding Door;" Plate 24, "Design for a Mantle;” Plate 29, "Foliage;” Plate 82, "A Design for a Centre Flower," and Rate 97 "Grecian Architecture," exhibit classically-inspired decorative elements akin to those found in the Vansyckei bedchamber suite. Among them were projecting cornices, echinus moldings, capitals, anthemions, and floral and foliate motifs. More specifically, ornamentation similar to that featured in Haviland's "Design for a Mantle" (Fig. 51) appears on the drawer fronts of the Vansyckei dressing bureau and secretary desk. Certainly items such as echinus molding evident in

Rate 97 "Grecian Architecture” (Fig. 52), which illustrated a detail of the entablature and

column capital "From the Temple of Minerva Folias,” must have been readily available from wood carvers to both cabinetmakers and house carpenters.45 In material form, the late classical style of the bedchamber suite-and possibly the

interiors of the Vansyckei household, or other objects within it—were on a continuum with the Neoclassical architecture so prevalent in Philadelphia's built environment by the early 1830s. Architectural historians commonly credit English architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe

for imparting a French-influenced, classical Grecian idiom to the civic architecture of early republican Philadelphia, exemplified in his designs for the Bank of Pennsylvania and the

Center Square Water Works. Similarly, Latrobe is credited with bringing about the first

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Grecian-style unified interior in a Philadelphia residence, designed and built for William Wain at the southeast comer of Chestnut and Seventh Street between 1805 and 1810. Integral to Latrobe's scheme for Wain's drawing room was a suite of classically-inspired furniture painted black, red and ochre with gilt decoration. Extant components include sixteen chairs, two card tables, a pier table, a sofa, and a window seat, now in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art (see Fig. 53, card table). The suite's forms and ornamental motifs attest to Latrobe's familiarity and facility with fashionable furniture designs published by the likes of England's Thomas Sheraton, Thomas Hope and George Smith, and Frenchmen Charles Percier and Pierre-Franfois Leonard Fontaine. Carpenter Thomas Wetherill constructed the furniture under Latrobe's direction, while ornamental painter George Bridport skillfully executed its elaborate decoration. While the suite's components appear to match at first glance, they actually exhibit distinct variations; for example, each crest of the sixteen chairs bears a different design. In their form, decoration and unity, the Wain suite established a benchmark for elegant and stylish furnishings made in the classical taste in early nineteenth-century Philadelphia.46 At nearby "Point Breeze,” Joseph Bonaparte's estate in Bordentown, New Jersey, elite ante-bellum Philadelphians came into immediate contact with the severe, imposing Neoclassicism characteristic of French Empire furnishings. Napoleon Bonaparte's older

brother, Joseph, who had fled France after the empire's demise and subsequently emigrated to the United States, purchased Point Breeze in 1815. With him came his collection of European painting and sculpture and French decorative arts, including the French Empire pier table pictured in Fig. 54, also now in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art Although Bonaparte's house at Point Breeze burned in 1820, many of its

interior accouterments survived He reinstalled them in the new mansion that he built on the site, along with furniture made by Philadelphia cabinetmakers such as Michel Bouvier, also a French Imigrd. Numerous Americans visited Point Breeze to see Joseph

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bonaparte's art collection; he also loaned works to exhibitions at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. After his death in 1844, Bonaparte's heir auctioned off the contents of Point Breeze to the many collectors eager to possess a relic of the once-great estate.47

Did members of the Vansyckei family tour Point Breeze? They may have done so; certainly Robert and especially James Vansyckei were avid art collectors. From the mid 1850s to the early 1860s, paintings and sculpture(s) owned by two brothers (and subsequently Sarah Vansyckei, and James Vansyckel's widow Susan and daughter Mary Jane) were exhibited at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. According to their respective inventories, Elijah and Sarah Vansyckei each held a share in the Academy of

Fine Arts, while Robert and James Vansyckei held one share apiece in "Point Breeze Park." (Moreover, Bordentown lay halfway between Philadelphia and the Vansyckei family's ancestral home in Hunterdon County, New Jersey). If nothing else, Pbint Breeze offered the Vansyckels' fellow Philadelphians an opportunity to experience Firsthand the vestiges of the former French empire.48

Neoclassicism and French Empire

By the early nineteenth century, French Neoclassicism's former association with

either the gout grec or enlightenment ideals became conflated with the empire of Napoleon

Bonaparte. With the assistance of his official architects Charles Percier and Pierre-Franfois Leonard Fontaine, Napoleon deployed art and architecture to reify his rule. He reputedly

made the statement that "All works of art and monuments are connected with politics," and exploited them accordingly. They not only concretized and enacted his power in the present, but also constituted his legacy to the future; for Napoleon likewise declared "Men

are only as great as the monuments they leave behind.” Architects, designers, painters, and sculptors under his aegis literally and Figuratively drew parallels between Napoleon's

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. empire and that of ancient Rome to imply that the current regime was the natural successor to the earlier one, as Napoleon himself retraced its imperial grasp.49 Percier and Fontaine were responsible for renovating numerous royal residences,

including the Louvre, the repository for various art treasures newly plundered from subjugated nations. They designed furnishings as well as architecture, including furniture, metalwork, textiles and porcelain; the end result was a highly unified interior. Chief among those who executed Percier and Fontaine's designs was the ib d n isle (cabinetmaker) Franfois-Honorl-Georges Jacob-Desmalter. The Jacob brothers constituted a furniture-

making dynasty; during the early years of Napoleon's patronage they "owned sixteen different workshops (including those for joining, turning, sculpting, inlaying, molding,

and gilding). Napoleon patronized and subsidized France's craft industries-among them cotton, silk, carpets, and porcelain, exemplified by the Manufacture Impdriale de la Savonnerie and the Sdvres porcelain factory-not only for their products, but also to promote the quality of their output in relation to other nations, and ensure the employment of their workers.50 Characterized by rigid geometry enlivened with arabesques, Percier and Fontaine's

severe Neoclassical designs incorporated ancient Greek, Roman and Renaissance sources informed by the so-called "new archaeology,” spurred by excavations in Herculaneum and Pompeii in the 1730s and 1740s. The pair of young architects studied various antique

edifices firsthand while in Rome during the late 1780s, making precise drawings which they subsequently published. Percier and Fontaine also were influenced by Baron

Dominique Vivant Denon's drawings of Egyptian monuments and artifacts, made during Napoleon's expedition to Egypt in the late 1790s and published in 1802 as Voyage dans la

Basse et la Haute Egypte. Just as Napoleon's army brought the spoils of faraway lands to Paris, so too his administration imposed what became called the "Empire" style upon the built environments of conquered states. Percier and Fontaine's publications codified and

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. imparted their designs to countries beyond Napoleon's grasp. They had a significant impact in Great Britain, where English tastemakers were developing what became known

as the "Regency," as opposed to the "Empire," style.51 Among the designers Percier and Fontaine's work influenced was London-based connoisseur Thomas Hope, who propagated his heavier, more austere interpretation of Neoclassicism, including Egyptian-inspired designs, in his 1807 book H ousehold Furniture and Interior Decoration. Englishman George Smith's 1806 Collection o f Designs for Household Furniture bears relation to the works of both Percier and Fontaine and Hope, as well as other sources. A French publication which borrowed directly from

Percier and Fontaine was Pierre de La M&ang&re's Meubles et Objets de Gout, published from 1802 to 1835. In turn, Rudolph Ackermann's Repository o f Arts, published in London from 1809 to 1828, reprinted the designs of both Percier and Fontaine and Pierre de La M£sang£ie.52 All of these publications exploited the antique and the exotic for bourgeois consumption; they also all found an audience in the United States. Americans' embrace of so-called "Empire" and "Regency" styles, encompassing their appropriation of forms from

ancient and colonized worlds, coincided with the surge of prosperity and nationalism that

followed the War of 1812. If classical taste allowed elites to mask social, political and economic control in artifactual rhetoric, it also naturalized its practitioners' positions as heirs-apparent to a burgeoning empire.53

European-made domestic artifacts in late classical styles readily found their way into American homes, including the premiere U.S. domicile, the President's house. In 1817,

James Monroe extensively redecorated the house with French porcelain, silver, drapery,

and wallpaper, plus a suite of carved and gilt furniture. Having been a minister to France in the mid 1790s and early 1800s, he and his wife had developed a taste for Parisian fashions. Despite complaints that he did not select American-made products, Monroe's

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. choice of furnishings influenced national taste; moreover, they gave representation to American empire with goods appropriated from the former French one.54 As they had in the past, affluent urbanites in major cities such as Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston purchased both imported and domestic wares for their households. However, their increasing numbers expanded markets for local craftsmen to exploit as they developed regional interpretations of late classical styles through their respective trade practices. Among New York's leading cabinetmakers, Scotsman Duncan Phyfe and French dmigrd Charies-Honord Lannuier catered to a growing commercial elite, while in Philadelphia French ebenistes Michel Bouvier and Anthony Quervelle operated large shops that supplied the city's wealthy and influential with high- style furniture for their town houses and country estates.55 Beyond the familiar names and works codified in histories of American furniture, however, were literally hundreds of cabinet and chair makers, turners, carvers, gilders, ornamental painters, and upholsterers. As city directories typically list only master

craftsmen rather than journeymen, they can provide only a low estimate of the number of active craftsmen in a particular place at a given time. In ante-bellum Philadelphia, for example, Deborah Ducoff-Barone found that according to city directories, there were 223 cabinetmakers and 61 chairmakers (284 total) working in the city in 1820; and 366 cabinetmakers and 87 chaiimakers (543 total) in 1840. Hence Isaac Jones was but one of a large number of relatively little-known craftsmen catering to the needs and desires of

growing numbers of well-to-do Philadelphians, including Elijah and Sarah Vansyckei.56

Personal Taste

How might the Vansyckels' and Isaac Jones' personal experiences and notions of fashion, taste and gentility have manifested themselves in the bedchamber suite? On his

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. part, Jones would have been capable of constructing a variety of bedchamber furnishing forms, and familiar with what clients bought which type given their needs, preferences and budget The Vansyckels clearly wanted something spectacular, yet they patronized the cabinetmaker across the street rather than seeking out the one with a reputation for producing high-style furniture for elite clients and a large, established operation, such as the afore-mentioned Michel Bouvier or Anthony Quervelle. But neither Elijah or Sarah

Vansyckei were bom into Philadelphia society, nor perhaps well-traveled sophisticates, as were a number of Bouvier's and Quervelle's most prominent clients. Elijah Vansyckei grew up in a wealthy but perhaps provincial household in rural New Jersey; either

financially, culturally or by personal choice, he did not have or take the option to live the life of a leisured gentleman there or elsewhere. Sarah Vansyckel's early life experiences are even less certain; she was bom in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, possibly the daughter of a carriage-maker.

In his three-volume America, Historical, Statistic, and Descriptive, published in London in 1841, J. S. Buckingham outlined what he called "the aristocracy of family" versus "the aristocracy of wealth" in Philadelphia. Given his representation of the two

groups, the Vansyckels belonged to the latter category rather than the former. Buckingham began his commentary by stating that "The classes into which the population are divided in

Philadelphia, are very similar to those of New York and Baltimore. Though there is no

titled nobility, or hereditary aristocracy, there is a decided aristocracy of family connexion,

as well as of wealth; and of the two, the first are the most fastidious about the rank and station of their associates." The author described the aristocracy of family as follows: The greater number of those select gentry inherit land, or houses, or stock, from their parents, and are not engaged in hade. They are occasionally joined by families who have acquired fortunes in business, and retire, when they form a small leisure class, whose chief occupation is visiting, and social intercourse when at home, and travelling to the sea-side, or to the springs of Virginia or Saratoga, in the warm season. The style of living observed by this class, is what would be deemed elegant in any part of

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Europe; their houses are large and well furnished; their domestics numerous, though nearly all coloured; their parties gay and brilliant; their manners polished and refined; and their conversation intelligent and agreeable. Despite John W. Van Sickle's later claims for his family's most distinguished ancestral

lineage, the Vansyckels were newcomers to Philadelphia; nor did they appear to have met Buckingham's other criteria for inclusion among the aristocracy of family. He described those belonging to the aristocracy of wealth as follows: The class next in order of consequence or consideration, is the aristocracy of wealth, which is more extended in numbers, not so exclusive or scrupulous about the rank or fortune of their associates, and more easily accessible to persons of inferior pretensions to themselves. Their style of living is more profuse and expensive, though not so refined and elegant; their parties are larger and more costly, and their visiting more frequent and more general. Indisputably, Elijah Vansyckei was a member of the aristocracy of wealth. In 1845, his

name was among those cited in Wealth and Biography o f the Wealthy Citizens o f Philadelphia, authored by "A Member of the Philadelphia Bar.” The book included those Philadelphians who were estimated to be worth $50,000 and up ($500,000 appears to be the maximum); at the time, Vansyckei was listed at $150,000.57

Tradition

What role did tradition play in the Vansyckels' selection of their bedchamber furnishings? In an immediate context, Philadelphia's established convention of freehand- gilded furniture, exemplified by the Vansyckei bedchamber suite, may have persisted longer there than elsewhere, and thus influenced the couple's preferences. By the early 1830s, plain Grecian-style furnishings, also known as ”Restauration” (commencing after the 1815 restoration of the monarchy in Fiance) or "pillar-and-scroU," were becoming

increasingly popular in the United States. Fashionable, moneyed New York's furniture

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. makers, for example, produced many items in the newer style, as evidenced by the furniture illustrated in Joseph Meeks and Sons' 1833 broadside (Fig. 40).58

In a larger sense, the Vansyckels1 bedchamber suite may have represented a reaction against tradition; that is, it appears to be part of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's concerted efforts to disassociate themselves from their non-urban or ethnic past, and claim a place among Philadelphia's mercantile elite. Certainly items like seventeenth-century Dutch "bed boxes” (cupboard beds built into walls, characteristically adjacent to fireplaces) were the sort of quaint curiosities that the authors of An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy might have included in their historical survey of beds. But could beds produced

in the 1830s be entirely devoid of their earlier associations?59 In the late seventeenth century, a well-to-do English or Dutch colonist in America might have lived in a house with two ground floor rooms known as a "hall" and a parlor. The hall encompassed the kitchen; cooking, dining and various other household tasks and

activities took place there. The parlor was a more formal room, where the family received visitors and kept their most valuable possessions; it was also where the heads of the household slept in the "best bed.” Ideally, the latter item was a completely furnished high-

post bedstead that with its curtains drawn formed a semi-private "room.” Over the course

of the eighteenth century, house plans increasingly evinced spatial organization differentiated by use; thus in genteel homes, best beds were moved out of ground floor parlors and into private bedchambers. Still, bedrooms were not exclusively devoted to

sleeping, dressing or other private activities; one might also receive close friends and family members in them, as evidenced by the sets of chairs and sometimes dining equipage found

in inventories. Moreover, at times parental bedchambers were populated with nursing

infants or young or sick children; cradles, cribs and bundle beds may have temporarily occupied a place alongside the best bed.60

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If a family in colonial America owned a fully-outfitted high-post bedstead, it was typically the most valuable possession their household, chiefly because of its bed hangings and coverings. Hand-woven textiles were expensive, and a complete set of bed 'furniture" required a substantial amount of fabric. Domestic textile production was limited; moreover, the finest and most desirable fabrics—silk damasks, worsted wools, printed calicos—were obtainable only via importation from Europe. The elaborately hand-worked bed hangings

some women were able to produce attained value not only from the time and skill involved in their making, but also from their costly materials, such as imported crewel yams.61 Because they were so expensive, not all households had bedsteads with bed hangings. In "Form, Function, and Meaning in the Use of Fabric Furnishings in the Use of Fabric Furnishings: A Philadelphia Case Study, 1700-1775,” Susan Prendergast Schoelwer analyzed estate inventories in Philadelphia County from 1700 to 1775 and found

"that while many estates listed bedding, only half mentioned bedsteads, and only about a

third of these included hangings." She also determined that "during the colonial period in Philadelphia, the valuations of bed furnishings exceeded those of silver plate.” Thus in colonial Philadelphia, ownership of a high-post bedstead and requisite hangings connoted

considerable wealth and social status.62 As processes for manufacturing cotton cloth became increasingly industrialized during the second half of the eighteenth century, particularly in Great Britain, cotton fabrics

became both more available and fashionable, and less expensive. Nonetheless, only well-

to-do Americans in the early republic could have afforded a bedchamber ensemble like the

one H. Taylor advertised in the Pennsylvania Journal on February 23,1782; that is, "a

genteel four post Bedstead and Cornices, with fine blue and white copper-plate Furniture. .. trimmed with fringe, made to draw in double drapery, with lines, tassels and brass pins. Two Window Curtains and Six Chair Cases of the same pattern.” Printed fabrics were still co6tly, whether executed on cotton and linen or all-cotton cloth. Although producing "fine

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. blue and white copper-plate” textiles may have been less labor-intensive than printing intricate patterns with wood-blocks or hand-painting, it required valuable engraved copper plates and a skillfully-handled intaglio printing process.63 The most outstanding bed in early-republican Philadelphia, if not America, may have been that belonging to Anne Bingham. The most fashionable members of Philadelphia's so-called "Republican Court,” William and Anne Bingham proclaimed their elite status by building a "Mansion House" at Third and Spruce Streets in Philadelphia in 1786. Having just returned from a grand tour of Europe, they furnished their imposing new domicile-considered by some the finest house in America-with numerous luxurious items purchased abroad. Among them was ” 1 mahogany Bedstead 7 feet square with canopy, curtains” for Anne Bingham's so-called "state bedroom." After William

Bingham's death in 1804, the contents of the Mansion House were sold at an auction on the premises; for the event, his late wife's remarkable bed was put on view in the ball room on the first floor. According to the advertised catalogue of "principal articles of furniture

and plate," one of the bedrooms also contained " 1 State bedstead with damask satin curtains” and related chamber accouterments. Perhaps both Binghams' aspired to state bedrooms; certainly they would have encountered them in the houses of aristocracy while on their European tour.64 Beds of state connoted royal status; at the court of Louis XIV at Versailles, the

monarch received distinguished visitors while seated on an appropriately elaborate bed, architecturally separated from the rest of the room by a balustrade. In their grandest residences, English royalty and nobility likewise outfitted ceremonial state rooms. In the appendix to his The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer's Drawing Book (3rd edition,

London, 1802), Thomas Sheraton featured an elaborate design for an "Englifh State Bed" that he deemed "fuitable to the dignity of a prince, and worthy of the notice of a king” (Fig.

55). Accompanying the plate illustrating the bed was a fourteen-page description decoding

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. its complex iconography, which included feminine personifications of the "three distinct branches" of Great Britain's government, democracy, aristocracy and monarchy; and the virtues of Justice, Clemency, Liberty, Fortitude, Law, Obedience, Authority, and Chastity.

Additional figures include Tyranny in chains, a prostrate woman; and Impurity, part- woman, part-monkey. Incidentally, the sole masculine characters featured in the bed's ornamentation were Cupid, who supposedly was guarding Chastity; and Counsel, a wise old man. Lions intended to signify power, strength and permanency supported the bed

posts, while predictably an English crown topped the dome. While Sheraton's design for such a socio-political fantasy might be dismissed as a self-serving bid for a royal commission (although no evidence of actual cabinetwork on his part survives), it also demonstrates that beds were culturally-potent symbols. In the same volume, Sheraton

included designs for less grandiose but still quite sumptuous beds, such as a French State-

Bed, a Duchesse, an Elliptic Bed, a Summer-Bed in Two Compartments, a Sofa Bed and an Alcove Bed. In his description of the latter bed, Sheraton defined the term alcove: "in buildings, [it] means a part of a room feparated off from the reft by columns and arches

correfponding, in which is placed a bed." Such spaces may have been further defined by raising the bed on a plinth, so that one must climb steps to reach it Royalty or not, willing consumers could obtain a bed that isolated and elevated them within their surrounding

bedchamber, and presumably amongst their families or guests.65

Sheraton's contemporary George Hepplewhite also illustrated ornate bed designs in The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer's Guide (London, 1788,1789 and 1794) but offered

more simple, restrained examples as well. Although Hepplewhite concurred that state bedrooms should be outfitted in silks and velvets, he primarily described bed furnishings

made of cotton fabrics, printed or merely textured, such as corded white dimity66. The prescriptions of Thomas Sheraton and George Hepplewhite did not define a full range of Anglo-American beds, but rather suggested that the upper end of the spectrum

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was becoming more finely graded as the luxury of fully-furnished high-post bedstead became increasingly available and affordable by the turn of the eighteenth century. Consumers also had the option of selecting a newly-fashionable French bedstead (now often called a "sleigh” bed) which could be placed longitudinally along a wall, perhaps with a curtained canopy suspended overhead. French beds became popular in America by the

mid 18-teens. With the advent of roller-printing first in England then the United States

during the first quarter of the nineteenth century, mechanically-printed cottons made beds draped in highly-patterned, multi-colored furnishing chintzes even more accessible to a

burgeoning middle class.67 Given that by the early 1830s, industrialized textile production had increased the availability of high-quality, less expensive fabric, the monetary value of a bed's hangings had declined along with its reduced "public* presence in the household. Despite its grandeur and appraised value of one hundred dollars, the Vansyckels' bedstead was not the

most precious item listed in Elijah Vansyckel's household inventory, although its spring mattress did add another sixty dollars to its estimated worth. Unfortunately, the appraisers did not itemize the value of its bed coverings; yet the most expensive bedcovers that they

did identify in the household appear to have been the white counterpanes they valued at five dollars a piece. Likewise, the "Curtains & Ornaments” included in the Vansyckels' bedchamber, appraised six dollars, suggest that textiles were worth considerably less

relative to other household artifacts than they had been at the beginning of Elijah and Sarah

Vansyckel's lifetimes. Concerns about health and hygiene influenced the form and disposition of beds

over the course of the nineteenth century, perhaps most noticeably in the declining use of

bed curtains and the increasing prevalence of metal bedsteads. Yet documentary and material evidence suggests that bed hangings remained popular in ante-bellum America longer than the heated debates among bourgeois tastemakers might suggest, perhaps for

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. their symbolic overtones as well as warmth and comfort As historian Jane Nylander remarks, throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, "the abundance of inexpensive fabrics encouraged the use of elaborate hangings based on English and French styles of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries." At last those who belonged to what might be called the "middling ranks” of society yet aspired to the gentility still embodied in a set of bed furnishings were able to obtain it68 If beds were located in more private spaces, and an elaborately furnished bed could

be had for less money, was the display function of beds no longer paramount by the early 1830s? Certainly the magnificence of the Vansyckei bedchamber suite, as well as published designs and extant beds and bed hangings, suggest otherwise. Beds retained certain crucial symbolic resonances; they continued to be the loci of reproduction (fertility), birth (productivity), illness and death (mortality). Indeed, not until the twentieth century would the majority of births in the United States take place in hospitals rather than at home.

Conversely, current cultural distaste for the prospect of a lingering death in a hospital-and

its accompanying expense—has given rise to a hospice movement, through which terminally-ill patients can choose to live out their lives in domestic rather than institutional

settings. Apparently Americans cherish the presumed tradition of one's friends and family

gathering around one's death-bed at home.69 Beyond the casual visits from family and friends that might transpire in an ante bellum bedchamber, more ritualized calls might occur during the so-called "lying-in" period

before and after a woman gave birth to a child. In colonial America, lying-in traditionally

lasted about a month, during which time female family members and friends might perform household duties for an expectant or new mother, or aid a midwife with the birth of the

child. By the late eighteenth century, even as more and more births were assisted by doctors, new mothers continued to receive female visitors in their bedchambers. According

to historian Elizabeth Donaghy Garrett, "the custom persisted into the nineteenth century,

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and expectant mothers often went to considerable trouble to ensure that their chamber present a handsome appearance at this 'public' time;" likewise, she observes that "Sets of side chairs suggest something of the semipublic aspect of the chamber."70 During Sarah Vansyckel's childbearing years, 1819 to 1841, customs and practices surrounding childbirth were in transition. In urban centers such as Boston, New York and Philadelphia, middle and upper-middle class women were much more likely to enlist doctors rather than midwives to deliver their children. Presumably attended by a physician, Sarah Vansyckei gave birth to three of her ten children after the Vansyckels1 acquired their bedchamber suite. Certainly the suite would have made the couple's bedroom a grand setting for Sarah Vansyckei to receive callers in before or after her children were bom. Incidentally, on January 10,1832, five months before Elijah Vansyckei purchased the family's new town house at 187 Mulberry Street-and presumably commissioned the bedchamber suite from Isaac Jones-Sarah Vansyckei had given birth to a daughter, Catherine, who had died thirty days afterwards. She was their first child who did not

survive infancy. Nineteen months later, the couple's next child, their seventh, was bom on August 9,1833. Also a daughter, they named her Catherine, presumably in lieu of the first. While ostensibly the Vansyckels' acquired their bedchamber suite for their new home, might it also have memorialized their deceased infant daughter yet simultaneously denied her absence?71 Undoubtedly Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's elaborate bedchamber suite carried and

enacted a variety of meanings for them and whoever else encountered it. Its size and

grandeur-articulated through its many components and the physical space they occupied, as well as their ornate decoration--and its placement in the second-story front chamber, clearly identified Elijah and Sarah Vansyckei as the heads of the household. The rooms

and furnishings their children used ranked them underneath their mother and father but well ahead of servants, although items owned by Robert and James Vansyckei suggest that in

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. some respects they rivaled their parents standard of living. Presumably interactions with the friends, family members or doctors who visited either member of the couple in their bedroom were shaped in part by the self-representation the couple articulated through their

impressive chamber suite .72

Gender and Identity

The most significant social relations that Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's bedchamber suite played a part in, however, were those between the couple themselves. Their shared bed proclaimed their marital status and presumed sexual relationship; it defined them as husband and wife. As a conjugal bed, it was a site crucial to the production of gender to

the extent that it mandated sexually-differentiated behavior. Furthermore, if the couple's identities as spouses were predicated on the imbalance of power inherent in marriage as a

legal institution, did their bed enact their asymmetrical social relationship? Was their

bedchamber literally a "master's" bedroom? If a marital bed could become the site of institutionalized rape and thus reify patriarchy, it also represented a space where personal identities might be negotiated. Such meanings cannot be fixed but rather are constantly

mediated; they more unstable or contested they are, the more vigorously they must be

reinstated. Moreover, objects are multi-valent as well as dynamically situated; that is, they carry multiple simultaneous meanings that vary as social relationships in which they are embedded change.

How might have a married couple in early America worked out such relations vis-a- vis beds? Based on her study of the personal property inherited by women in eighteenth- century Connecticut, Barbara McLean Ward observes that since personal rather than real

property typically constituted a woman's inheritance, beds were among the possessions that a wife might retain after her husband's death, or perhaps inherit from her family,

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. especially if she had yet to marry. Most estates were passed on without wills; and with regard to land ownership, inheritance laws favored sons over wives. A widow had a

dower right to life use of one-third her husband's real estate, but the portion the estate she inherited outright was granted to her in movables or "good and chattels." Furthermore, Ward suggests that "The property which passed through a female, and came under her control and care, served to provide material continuity with her natal family when she

became a new bride. Personal property was also used to make gifts which solidified ties with kin and served as constant reminders of maternal ancestors." If they had sufficient resources, a woman's family may have given her a bed as part of her dowry, rendering it an emblem of kinship and reinforcing a couple's ties to a wife's family. Traditions of matrilineal inheritance of beds strengthened such an association. Beds also linked women with procreation and childbirth; thus they constituted a form of "domestic capital," or the means to enact the roles of wife and mother, that a woman might bring to a marriage and

retain as a widow. A woman also may have made the bed coverings and hangings that ensconced the bed she shared with her husband. Perhaps the association of the bed with a wife's family or her own handiwork concurrently mitigated her husband's dominion yet

rendered palpable his powers of acquisition .73 The will of Elijah Vansyckel's grandfather, Reinear Vansickel (c. 1723-1803), illustrates traditions of inheritance in the Vansyckei family. Provided his wife Mercy

remained his widow, Reinear Vansickel bequeathed to her "the whole use and benefit of

my plantation whereon I now live, containing two hundred and forty acres, together with the whole of the buildings and appurtenances thereun to belonging" for four years after his death. After four years, when she left her husband's house and plantation, Mercy Vansyckei was to be given twenty-five pounds in gold or silver money per year from the estate as long as she did not remany. Mercy Vansyckei also was to receive for "her own

use and disposal, all and singular what she may have in hand" at the time her husband died,

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and "as much grain for bread and other necessary uses, also meat for her support" for the year following his decease. In addition, Reinear Vansyckei gave to his wife and "her heirs and assigns forever, one horse and two cows, her choice; also a saddle and bridle and two beds with theire furniture, her choice of my beds and as much of my household furniture as she shall think sufficient for her housekeeping;" plus "all the yam and linen cloth she may

have by her" at the time of his death .74 Mercy Vansyckei survived her husband by twelve years and did not remarry. Presumably four years after Reinear Vansickel died, his son Aaron Vansickel (1764-1838), father of Elijah Vansyckei, took possession of the family homestead, as his father had stated in his will that "I give and devise unto my beloved son Aaron Vansickel and to his heirs and assigns forever, the whole of my plantation where I now live, containing two hundred and forty acres, more or less." Mercy Vansyckei, on the other hand, received an annuity from her husband plus the "domestic capital" which he deemed necessary and

appropriate for her livelihood as his widow, among which her choice of "two beds with theire furniture" figured prominently. Although Reinear Vansyckei referred to the latter items as "my beds," his explicit bequeathing of them to his wife suggests he recognized not only their monetary value but also their traditional symbolical relation to her identity as his

wife and the mother of his children .75 Sarah Vansyckei did not inherit the bedchamber suite she shared with her husband from her family; rather, Elijah Vansyckei purchased it for the two of them as a couple.

Nonetheless, it is conceivable that she played a part in its realization, along with her husband, Isaac Jones and his workmen. In "Sleeping Around: A History of American Beds and Bedrooms," Elizabeth Collins Cromley suggests that most nineteenth-century

descriptions of bedchambers shared by husbands and wives "assume a bias towards the wife's needs, listing dressing-tables, mirrors to see the hem of a dress, and comfortable

seating on which to rest during the day as necessary elements in couple's bedroom." The

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. latter item, perhaps a lounge, may have been more apparent in middle and upper-middle class bedrooms during the second half of the nineteenth century than it was in the Vansyckel's bedchamber. Furthermore, to associate dressing tables solely with women replays an ahistorical stereotype. Given that the Vansyckei bedchamber suite contained two identical wardrobes and most likely matching pairs of dressing tables and washstands, one must examine the other items in the chamber to determine if its contents privileged one spouse's wants over the other's. As far as the bedstead is concerned, the single set of bed steps implies a certain asymmetry in its use; either they enacted coercion or cooperation. Moreover, the lowered bed rails suggest that some one at some point renegotiated access to the bed. Regarding the secretary desk, one cannot be sure which member of the couple

used it, or if they both did. However, there is not another obvious location in the house where Sarah Vansyckei might have kept her record of household accounts. Certainly her ability to handle such concerns is evident in her eventual role as administrator of her husband's estate and that of executrix of two of her son's wills. If so, the secretary desk

may have been an emblem of her competency as a household manager. The single item that

one might assume was Sarah Vansyckel's, the sewing chair, did support her domestic skills; yet perhaps her husband also used it while dressing or washing his feet, as Eliza Leslie proposed one might Barbara McLean Ward has suggested that in eighteenth-century America, Within the unequal partnership of marriage, men and women accepted certain duties and responsibilities to one another. They recognized that the family unit thus created was to be the focus of their productive energies and that they had an obligation to provide for their offspring. Their sublimation of individual desires for the good of the family was reinforced by both law and custom. If nothing else, perhaps the Vansyckels' bedchamber suite embodied the couple's

reciprocal roles in their unequal partnership dedicated to building a family empire .76

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NOTES TO CHAPTER 7

1 Known or possible examples of American chamber suites or partial chamber suites made in a late classical style include Charles-Honord Lannuier’s 1816 suite for James Brinkerhoff of New York, which contained a mahogany bedstead, pedestal, large mahogany dressing-glass frame, and crib. The furniture itself is no longer extant, but the invoice for it is; see Peter M. Kenny, Fiances F. Bietter and Ulrich Leben, Honors Lamuier, Cabinetmaker from Paris: the Life and Work o f a French Ebe'niste in Federal New York (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998), p. 121. Around 1830, Baltimore cabinetmaker John Needles made a burled maple suite for his family, which included a matching wardrobe, bureau and dressing glass, with related washstand and possibly bedstead. The suite is now in the collection of the Baltimore Museum of Art and currently on loan to the Hampton House, Towson, Maryland. See Gregory R. Weidman, et ai., Classical Maryland 1815-1845 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993), p. 123; and Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Visual Resources, Winterthur Library. In 1836-37, Andrew Jackson's son bought a group of mahogany furniture made in Philadelphia for The Hermitage in Nashville, Tennessee, among which were a bedstead sold by storekeeper George South, and "2 dressing bureaus to Match" plus wardrobes from cabinetmakers Barry and Krickbaum. See Kathleen Matilda Catalano, "Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840" (Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1972), pp. 63-66,125-26. On view at the Aiken-Rhett House in Charleston, South Carolina, is an unattributed "plain Grecian style" mahogany suite containing one, possibly two bedsteads, wardrobe, dressing bureau, and washstand, most likely made in New York post-1836.

^Elisabeth Donaghy Garrett, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870 (New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990), pp. 126-27; interview with Wendy Cooper, March 18, 1998. For example, Hart, Ware & Co. ran a notice on page 159 of O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular for the Year 1853 informing would-be customers that they sold "Cottage or Enameled Furniture," including "Complete setts for Chambers, from $25 upward." An accompanying graphic pictured a French low-post bed, dressing bureau, commode, washstand, and two chairs.

3 Deborah Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840 (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1985), pp. 40,46-58,268. In Chapter 1 "Manufacturing," Ducoff-Barone outlines a detailed comparison of the 1811 and 1828 price books.

^The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware, by a Committee of Employers and Journeymen (Philadelphia: printed for the Cabinet and Chair Makers by William Stavely, 1828), pp. 14-15,31-33,88, plate 3; Winterthur Museum Registration object folder 80.116.

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^"Report of the Committee of Judges of Cabinetware," Report o f the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions o f the Franklin Institute o f the State o f Pennsylvania [for 1830] (Philadelphia: Franklin Institute, 1830); Winterthur Museum Registration object folder 80.116.

^Leslie, The House Book, p. 300.

^Edward Hazen, The Panorama o f Professions and Trades; or Every Man's Book, (Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt, 1839), p. 221; Joseph Meeks & Sons.' Manufactury of Cabinet and Upholstery Articles, 43 & 45, Broad-Street, New York (New York: Endicott & Swett, 1833).

%The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware; pp. 17-19,56-57.

^The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware-, pp. 17-19; Leslie, The House Book, p. 298; John Courtney, "Wood Object Conservation Report” for wardrobe 89.12.3, September 1, 1994 (Winterthur Museum); John Courtney, "Wood Object Conservation Report" for wardrobe 89.12.4, December 16, 1994 (Winterthur Museum); Greg Landrey, John Courtney and Janice Carlson, "Request for Compositional Information” report for wardrobe 89.12.3, December 21,1994 (Winterthur Museum); interview with Wendy Cooper, March 18, 1998. According to Courtney's Wood Object Conservation Report for wardrobe 89.12.3, it came with two shelf supports, two shelves (one pine and one walnut), and a support for a hanger bar; "a modem pine shelf and a metal hanger bar with their attachments were removed from the inside of the wardrobe.” He also noted that "The blue paint on the inside of the case has been overpainted with a cream ground and an umber colored glaze creating a faux grained appearance." The matte blue-green paint is still evident on undersides of drawers. According to Landrey, Courtney and Carlson's "Request for Compositional Information" report for wardrobe 89.12.3, qualitative energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence analysis indicated that "The blue-green paint on the drawer contains lead white and barium white (used in conjunction with paints since the early 19th C.). The blue pigment is Prussian blue as suggested by the presence of iron and confirmed by an FTIR spectrum of the paint.” Courtney's "Wood Object Conservation Report" for wardrobe 89.12.4 records that "The inside of the case has white paper with some type of Greek key design along the top. The paper was applied over a blue 'paint' which appears to be the same as the other wardrobe 89.12.3. The top, bottom, back and front of the case was painted but not the sides. The paper is peeling severely on all covered surfaces. The side contains sawtooth shelf brackets and there are three shelves, also papered." Matte blue-green paint likewise is still evident on the undersides of drawers.

lORita Reif, "Auctions," The New York Times, 20 January 1989; deed-of-gift records, (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia).

11 The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware', pp. 9-10,20-21,31-33, plate 2.

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Leslie, The House Book, p. 301; John Courtney, "Wood Object Conservation Report" for washstand 89.12.5, April 1,1994 (Winterthur Museum). The marble top on the Vansyckei washstand is original to the piece. The splashboard and brackets are restorations carried out at Winterthur by Courtney. The washstand may have been at least somewhat more elaborate than its current restored appearance suggests; possibly a mirror was also once attached to it According to Courtney's "Wood Object Conservation Report" for washstand 89.12.5, "It was determined that a back splash and some type of shelf or shelves must have been present originally since there were slight recesses carved into the existing marble top to accept them. There were also signs that some kind of vertical members were present behind the rear stiles. It is possible that there may have been a mirror attached at some point in its life."

^Object file 1979-108-6 (Philadelphia Museum of Art).

^Leslie, The House Book, p. 303; Elijah Vansyckei, administration 1855 no. 70 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations). See Appendix B for Elijah Vansyckel's inventory.

L o u d o n ,Loudon Furniture Designs from the Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and Furniture, pp. 1079-80; James Barron, Modern & Elegant Designs o f Cabinet & Upholstery Furniture (London; printed by W. M. Thistelton, [1814]); Pierre de La Mlsang&te, Collection des Meubles et Objets de GoQt (Paris: Pierre de La Mlsang&re, Au Bureau de Journal des Dames, 1802-1835), plate 142.

l^La M&ang&re Collection des Meubles et Objets de GoQt, plate 321; Rudolph Ackermann, A Series, Containing Fourty-Four Engravings in Colours, o f Fashionable Furniture (London: R. Ackermann, 1823), plate 23.

1 ^Garrett, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870, p. 111.

l^ L o u d o n ,Loudon Furniture Designs from the Encyclopedia o f Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and Furniture, p. 1063; "Minor Conservation Treatment Report” for bed steps 86.12.6, May 16,1995 (Winterthur Museum); "Bed Steps,” in Nicholson and Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator; Leslie, The House Book, p. 306; The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices fo r Manufacturing Cabinetware-, 1828, p. 25. Drawer in Vansyckei bed steps is restored.

1 ^Leslie, The House Book, p. 308; Webster et al., An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy, p. 299; Catharine Beecher, A Treatise on Domestic Economy, 1841 (Reprint, with an introduction by Kathryn Kish Sklar, New York: Schoken Books, 1977), p. 361; Michael Podmaniczky, "Wood Object Conservation Report” for bed 89.12.1, February 8 , 1990 (Winterthur Museum). Bed rails are restored to original height, where wood patches were evident; clearly the lower height was not the original position, as the lower set of mortises obliterated areas of freehand-gilded decoration.

20willich and Cooper, The Domestic Encyclopedia, p. 176; Webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 289.

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, p. 289.

22\Vebster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, pp. 289-90.

23webster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, pp. 290-91.

24\Vebster et al., An Encyclopedia of Domestic Economy, pp. 292-96.

2$The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware ; pp. 46-49,60,63; Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840, p. 6 .

2677^ Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware ; 1828; pp. 62,65-70,78-81,88, plates 1-12.

27john Courtney, "Wood Object Conservation Report" for dressing bureau 89.12.2, January 1, 1994 (Winterthur Museum); Michael Fodmaniczky and Janice Carlson, "Request for Compositional Information" report for bedstead 89.12.1, June 23,1990 (Winterthur Museum); Greg Landrey, John Courtney and Janice Carlson, "Request for Compositional Information" report for wardrobe 89.123, December 21,1994 (Winterthur Museum);object file 1979-108-6(Philadelphia Museum of Art). Microanalysis suggests that the bedstead capitals, along with the wardrobe capitals and feet, were finished with gold leaf as well as several other pigments and bronze powders. According to Podmaniczky and Carlson's "Request for Compositional Information” report for bedstead 89.12.1, analysis of one of the bedstead capital's revealed that its original decoration probably consisted of a binary gold/silver alloy rather than bronze powders containing zinc or tin. Its "original green color may well have produced by the mixing of Prussian blue and lead chromate" (chrome yellow paint was commercially available circa 1818), but later additions contain chrome green, "which is believed to have been introduced in 1862 as a pigment” According to Landrey, Courtney and Carlson's "Request for Compositional Information” report for wardrobe 89.12.3, "Both column capital and the foot appear to have been originally gilded, with addition (later?) of chrome yellow paint" Unlike the Winterthur suite components, the carved ornament on the secretary desk at the Philadelphia Museum of Art has been restored to a fully-gilded appearance.

28john Courtney, "'AH That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840" (Master's thesis, Smithsonian Institution, 1998), p. i.

29cynthia Moyer, "Conservation Treatments for Border and Freehand Gilding and Bronze-Powder Stenciling and Freehand Bronze," in Gilded Wood: Conservation and History, ed. Deborah Bigelow, et al. (Madison, Connecticut* Sound View Press, 1991), p. 332. Courtney, "'All That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840," p. 73. According to Courtney, either method would be consistent with the Vansyckei suite's freehand gilding, "since cross-sections of some the decorative elements taken from several pieces and examined under a microscope reveal a yellow oil- size below the gold leaf." Surviving examples of coach painters' circa 1860 lithopone transfer and pricked paper patterns are in the collection of the Stony Brook Museum.

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30Courtney, "'AH That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840," pp. viii, 1, 5-26,49, 54; "Wood Object Conservation Report" for dressing bureau 89.12.2 (Winterthur Museum).

31 "Population Schedule of the Seventh Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1850 (National Archive Microfilm Publications); Isaac Jones, will 1867 no. 129 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); Philadelphia city directories 1818 to 1824, as compiled by Donald L. Fennimore (unpublished manuscript); The Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide for 1825; Desilver's Philadelphia Directory & Stranger's Guide, 1828 to 1837; [A.] M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory, 1837 to 1869; The Philadelphia Circulating Business Directory for 1838 (Philadelphia: J. R. Savage, 1838); Harris' Commercial Directory and Merchants' Guide for Philadelphia, 1838 (Philadelphia: S. Harris, 1838); Bywater's Philadelphia Business Directory and City Guide, 1850,1851 (Philadelphia: Maurice Bywater, 1850-51); O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular, 1850,1853; Philadelphia Wholesale Merchants and Artisans' Business Directory (Philadelphia: T. Ell wood Chapman & Co., 1853). According to the 1850 Census, Isaac Jones' household includes himself, his wife Catharine, and their daughters Anne, Sarah, Rachel and Hannah, but by that time no males other than Jones himself. Per city directories, Jones remained at 77 N. Front Street until 1858, although he moved the family residence from 75 N. Front to 608 S. Sixth Street from 1853 to 1855. Subsequently the Jones' settled at 696 S. Fourth Street (later 1328 S. Fourth Street). On the site today stands a two-story brick row-house, one-room wide and two-rooms deep. Isaac Jones continued to be identified as a vamishmaker in city directories until 1862, and subsequently as a "gentleman." Upon his death in 1868, his wife Catharine inherited his estate, valued at $629.55. His assets included income from boarders and rentals totaling $265.15, and a household inventory appraised at $282.78. As mentioned in Note 8 , Chapter 4, Philadelphia city directories indicate that the Vansyckels lived at 74 N. Front Street from 1819 to 1824, then moved across the street to 79 N. Front in 1825; in 1828, they lived at 79 N. Front Street, then moved back to 74 N. Front in 1829. 79 N. Front Street was next door to Isaac Jones' shop. If the Vansyckels did indeed make a temporary move across the street during the mid 1820s, they must have rented 79 N. Front Street as deed records do not indicate that they bought the property; or, that they sold 74 Front Street. Another possibility is that city directory compilers inadvertently changed a "4" to a "9" in the Vansyckels' street address, and later corrected the error.

^Object file 1979-108-6 (Philadelphia Museum of Art).

33 Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800- 1840, p. 16; Catalano, "Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840," pp. 13-17.

34”Population Schedule of the Seventh Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1850 (National Archive Microfilm Publications); "Van Syckel Bible Records” (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840, pp. 7-8; Winkler, Influence of Godey's "Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home, p. 196.

35Mutual Assurance Company Policy No. 2975 (Survey No. 1558) made for William Singleton, June 21,1810 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36william John Murtagh, T he Philadelphia Row House," Journal o f the Society o f Architectural Historians 26, no. 4 (1957): 9-11; Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840, pp. 88-101. Murtagh defines a "Bandbox" house as a relatively small, economical row house, typically two or three stories with one room per floor.

^Accession No. 78.527, Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Visual Resources, Winterthur Library. The bill accompanying the Corbit sideboard is signed by Jones, and the signature matches that on his will and in George Ritter's "Receipt Book." Isaac Jones, will 1867 no. 129 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); George Ritter, "Receipt Book,” Vol. 1,1834-1841 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

38 Harris' Commercial Directory and Merchants' Guide for Philadelphia, 1838; interview with Kathleen Catalano Milley, December 2,1997; Wendy C. Wick, "Stephen Girard: A Patron of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade" (Master's thesis. University of Delaware, 1977) p. 190; Catalano, "Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840," p. 17; George Ritter, "Receipt Book," Vol. 1, 1834-1841 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania). Kathleen Milley was kind enough to share her unpublished notes regarding Philadelphia outward coastwise shipping manifests as they pertained to Isaac Jones: he shipped seven pairs of chairs to New York in 1826, apparently consigned to himself; six boxes of cabinet wares and one can of varnish to a G. Hengerson (?) in Savannah, Georgia in 1834; and twelve chairs and one settee to a D. Ferguson (?) in Savannah, Georgia in 1837. According to Stephen Girard's receipt book, Charles Delacour signed for Isaac Jones; perhaps Delacour was a journeyman cabinetmaker working for Jones. How Jones ended up doing a piece for Girard is unclear, as by the mid 1820s Girard tended to buy his furniture from Michel Bouvier, whose shop was then located at 91 S. Second Street. According to the receipt books that George Ritter kept from 1834 to 1849, the field bedstead was the sole item Isaac Jones made for him.

39"Fopulation Schedule of the Fourth Census of the United States" and "Population Schedule of the Fifth Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1820, 1830 (National Archive Microfilm Publications); interview with Charles Hummel, February 27, 1998.

^Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800- 1840, pp. 254-56,283-84. Ducoff-Barone suggests that during the mid- 1820s, journeymen cabinetmakers adopted several strategies to protect their wages and uphold their skills: strikes, price books (exemplified by The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware of 1828) and cooperative wareiooms. In 1825, the Pennsylvania Society of Journeyman cabinetmakers incorporated and opened their own warcroom. They published their constitution and by-laws in 1829, along with the names of their subscribers, which included an "Isaac M. Jones." It seems unlikely that "Isaac M. Jones" was the Isaac Jones of 77 N. Front Street, since the latter craftsman had already established himself as a master cabinetmaker with his own shop and typically did not sign his name with a middle initial. According to Deborah Ducoff- Barone's compilation of "Philadelphia Furniture Makers, 1816-1830" published in the May 1994 issue of The Magazine Antiques, apparently there were other cabinetmakers named Isaac or Isaac M. Jones active in Philadelphia in the late 18-teens and the late 1820s.

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800- 1840, pp. 30,59*61. Given that Isaac Jones made varnish as well as cabinetware, how involved was he with the finishing of the Vansyckel bedchamber suite? According to Ducoff-Barone, "Varnish manufacturers were usually former cabinetmakers;" or, ship and coach polishers and painters, who might also varnish cabinetware. If nothing else, the clientele for Jones' varnish must have included professional ornamental painters-gilders, plus chair, sign and coach painters—capable of executing the freehand-gilded decoration on the Vansyckel bedchamber suite. In "'AH That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840," John Courtney observes that craftsmen involved in ornamental painting frequently changed their job descriptions in city directories (p. 71).

^Courtney, "Wood Object Conservation Report" for dressing bureau 89.12.2, "Wood Object Conservation Report" for wardrobe 89.12.3 (Winterthur Museum). In his report on the dressing bureau, Courtney notes that "There is some writing on the top left side of the frame in pencil." In his report on wardrobe 89.12.3, he observes that "Some writing in pencil was visible on top of the base, right side facing, which would be hidden by the case. It appears to be a signature and reads G(?) Boker(?)." Chiseled, quasi-Roman numerals appear on the dressing bureau drawers and case frame; the drawers, case frame and capitals of wardrobe 89.12.4; and the bedstead capitals.

43 Deborah Ducoff-Barone's and Kathleen Catalano [Milleyj's studies of ante-bellum Philadelphia's furniture trade reveal that craftsmen often installed and repaired furniture or did carpentry work for their patrons; they also diversified their output Michel Bouvier's furniture-making operation was so large that he had his own steam-powered saw mill and also ran a lumber yard, from which he sold sawn lumber and veneer other cabinetmakers (Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800- 1840, pp. 77-78). Still others engaged in more than one trade, such as George Ritter, who apparently became so involved with his undertaking business that he jobbed out some of his furniture production to other cabinetmakers, such as Isaac Jones (Catalano, "Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840," pp. 16-17).

44courtney, "'AH That Glitters:' Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840," p. 14; Charles L. Venable, "Philadelphia Biedermeier: Germanic Craftsmen and Design in Philadelphia, 1820-1850" (Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1986). In Figure 57, for example, Venable illustrates a Biedermeier design featured in L. W. Wittich's Magazine fiir Freunde eines geschmackvollen Ameublement which depicts a bookcase with an echinus molding underneath a projecting comice, not unlike components in the Vansyckel bedchamber suite.

45oeed granted to Thomas Elmes by Stephen Kingston, and deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas and Lydia Elmes (Philadelphia City Archives); Haviland, The Builder's Assistant, plates 3,24,29,41,82. Echinus moldings of similar proportion to those on the Vansyckel bedchamber suite, for example, appear in door architraves in the library at Andalusia, designed by architect Thomas Ustick Walter 1833-34 for Nicholas Biddle, an affirmed classicist and then-president of the Second Bank of the United States.

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Talbot Hamlin, Greek Revival Architecture in America (London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1944), pp. 30-35; Tatum, Penn's Great Town, p. 59; Garvan, Federal Philadelphia, 1785-1825: The Athens o f the Western World, pp. 90-93; Jack L. Lindsey, "An Early Latrobe Furniture Commission" The Magazine Antiques 139, no. 1 (1991): 208-19. Carpenter Thomas Wetherill was the nephew of paint manufacturer Samuel Wetherill, whose son Samuel Wetherill, Jr., was the Vansyckels' next-door neighbor on Front Street

47Wendy A. Cooper, Classical Taste in America 1800-1840 (Baltimore: The Baltimore Museum of Art; Abbeville Press: New York, London and Paris, 1993), pp. 68-71; E M. Woodward, Bonaparte's Park and the Murats (Trenton, New Jersey: MacCrellish & Quigley, 1879), pp. 42, 5,68-69.

^Robert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307, and James J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); Anna Wells Rutledge, ed., Cumulative Exhibition Record o f Exhibition Catalogues, The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1807-1870, pp. 23,40,45, 52, 144, 188-89, 198, 214, 252, 255, 257, 262, 365.

49Nietta Apr&, Empire Style (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1973), pp. 3- 5; Madeleine Deschamps, Empire (New York, London and Paris: Abbeville Press, 1994), pp. 54, 6 6 .

SOApri, Empire Style, pp. 3-4; Deschamps, Empire, pp. 95-97, 142-52, 159-64.

John Morley, Regency Design 1790-1840 (London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1993), pp. 272-73; Deschamps, Empire, pp. 31-33,71-74.

52Morley, pp. 382-83,386-88, 393-96.

53oscar P. Fitzgerald, Four Centuries o f American Furniture (Radnor, Pennsylvania: Wallace-Homestead Book Co., 1995), pp. 109-11.

54cooper, Classical Taste in America 1800-1840, pp. 29-31.

^^Deschamps, Empire, pp. 219-222; Fitzgerald, Four Centuries of American Furniture, pp. 111-14.

5^Ducoff-Barone, The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800- 1840, p. 13.

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57james S. Buckingham, America, Historical, Statistic, and Descriptive (London and Paris: Fisher, Son & Co., 1841), pp. 80-82; A Member or the Philadelphia Bar, Wealth and Biography of the Wealthy Citizens o f Philadelphia (Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber & Co., 1845), p. 21. Among the "aristocracy of wealth" Buckingham included philanthropists such as "Mr. Matthew Carey, an Irishman and a Catholic—Mr. William Birch, an Englishman and a Unitarian-and Mr. Matthew Newkirk, an American and a Presbyterian." Although there is little evidence to suggest that Elijah Vansyckel was a philanthropist, he probably had some things in common with the latter man; besides being a fellow "American and a Presbyterian," Newkirk had made his money in railroads then erected a grand marble mansion on the southwest corner of Arch and Thirteenth Streets in 1837.

^Fitzgerald, Four Centuries o f American Furniture, pp. 128-30.

^^Kevin L. Stayton, Dutch by Design: Tradition and Change in Two Historic Brooklyn Houses (New York: The Brooklyn Museum; Phaidon Universe, 1990), pp. 34-36.

^Elizabeth C. Cromley, "Sleeping Around: A History of American Beds and Bedrooms," Journal o f Design History 3, no. 1 (1990): 1-2; Garrett, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870, pp. 120-22.

Florence M. Montgomery, "18th-Century American Bed and Window Hangings,” in Upiholstery in America and Europe from the Seventeenth Century to World War I, ed. Edward S. Cooke, Jr. (W. W. Norton & Co.: New York, 1987), pp. 163-171; Susan Prendergast Schoelwer, "Form, Function, and Meaning in the Use of Fabric Furnishings: A Philadelphia Case Study, 1700-1775," Winterthur Portfolio 14, no. 1 (1979): 38.

^Florence M. Montgomery," 18th-Century American Bed and Window Hangings,” p. 163.

63 Mary Schoeser and Celia Rufey, English and American Textiles from 1790 to the Present (London: Thames and Hudson, 1969), pp. 29-30; H. Taylor, as quoted in Florence M. Montgomery, Textiles in America, 1650-1870, p. 23.

64 R o b ert C. Alberts, The Golden Voyage: The life and Times o f William Bingham, 1752-1804 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969), pp. 157-59, 162,470.

^Florence M. Montgomery, Textiles in America, 1650-1870, p. 15; Thomas Sheraton, The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer's Drawing Book, 1802, reprint, with an introduction by Lindsay O. J. Boynton; ed. Charles F Montgomery and Wilfred P. Cole (New York, Washington, and London: Praeger Publishers, 1970) pp. 26-40, plate 19.

^^Schoeser and Rufey, English and American Textiles from 1790 to the Present, p. 30.

^Fitzgerald, Four Centuries o f American Furniture, p. 135; Florence M. Montgomery, Printed Textiles: English and American Cottons and linens, 1700-1850 (New York: The Viking Press, 1970), p. 287.

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 8 jane c. Nylander, "Bed and Window Hangings in New England, 1790-1870," in Upholstery in America and Europe from the Seventeenth Century to World War 1, ed. Edward S. Cooke, Jr. (W. W. Norton & Co.: New York, 1987), p. 175.

69Richard C. Wertz and Dorothy C. Wertz, Lying-In: A History o f Childbirth in America, exp. ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 133

70wertz and Wertz, Lying-In: A History o f Childbirth in America, pp. 1, 29; Garrett, At Home: The American Family 1750-1870, p. 126.

Wertz and Wertz, Lying-In: A History o f Childbirth in America, pp. 48-50; "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

7^Among the Vansyckels 1 guests might have been George Graham, who lived next door at 191 Mulberry Street in 1844 to 1847 (per Philadelphia city directories). Graham was the publisher of Graham's Magazine, a leading literaiy journal of the time, and allegedly he and his wife hosted lavish dinner parties attended by writers such as Edgar Allen Poe and the editor of Godey’s Lady's Book, Sarah Josepha Hale. According to an antiquarian history of Philadelphia, Graham lived in an Arch Street mansion adjoining "that of Elijah Van Syckel, a wine merchant, and the two families were so intimate that a door was broken in the partition wall of the second story, so that they might pass back and forth at any hour." If such visits indeed took place, one can imagine they transpired in either the Vansyckels' bedchamber or perhaps the library; reputedly Graham was an avid drinker, and the latter room was particularly well-equipped for that activity. Most likely the two men did share a friendship, as Elijah Vansyckel bought one-sixth of Graham's newspaper, The North American & U. S. Gazette, when Graham was in financial need. See Ellis Paxton Oberholtzer, Philadelphia, A History o f the City and Its People (Philadelphia, Chicago and S t Louis: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1912), pp. 212,218; George R. Graham, Elijah Vansyckel and Thomas McElrath, "Bill of Sale for the North American and Gazette of the United States," 9 August 1848 (Graham Collection, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

73Barbara McLean Ward, "Women's Property and Family Continuity in Eighteenth- Century Connecticut," in Early American Probate Inventories, ed. Peter Benes (Boston: Boston University for The Dublin Seminar for New England Folk Life, 1989), pp. 74-78, 80, 85.

74john W. Van Sickle, A History o f the Van Sickle Family, pp. 145-46.

75john W.Van Sickle, A History o f the Van Sickle Family, p. 146.

76Cromley, "Sleeping Around: A History of American Beds and Bedrooms,” p. 5; Ward, "Women's Property and Family Continuity in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut,” p. 74.

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C hapter 8 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY PORTRAIT

The nature of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's investment in their parental roles is suggested by the portrait that they engaged L. S. De Bibory to paint of four of their eight

children (Fig. 8 ). What did it mean to commission a portrait of one's children in ante bellum America? Certainly affluence, and the desire to contrive and display an exemplary

representation of one's offspring that was also an embodiment of elite status. One might also aspire to portraiture's traditional association with wealth and aristocracy, despite its increasing availability to bourgeois patrons. L. S. De Bibory (d. 1855), a little-known, self-proclaimed "historical painter," completed his portrait of four Vansyckel siblings in

1842. Measuring 58-1/8 by 54-7/8 inches, the linen canvas is a sizable one. Indeed, everything about the painting is large, from its enormous, original gilt frame to the scale of

the figures depicted within it, which crowd and even extend beyond its edges. Given that

the portrait represents only half of the Vansyckels' surviving eight children, all of whom were bom by 1841, one might speculate whether a second portrait of the other four siblings had been planned or perhaps even executed. In terms of the children's birth order, the De Bibory painting includes Robert, age twenty-two, the eldest son; Mary, age twenty, the second-eldest daughter; and twelve year-old Sallie and nine-year old Catherine, two of the

younger daughters. As for the other Vansyckel children, by 1842 the eldest sibling,

Amanda, age twenty-four, had been married five years; even if there was another family

portrait, presumably she would not have been included in it since she no longer resided in her father's house. The remaining Vansyckel children were the next two eldest sons,

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eighteen year-old James and fifteen year-old Emmet; and Helen, the youngest child, no

more than a year o ld 1 It is hard to imagine that Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel neglected to sit for their own portraits, whether by De Bibory or another artist; allegedly a pastel drawing of Elijah Vansyckel exists in a private collection. Their absence from their children's portrait does, however, suggest a rigid distinction between parents and offspring in their family hierarchy. Some portraits of the period do depict nuclear families, but apparently the Vansyckels preferred to represent their children as the focus of stewardship rather than

parental affection .2 Unlike many of its contemporary counterparts, the Vansyckel children's portrait

places them in what appears to be an imaginary landscape. Many representations of families or children painted in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century show their subjects posed within precisely-rendered parlor interiors (Fig. 56). Even those portraits which included outdoor scenes often did so through a window or

beyond a balcony, with the family group still connected to domestic space. Painters who did place their subjects in landscape settings tended to render such scenes more naturalistically than the De Bibory did in his portrait of the Vansyckel children; for

example, an artist might depict a child lolling on a sunny afternoon in a manner that was temporally specific, not timeless.

If anything, the scenic backdrop in De Bibory's painting suggests eighteenth rather than nineteenth-century portraiture. Other long-standing conventions evident in the painting include the woman's voluminous skirt, which emphasized its luxurious fabric, and the stock emblems associated with each figure. A book traditionally denoted its owner's learning and refinement; a hunting rifle was an appropriate prop for an aristocratic young

man. The dog was a long-standing motif in portraits of children, although often associated

with boys. The spaniel could have been lifted from any number of sources rather than

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. painted from life, including prints as well as other paintings. Birds and baskets of flowers typically connoted the childish and the feminine, perhaps suggesting domesticity and fecundity but also, by the second quarter of the nineteenth century, natural innocence. Toys are noticeably absent from the portrait of the Vansyckel children, even though they do appear in comparable contemporaneous portraits, as attitudes towards children softened from the late eighteenth century onward. Admittedly, toys occurred more frequently in depictions of young boys rather than young girls, presumably because more active play

was expected of them. While girls in portraits might hold dolls, many continued to be shown with birds and flowers, once markers of youth for both sexes but increasingly

associated with female children only .3 The Vansyckel siblings' costumes exhibit the fashions of the time. They also signal

their wearers' ages, gender and social positions. Likewise, L. S. De Bibory's composition inscribed familial hierarchy. Both literally and symbolically, Robert Vansyckel stands at the apex of the group. He is dressed in the attire of a young gentleman, his fowling piece strapped over his shoulder. His success as a provider, his ultimate destiny, is evident in

the bag of game his sister Sallie Fingers. The dog that peers out from his side is clearly a hunting hound rather than a pet like his sister Catherine's, just as the fowl he has shot are

for sport and sustenance, unlike the little bird she seems to be shielding from canine

consumption. His sister Mary is unmistakably advertised as a marriageable daughter

wealthy, well-attired and educated, demure yet womanly. The two younger sisters wear more juvenile frocks, although Sallie's is less so, marking her seniority over her junior sister. Both girls are portrayed with their hair up rather than loose, suggesting their oncoming transition from children to women. Perhaps Sallie's hands, placed on both the captured fowl and her younger sister's shoulders, suggested both dependency and

nurturing; as might have Catherine's, as she rested against Mary's skirt yet stroked both the bird and the spaniel.

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Until L. S. De Bibory's signature was discovered alongside the parasol on the left side of the painting, the portrait was attributed to Robert Street. While Street did paint comparable group portraits of children (he is thought to be the artist who executed Children of Commodore and Mrs. John Daniel Danels, for example, illustrated in Fig. 56), his work is much more in keeping with his contemporaries and more refined than De Bibory's. De Bibory paints a broad, stylized manner, with exaggerated modeling, especially in the

drapery. Clearly, he was a trained painter; the figures are not flat and stiff, as those of self-

taught artists often are, although they are quite mannered. Despite a fairly balanced composition, his portrait of the Vansyckel children exhibits a kind of swirling activity that results in part from the many areas of high contrast; the incessant diagonal lines, as in the folds of Mary's dress, the tree branches, or Robert's gun; and the way in which the figures are cropped by the edges of the canvas. Foreshortening is consistently problematic, particularly evident in the depictions of Mary and Robert; note, for example, the location of

Mary's knees, or Robert's right hand, resting on the tree trunk. There is almost a cartoon like quality to De Bibory's rendering, as if he drew the outline of the figures then rounded them out with modeling and applied details, a colorist rather than an academic painter. Whatever the extent of his training may have been, evidently De Bibory was not particular

about his materials; the Vansyckel children's portrait is painted on a linen damask

tablecloth .4 Who was L. S. De Bibory? In McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1843, he is

listed as a "historical painter" at 136 Chestnut Street. Also known as a painter of portraits and religious subjects-and a "Hungarian patriot"--he showed six works in the Ninth Annual Exhibition of the Artists' Fund Society of Philadelphia in 1844: Magdalen by Lamplight, The German Comfort, three paintings titled Portrait o f a Gentleman, and one Portrait o f a Lady. Other than the notice of his death in the Daily Pennsylvanian in

February 1855, little about him is recorded. His presumably Hungarian origin suggests

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that his work may follow the traditions of Continental artists of the period; perhaps the Vansyckel children's portrait bears a greater resemblance to its European rather than

American counterparts .5 How did the Vansyckels choose L. S. De Bibory to paint their children's portrait? Most likely through social relations and/or physical proximity, just as probably occurred with their bedchamber suite The Vansyckels' choice of De Bibory rather than someone like Thomas Sully, for example, suggests that in 1842 they were not the most discriminating patrons. Sully was one of the most esteemed—and productive—Philadelphia portraitists of the era. A comparison of one of Sully's paintings, his portrait of The

Coleman Sisters from 1844 (Fig. 57), with the De Bibory portrait suggests that at least in 1842, the Vansyckels were either not capable of or interested in making the distinction between the two artists' work; or perhaps, not willing to pay for it, even though they certainly had plenty of money by then. To a more cultivated contemporary, the difference

must have been obvious. Perhaps the Vansyckels' realized it too, after De Bibory completed their painting, and did not commission further work from him. Nonetheless, as evidenced by his showing in the Artist Fund Society's exhibition, De Bibory's work must

have been thought to merit some recognition, albeit minor compared to that accorded to

Sully's . 6 Where might Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel hung their children's portrait? Certainly

the drawing room would have been an appropriate setting for the Vansyckels' to display

their children's sizable, ornately-framed representation. Although Elijah Vansyckel's inventory did not locate it here or anywhere else in the house, appraisers often omitted such paintings from their inventories because they assumed that family portraits only had value

for relatives. Wherever the portrait was located, it participated in the family hierarchy manifest in the built environment of and social relationships within the Vansyckel

household.

145

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

1[AJ McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1843\ object file 96.7a,b (Winterthur Museum); "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); De Bibo^'s portrait was inherited by Sallie Vansyckel Heberton's descendants; a companion work, if there was one, might have ended up in another branch of the family.

^Interview with Peter Strickland, January 24, 1998.

^Calvert, Children in the House: The Material Culture o f Childhood, 1600-1900, p. 89, and Karin Calvert, "To Be a Child: An Analysis of the Artifacts of Childhood," (Ph.D. diss., University of Delaware, 1984), pp. 60, 119-24, 146-49; interview with Wayne Craven, February 18, 1998.

O bject file 96.7a,b (Winterthur Museum); interview with Sherry Fowble, August 20, 1997.

^George C. Groce and David H. Wallace, The New- York Historical Society's Dictionary o f Artists in America 1564-1860 (New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 47; Anna Wells Rutledge, ed., Cumulative Exhibition Record o f Exhibition Catalogues, The Pennsylvania Academy o f the Fine Arts, 1807-1870, pp. 8 , 25; interview with Ellen Miles, August 29,1997.

^Wayne Craven, American Art: History and Culture (Madison, Wisconsin; Dubuque, Iowa; Indianapolis, Indiana; Melbourne, Australia; Oxford, England: Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1994), pp. 143-45.

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 9 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY ENCLAVE

"The desire of children is ever towards their father's house and presence. It is so

with the child of God ."1

Indicative of the Vansyckels 1 wealth and active expansion of their empire were the numerous properties that Elijah Vansyckel acquired in the 1830s, 40s and 50s. Among them, the family enclave he established on Arch Street between Schuylkill Eighth and Seventh Streets (later renamed Frfteenth and Sixteenth Streets) constituted an important part of the Vansyckel family empire. In providing town houses for his married children next door or across the street from each other in a fashionable neighborhood, Elijah Vansyckel

secured them residences commensurate with the socio-economic status which he and presumably they aspired to. He also embedded his offspring in an artifactual hierarchy of

his own design; and, assuming that he and his wife intended to move into a town house

alongside their children, planned to keep them within an easily-supervised distance. In 1838, Elijah Vansyckel began to buy lots and houses on Arch Street west of Fifteenth Street, which at the time was just beginning to be developed. His first purchase

was a "Four Story Brick Messuage or Tenement and two Contiguous lots," each thirty- three feet wide by one hundred and fifty feet deep, on the south side of Arch Street between Sixteenth and Seventeenth Streets, which he bought from his son-in-law Samuel Smyth. The transaction occurred within the year after Smyth's marriage to Elijah and Sarah

Vansyckel's eldest daughter, Amanda, and coincides with Elijah Vansyckel's acquisition of

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 Mulberry Street from John Dalzell. In turn, Dalzell acquired the Vansyckel property on the south side of Arch Street between Sixteenth and Seventeenth Streets. It was perhaps this "swap" that spurred Elijah Vansyckel's subsequent acquisition of a string of properties

along Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets .2 In 1848, Elijah Vansyckel purchased two adjacent lots and houses on the south side

of Arch between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets; that is, 1518 and 1520 Arch Street (Fig.

58). He bought the lots from John Grigg, a prominent bookseller and entrepreneur who apparently owned and laid out the entire block, and the two "3 Story brick Messuage or Tenements and 3 Story back buildings" from John Kilgour, a house carpenter (Fig. 59). Soon thereafter, Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's newly-wed daughter Mary and her husband Richard Townsend took up residence in one of the houses, while possibly the Vansyckels'

son James and his wife Susan occupied the other. The year before John Kilgour and his partner, John R. Hudders, had obtained insurance on 1518 and 1520 Arch Street from the

Franklin Fire Insurance Company; they also held insurance for 1506,1532 and 1534 Arch Street, as John Grigg did for 1520 through 1530 Arch Street The ten Franklin Fire

Insurance Company surveys for these properties, and the block layout of the south side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets contained in Hexamer and Lecher's 1858-60 Maps o f the City o f Philadelphia (Fig. 60), suggest that within approximately two

years Grigg, Kilgour and Hudders had collaboratively financed and built a block-long row

of nearly identical three-story brick town houses .3 The fire insurance surveys for 1518 and 1520 Arch Street indicate that each house was insured for $3,000 and consisted of a twenty-two by forty-five foot front building, an eight by eighteen foot piazza, and a sixteen by thirty-eight foot back building with a sixteen by twelve foot verandah. Compared to 189 Mulbeny Street, the front, piazza and back

buildings of 1518 and 1520 Arch Street were all somewhat narrower, with slightly higher first stories and slightly lower second and third stories. Each of the two later houses

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contained a set of service stairs in the back building, in addition to and separate from the piazza stairway, so that servants could circulate from floor to floor unseen. As may have been the case at 189 Mulberry Street, the interior architecture of 1518 and 1520 Arch Street attempted to contain the presence-or threat-of domestic staff. While most likely both the earlier and later residences featured rooms with white marble pilaster mantels, ceilings with stucco cornices and centerpieces, and piazza stairways with mahogany hand rails, the centrepieces in each of the first floor front rooms of 1518 and 1520 Arch Street were described as "rich Stucco gothick," in deference to the current fashion for Gothic Revival. The new dwellings also featured what by then had become standard amenities in any respectable town house: furnaces in the cellars, gas pipes, cooking ranges, sinks, water

closets, and dumb waiters (a revealing term ) .4

The following year, 1849, Elijah Vansyckel purchased "a lot or piece of ground numbered 79 in the Plan of Vacant City lots sold by the Inspectors of the Prison" on the north side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets from Daniel Man, a self described gentleman. (The lot was once part of the grounds belonging to the Arch Street

Prison, built on the south side of Arch Street between Broad and Fifteenth Streets between 1805 and 1814 but abandoned and sold in 1836; the prisoners it might have once held by

then were being housed in the new Philadelphia County Prison in Moyamensing.) By 1851, Elijah Vansyckel had built or acquired four contiguous four-story brick town houses on the site, 1505 through 1511 Arch Street (Figs. 61 & 62).5

According to two 1850 Franklin Fire Insurance surveys made for Elijah Vansyckel, 1509 and 1511 Arch Street were insured for $6,000 each and both consisted of a twenty- four foot, nine inch by Fifty foot front building, a ten foot by twenty foot, six inch piazza, and a seventeen by forty-five foot back building with a conservatory (Fig. 63). Each lot contained a two story brick stable and coach house, insured for $1,000. Clearly, the

houses at 1509 and 1511 Arch Street were grander than those at 1518 and 1520 Arch

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Street. They were larger in terms of building widths and depths, floor heights, and number of stories; they boasted conservatories, stables and coach houses; and they were insured for twice as much money. While they contained many of the same amenities as the houses across the street, their details and finishes were more elaborate. For example, the facade of each house featured an "outside marble frontispiece to doorway with Square head, Comice and sculptur'd bracketts" and first and second story windows with "marble moulded sills and Ornamental heads." The two first floor rooms contained "white marble mantels + panels with Enriched moulded frieze[s] (Roman Style)" and "3 sunk panels in ceiling with Enriched mouldings + comice.” The stairways in each piazza featured "large mahogany

turned newell post[s]" as well as mahogany hand rails. Plus, each house had a bath room with a "bath tub lined with planished Copper, hot -t- cold water & shower bath." As of 1855, the year of Elijah Vansyckel's death, the Vansyckels' daughter Sallie and her husband George Craig Heberton occupied 1509 Arch Street, while Amanda and Samuel

Smyth lived at 1511 Arch Street . 6 Next door, the two four-story brick town houses that Elijah Vansyckel purchased from merchant Robert Patterson in 1851 were even more ornate (Figs. 61 & 64). Both

1505 and 1507 Arch Street featured brownstone fronts, somewhat unusual and quite

stylish for mid nineteenth-century Philadelphia town houses. According to the Franklin Fire Insurance Survey made for Sarah Vansyckel in 1856, the houses at 1505 and 1507 Arch Street were only slightly larger than those at 1509 and 1511 Arch Street, but were

clearly a step up in their ornamentation and finish. Each house was insured for $7,000 rather than $6,000. Not only were their facades clad in brownstone, they also featured a plethora of carved stone architectural ornaments, including:

moulded architraves to windows kneed at the top and bottom and Sculptur'd Enrichments on the heads, a frontispiece to doorway with Stone Columns with Enriched Capitals, Comice and Sculpturd Enrichments on the head, Stone moulded rails & ballusters to Steps and Stone balcony across front

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with Stone rail and ballusters first story; [and a] moulded comice or belt across the front at the first and third stories. Capping off each facade was a "Stone Comice with Enriched bracketts at [the] front

eave."7 The interiors of each house were comparable to those next door, but contained more flourishes. For example, the stairways in their piazzas featured "turned prismatic walnut

ballusters" and "moulded walnut hand rail[s].” In addition, 1505 Arch Street had a "shaped walnut newell post, veneered," while 1507 boasted "a Bronze Statuette standing on a black marble pedestal and gas burner on the top of it" instead. Lastly, the bath room

in each house contained such extras as a "permanent washstand with marble top and

porcelain basin” and "biddae ."8 Which of the Vansyckels were meant to occupy the dwellings at 1507 and 1509 Arch Street? Events that occurred after Elijah Vansyckel's death suggest that Sarah

Vansyckel had planned to move into 1507 Arch Street with her husband. Since Elijah Vansyckel died without a will, Pennsylvania law dictated that one-third of his estate be assigned to his widow and the remainder be divided equally among his seven surviving children. Apparently, the administrators of his estate must have assigned 1505 and 1507

Arch Street to James Vansyckel and Sallie Heberton, as in 1856 Sarah Vansyckel promptly

bought both houses and lots from them, and inhabited 1507 Arch Street until her death in 1871. Subsequently, James Vansyckel and Sallie Heberton and their respective spouses purchased residences in the increasingly fashionable neighborhoods west of Broad Street

near Rittenhouse Square . 9 Elijah Vansyckel did purchase one residential property in the 1850s somewhere

other than Arch Street He bought a "Four Story Messuage or Tenement back buildings

and lot or piece of ground" at 1805 Walnut Street (Fig. 65) on the north side of Rittenhouse Square from Thomas Dugan, builder, in 1851, and the lot proper from George Smith in

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1852. In 1858, James Vansyckel bought 1805 Walnut Street from his mother Sarah, to whom the administrators of Elijah's estate apparently had assigned it, but he died before taking up residence there. His accounts indicate that he had hired painters and wallpaper

hangers to re-finish the rooms and thus presumably intended to live there, although he also could have rented out the property. Had Elijah Vansyckel purchased 1805 Walnut specifically for his son James, whose own spending patterns indicate that he was the most fashion-conscious member of the family? For example, upon receiving his inheritance, apparently James Vansyckel took off to Europe for a grand tour and spent a small fortune on paintings and sculptures, some of which subsequently were exhibited at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. After his death in 1858, James Vansyckel's household inventory was valued at approximately $15,800, with his art collection accounting for at least half the total. He also owned some very stylish and very luxurious furnishings and accessories. Rittenhouse Square in the 1850s certainly was a very chic address, much more so than the 1500 and 1600 blocks of Arch Street, and perhaps would have suited James Vansyckel well, whereas his mother Sarah Vansyckel obviously

preferred to remain on Arch Street 10

Shortly after Sarah Vansyckel's death in 1871, the Second Presbyterian Church

finally relocated from its long-standing address at Seventh and Arch Streets to 2036 Walnut Street Its members had built a massive and flamboyant brownstone and granite High Victorian Gothic Church in what by then had become one of the city's most fashionable

neighborhoods. By 1872, three of the four surviving Vansyckel children-Amanda Smyth

(husband deceased), Mary and Richard Townsend, and Sallie and George Craig Heberton-

-lived in town houses in the 2000 and 2100 blocks of Walnut Street (Fig. 6 6 ). All three had at one time occupied residences in the Vansyckel family enclave on Arch Street

between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets. All three had relocated to a more fashionable

neighborhood where they situated themselves in a row of elaborate but relatively uniform

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. brownstone-fronted town houses within a block of the new Second Presbyterian Church. By dwelling in such structures physically close to the church itself, perhaps the surviving Vansyckels strove to consolidate their position in its moral order, mitigate their own moral

disorder and dispel the specter of immoral order . 11 Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel realized their family empire in Philadelphia's expanding world of commerce while engaging both an imperial landscape and its presumed underclass foil. The impact of their domain upon the city's built environment can be traced through

their business and residential properties. In a succession of town houses on Arch Street, Elijah Vansyckel constructed a stratified family enclave seemingly aligned with the moral order enacted by the Second Presbyterian Church, yet dangerously intimate with "the traffic in ardent spirits,” and the racial and ethnic others constituted by their household staff. By the time of his death, Elijah Vansyckel had amassed an estate valued somewhere between one-half to one million dollars, but his assets were not always liquid. Perhaps his inability

to access large sums of cash at a given moment explains why Elijah Vansyckel did not build a great mansion for himself, as did some of his Arch Street peers. Perhaps he did not

wish to call attention to the source his wealth; or, to violate Philadelphia's tradition of row house architecture, in which large, freestanding houses connoted aristocratic privilege

rather than civic order. Instead, as he became wealthier, Elijah Vansyckel bought or built incrementally more elaborate town houses for his married children; at least, that is, for his

married daughters. Whether or not he did likewise for his married sons, James and Emmet

Vansyckel, remains unclear. Perhaps Elijah Vansyckel considered the houses that he bestowed upon his daughters and their spouses the equivalent of the occupational boost he gave his sons by including them in the family business. By giving his daughters town

houses consonant with their social status, he insured that they had sufficient "domestic capital” to maintain the identities that he and they had endeavored to forge for themselves.

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Presumably, Elijah Vansyckel reserved a position at the top of his domestic artifactual hierarchy for himself and his wife Sarah. Which residence constituted its apex, however, is uncertain. Perhaps Elijah Vansyckel's choice was different than Sarah's, or any of their children's; in turn, the children's and Sarah's preferences clearly differed from one anothers.' Undoubtedly for each, the presentation of self conveyed by the preferred town house most closely matched their ideal self-definition. Frenzied house buying and selling among the Vansyckels after Elijah's death in 1855, and again after Sarah's death in 1871, suggests that family members were actively engaged in building their own individual empires. Put another way, each was in the process of constructing artifactually mediated presentations of self that contested those proffered by an estate administrator or deceased spouse or parent amidst the increasingly complex, multiple urban orders of mid to late nineteenth-century Philadelphia.

154

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

^Cornelius C. Cuyler, D.D., Dr. Cuyler's Sermon on the Death o f Robert Ralston, Esq., p. 12.

2Deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Samuel and Amanda Smyth, recorded January 26, 1838; deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John and Eliza Dalzell, and deed granted to John Dalzell by Elijah and Sarah B. Vansyckel, recorded April 4,1840 (Philadelphia City Archives).

3Deeds granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John and Mary Kilgore, recorded February 29, 1848; and denis granted to Elijah Vansyckel by John and Nancy Grigg, recorded March 1, 1848 (Philadelphia City Archives). Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 6920, made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, July 25,1846; Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 7972 and 7973, made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 9, 1847; Franklin Ftre Insurance Survey No. 9213, made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 3, 1848; and Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 9216,9217,9218,9219, and 9220, made for John Grigg, August 3,1848 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

^Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 7972 and 7973, made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

^Deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Daniel Man, recorded November 24, 1849; and deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Robert and Sarah Patterson, recorded September 26,1851 (Philadelphia City Archives); Joseph Jackson, "Arch Street,” Public Ledger 15 February 1914 ("Arch Street," Campbell Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Tatum, Penn's Great Town, p. 179.

^Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 12049 and 12050, made for Elijah Vansyckel, July 27,1850 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1855.

^Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 24554 and 24555, made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, August 12,1856 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

^Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 24554 and 24555, made for Sarah B. Vansyckel (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Deed granted to Sarah B. Vansyckel by James J. and Susan Vansyckel, recorded April 15, 1856; deed granted to Sarah B. Vansyckel by George Craig and Sallie Heberton, recorded April 15,1856; and deed granted to James J. Vansyckel by Sarah B. Vansyckel, recorded October 11, 1858 (Philadelphia City Archives); Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 31740 made for Sarah V.S. Heberton, May 1864 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).

lC>Deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas Dugan, recorded December 12,1851; and deed granted to James J. Vansyckel by Sarah B. Vansyckel, recorded October 11,1858 (Philadelphia City Archives); James J. Vansyckel, will 18S8 no. 359 (City and County of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations); Anna W. Rutledge, ed.. Cumulative Exhibition Record o f Exhibition Catalogues, The Pennsylvania Academy o f the Fine Arts, 1807-1870, pp. 23, 40, 45, 52, 144, 189, 198, 214, 252, 255, 257, 262, 365.

11 John A. Gallery, ed., Philadelphia Architecture: a Guide to the City, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Foundation for Architecture, 1994), p. 63; Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 31740 made for Sarah V.S. Heberton; Mutual Assurance Company Survey No. 7661, made for Mary S. Townsend, October 14,1872 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1865\ Gopsill's Philadelphia Directory for 1872 (Philadelphia: James Gospill, 1872).

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 10 THE VANSYCKEL FAMILY PLOT

In one arena, Elijah Vansyckel ensured that his vision of the family empire remained intact: the plot he purchased in Laurel Hill Cemetery in 1839 (Figs. 10-12). Another one of the "Lions of Philadelphia," Laurel Hill was the final resting place of choice among Philadelphia's Protestant elite (Fig. 67). Located outside the city, and owned and

operated by the Laurel Hill Cemetery Company, the newly-opened "rural cemetery” was one of the first of its kind in the United States. Traditionally, Christian graveyards were sited in consecrated ground adjacent to a church, or nearby. But apparently for John Jay Smith, Laurel Hill's founder, his unhappy experience with traditional burying grounds was the impetus for the new cemetery. Smith's five year-old daughter died in 183S and was

buried at the Quaker graveyard at Fourth and Arch Street. To Smith's dismay, the grave

was dug in water-logged soil; it also went unmarked, as was Quaker custom. Most distressing of all, however, the Quakers subsequently built a meeting house on top of the site. Thus, Smith garnered a group of investors who purchased the picturesque estate of Laurel Hill outside city limits with intent of establishing a rural cemetery. On a hill near the

Schuylkill River, they envisioned family plots sited within a landscaped garden, an aesthetically and morally uplifting setting in which one could pay decent respect to departed loved ones.1

Smith and his cohorts modeled Laurel Hill Cemetery on the success of Mount Auburn, the country's first rural cemetery, realized in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1831. Decades before Mount Auburn, the prototypical rural cemetery Ffere Lachaise opened in the

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. outskirts or Paris. In 1804, the Prefect of the Seine purchased the grounds of a private estate, and established Pfcre Lachaise as a cemetery, or "burial park," under civil rather than religious authority. According to Colleen McDannell, historian of religious material culture, "Napoleonic reform” had "conferred on citizens the right to their own individual graves," as opposed to communal ones; and, "as the middle class became more financially powerful, they imitated the aristocratic penchant for constructing family funerary chapels

and monuments." Private ownership and its expression gradually took precedence over church affiliation, in both Europe and America.2 Beyond sentiment for the dead, concerns about public health coupled with population growth and the high cost of urban real estate spurred the rural cemetery movement. In Philadelphia, prominent physicians avowed that urban graveyards emitted pestilent vapors that precipitated epidemics. The lack of available, affordable land within city limits curtailed the ability of established churches to provide much-needed new burial

grounds nearby, while lucrative alternative land uses threatened those already in existence. In contrast, Laurel Hill assured proper physical, social and moral hygiene. The 1847 Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery near Philadelphia cited the its many advantages, including

the "remarkable beauty of its locality,” "dry soil;” and "proper distance from the city,” thus

"never liable be overrun by pedestrians from her streets." Furthermore, managers disposed lots only "to those who desired to possess them as places of sepulture for families, in perpetuity," setting aside *a suitable spot" on the grounds "for single interments" for those

described as "strangers or others.” As "a Rural Cemetery," the company touted Laurel Hill

as a comforting haven where family affection could be gratified in the assurance that the remains of father and child, husband and wife, could repose side by side, undisturbed by the changing interests of man; where the smitten heart might pour out its grief over the grave of the cherished one, secure from the idle gaze of heartless passengers, and where the mourner could rear a flower, consecrated to memory and hope.3

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Laurel Hill's foil, the Quaker graveyard where John Jay Smith's daughter had been buried, was a block down the street from both the Vansyckels' residence and the Second Presbyterian Church's earliest burying ground, each being located on the north side of Arch Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets. Although the Second Presbyterian Church's first graveyard was only a few blocks west of the initial site of the church at Arch and Third Streets, its second burying ground, on Noble Street, was considerably farther away; probably the church could not obtain or afford a closer site. When the Vansyckels' infant daughter Catharine died in 1832, she was buried in the Noble Street graveyard; presumably the Arch Street one was already full. Their sixteen month-old son Alfred, who died of "congestion of the brain,” on May 23, 1939, was buried there as well. Alfred Vansyckel's death seems to have spurred his parents to stake out their final earthly residence. A month later, Elijah Vansyckel had purchased lots nineteen through twenty-three in the Shrubbery section of Laurel Hill Cemetery for $535, ten percent of which was set aside for maintenance. Subsequently, both Catharine and Alfred were re-interred in the new family plot.4

Elijah Vansyckel and John Jay Smith met; both men signed the agreement securing the Vansyckel family plot on June 29,1839. Whether or not they had prior personal contact, the Vansyckels probably would have opted to be buried at Laurel Hill Cemetery.

By 1839, the company had survived the Panic of 1837 and was achieving aesthetic, cultural and financial success, not only because of its much-touted natural beauty and

capacity to inspire religious awe, but also its exclusivity. The cemetery's owners courted

white, well-to-do, socially-prominent Protestant families. They ignored Protestantism's denominational boundaries, but were less tolerant of those between it and other religions, and held those of class and race inviolable. Plots could not be sold without company's permission, ensuring their continued control over "membership."5

159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Company rules regulated who could visit the cemetery as well as who could be buried in it A precursor to city parks. Laurel Hill was an extremely popular and frequently visited destination, but on Sundays—the day, as Colleen McDannell remarks, that most laboring Philadelphians had off from work—admission was restricted to those attending funerals and to "lot-holders on foot with their tickets, (which are in no case transferable) with members of their families, or friends in company." On other days, general visitors

were admitted on foot, but only lot-holders could use carriages, provided they directed their

coachmen to a designated courtyard when not in service. The chapel was exclusively for lot-holders1 funerals. The behavior of visitors was rule-bound, too: they were instructed

to remain on walks; children were to be accompanied by their parents, guardians or caretakers; and no refreshments were allowed on the grounds. Furthermore, the

cemetery's distance from the city meant a long journey, also creating a barrier to access.6 Lot-holders themselves were subject to numerous regulations to ensure that Laurel Hill's physical appearance remained suitably tasteful. The company set parameters on the

enclosure of lots, selection of plantings, and dimensions of vaults and monuments. While proclaiming their respect for individual choice, managers reserved the right to prevent large

improvements that would "interfere with the general effect, or obstruct any principal

views."7 Architect John Notman's plan for the site employed meandering paths within a naturalistic garden, in contrast to its central feature, the formal, circular Shrubbery section

(Fig. 68). One of the first sections to be laid out and completed, it was also the site of the

Vansyckel family plot The Shrubbery section is divided into three concentric circles

around a central plot, subdivided by intersecting arcs. The inner rings of Shrubbery

Section contained thirteen plots; of those, ten were already identified by owner in the 1844 Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, including that of Elijah Vansyckel. The central plot belonged to John Rhea Barton, (1794-1871) a doctor who was married to Susan Ridgway

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (d. 1885), member of a prominent Philadelphia family. Circumscribing the Barton family vault were six plots, including another physician, several gentleman, and two manufacturers. Among the group, half lived on Mulberry or Arch Street, as did the Vansyckels. One, Benjamin D. Davis (1785-1852), a cloth manufacturer, not only lived at 176 Mulberry (Arch) Street but had his business at 29 N. Second Street, not far from Elijah Vansyckel's wine and liquor store.8

The Vansyckel family plot is among the next outlying ring, which also consisted of six plots. Among those literally in same circle were Henry Toland, one of Laurel Hill's initial investors; and Henry Derringer, inventor of the short-barreled pocket pistol of the same name. Again, including Vansyckel, half of the group lived on Mulberry or Arch Street. According to the 1844 city directory, John Struthers (d. 1851) a marble mason, lived at 330 Mulberry Street with his business, John Struthers & Son, at 360 High Street.

Andrew Barclay (d. 1885), a merchant who lived at 147 Mulbeiry and had his business at

40 North Wharves, must have known Elijah Vansyckel. Not only did the two men live near each other, both were members of Second Presbyterian Church. Indeed, Barclay's pew was six rows behind Vansyckel's; both men had purchased their pews in 1837 for the

sum of $533. In the outer ring of the Shrubbery was yet another member of the Second Presbyterian Church, Pearson Yard (1788-1869). Presumably Yard was either less

wealthy or less prone to display than either Barclay or Vansyckel; he owned a less expensive peripheral pew in the church, just as he occupied an outlying plot in the

Shrubbery section.9 Marking the Vansyckel family plot is an obelisk, the tallest monument in the immediate vicinity (Fig 10). The obelisk is made from marble, with the name

"VANSYCKEL.” in raised letters near the base, and set on a granite plinth. The labeled aspect of the monument faces towards the outer circumference of the Shrubbery section, as

if addressing an audience beyond its confines. Appropriated from ancient Egypt, obelisks

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. had been popular funerary emblems for Europeans and Americans alike since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The author of the 1844 guidebook to Laurel Hill Cemetery, for example, lauded the "severe simplicity" of the granite monument to Charles Thomson, secretary to the Continental Congress, "in the form of Cleopatra's Needle." Thomson's obelisk also exemplified the writer's recommendation that families select monuments made of long-lasting granite, or at least choose marble monuments made in as few pieces as possible, so that they were less susceptible to weathering. Such advice was practical for the cemetery's managers to dispense given their own interests as well as their patrons. The

success of their operation depended on sustaining the illusion that lot holders could enshrine perpetual memory through physical emblems that nonetheless were as susceptible

to decay as those whose absence they commemorated. However, by 1847, a new guidebook respectfully urged "variety in monuments," commenting that "it has been the frequent remark of visitors-our own citizens, as well as strangers--that a monotony already begins to be apparent in the style and form of the improvements; obelisk succeeds obelisk,

and c., with only slight variations.” To prevent dull uniformity and thus preserve the

overall aesthetic of the cemetery, the company appealed to lot-holders to exercise forethought and proper judgment in selecting their monuments. Funerary faux-pas could

be avoided, the author pointedly remarked, "by not always taking the advice of the stone mason, often himself willing to suggest the greatest bulk for the least money, and thus

allowing marble to usurp the place of good taste.” Whether the Vansyckel obelisk breached the bounds of refinement is unclear. If erected in 1839, it may pre-date the monotonous proliferation of obelisks decried by 1847; on the other hand, its size may have warranted the guidebook's admonition regarding the opinions of stone masons.10 Colleen McDannell suggests that for wealthy Protestants, "physical monuments

replaced verbal prayers as the way that the living connected with the dead." They also hint

at the distribution of familial authority. Besides its looming obelisk, the Vansyckel family

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. plot contains identical headstones for each member of the immediate family who died prior to Sarah Vansyckel's death in 1871; perhaps she was as invested in artifactual control as her husband was. In contrast, family members who died later have more elaborate gravestones in keeping with the mortuary fashions of the late nineteenth century.11 Not surprisingly, Laurel Hill Cemetery's architecture is Greek Revival. John Notman won the design competition for the cemetery over noted architect William Strickland and the up-and-coming Thomas Ustick Walter, both of who had submitted

proposals featuring entrance gates inspired by Egyptian tomb architecture. Neoclassicism, however, likewise equated with timelessness and thus immortality, remained Philadelphia elites' preferred vocabulary. Guidebook rhetoric suggested that rural cemeteries continued the interment practices of classical civilizations, who buried their dead outside their cities

among the beauty of nature: "In promoting taste and order, security and permanency and rural ornament in our graveyard, we do but follow the impulse transmitted from the wisest and most remote antiquity; an impulse improved and refined by its exercise, and rewarded

by its good influence on the public mind.'' The persistently popular notion of the sequential rise and fall of civilizations further justified Laurel Hill's mission: The salutory effects of ornate and well-preserved cemeteries, on the moral taste and general sentiments of all classes, is a most valuable result, and seems to have been appreciated in all ages by all civilized nations. The Etruscans, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and in more modem times the Turks, all illustrated not only their skill in the arts, and their intellectual excellence, but also their social affectations and refinement, and all the gentler characteristics, by a studied attention to cemeteries for the dead. If the Christian seeks authority more commanding in its influence, he will find it with the patriarch of Israel, who transmitted to their posterity, by example and precept, a spirit of reverence and solicitude for the burial places of their dead, more enlightened, but not less active or pervading. Also evident in the text is respectable society's conviction that the cemetery's environment

would improve the morals of "all classes" of Philadelphians. Yet if those lowest in the social order were though to have greatest need, paradoxically they had the least access. Moreover, in recalling "the patriarch of Israel," Abraham, the "father of the faithful" who

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sought "possession of a burying-place" for his wife Sarah, the text evoked Biblical/patriarchal authority in an exemplar for the would-be lot owner, typically the father of a family. Indeed, elsewhere guidebook text affirmed the primacy of the father. A plot in

Laurel Hill Cemetery offered not only the certainty of perpetual repose for "father and child, husband and wife;" it fixed the inherent imbalance in power in parental and conjugal relationships for time immemorial. At Laurel Hill, not only did a private company take over a church function; its members also consolidated their social, moral, and familial position as they purchased a plot. In other words, systematic and competitive landscapes, or moral order and disorder, perfectly complemented each other in Laurel Hill Cemetery.12

164

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

*Deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by the Laurel Hill Cemetery Company, recorded June 29,1839 (Philadelphia City Archives); Colleen McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 103, 108.

^David Schuyler, The New Urban Landscape (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966), pp. 37-45; McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, p. 106.

^Schuyler, The New Urban Landscape, pp. 39-41; Guide to Laurel HiU Cemetery, near Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1847), pp. 15-17.

^Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Burial Records, Receipt Book with Stubs for Interment, 1826-1910 (Presbyterian Historical Society); "Records of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Baptisms, Marriages & Burials, 1745-1833," Collections o f the Genealogical Society o f Pennsylvania, Vol. 32. Philadelphia: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, 1913 (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Deed granted to Elijah Vansyckel by the Laurel Hill Cemetery Company; Vansyckel family plot records, Lots 19-23, Shrubbery Section (Laurel Hill Cemetery).

^Vansyckel family plot records (Laurel Hill Cemetery); McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, pp. 103,111-12; Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1847), pp. 43-48.

6Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1847), pp. 43-44; McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, p. 111.

1 Guide to laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1847), pp. 44-47.

8”List of the Lot-Holders, to May 1,1844," Guide to laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1844); MeElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1844.

9Me Elroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1844; "Plan showing the interior of the Second Presbyterian Church, Seventh Sheet below Arch, East side;" and Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pew Book, 1830-1852 (Presbyterian Historical Society).

1 ®Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1844), pp. 28,39; Guide to laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1847), pp. 49-50.

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, p. 106. To the right of the Vansyckel obelisk is the headstone marking grave of Elijah Vansyckel (d. 1855) and "Aran B." Vansyckel (Fig. 11), then those of Robert (d. 1855), Catherine (d. 1832) and Alfred (d. 1839), George Arnold and Cassie (Catharine; d. 1853), Sallie, and Emmet (d. 1864). On a plan of the family plot, Sarah B. Vansyckel is listed two sites, "Aran B.” and "Sallie” (Fig. 12). Could "Aran B." be either Elijah Vansyckel's father or brother, both named Aaron, one of whom did own property in Philadelphia? Was "Sallie" a nickname for Sarah Vansyckel as well as her namesake daughter? Or, perhaps Sallie Heberton also was buried in the family plot upon her death in 1897, even though her husband George Craig Heberton, who pre-deceased her by seventeen years, apparently was buried elsewhere. James Vansyckel is absent from the family plot, as is his widow Susan. Although a headstone on the left of the obelisk comparable to those cm the right bears the name "James," according to the plot plan, it marks the grave of James Townsend, apparently a deceased child of Mary and Richard H. Townsend. Later, more elaborate gravestones mark the graves the Townsends and Amanda and Samuel Smyth, while Helen and Kingston Goddard were buried elsewhere in the cemetery.

^McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America, p. 117; Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1847), pp. 20-21.

166

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

KINSHIP

Unlike her husband, Sarah Vansyckel carefully made out her will well in advance of her death. She had outlived six of her ten children, and perhaps her experience as one of the administrators of Elijah Vansyckel's estate, then as the executrix of her sons Robert and James' wills, made her aware of the value of having one's affairs in order prior to one's decease. In doing so, one could more readily perpetuate one's own desires as well as simplify the dispersal of one's estate to one's heirs. That Elijah Vansyckel did not make out a will before he died on February 11,1885 at 5:40 a.m. suggests his demise was a sudden one. Seemingly a man with such a sizable estate and demonstrated investment in artifactual control would have wanted to dictate how his estate would be divided, if not

preserved. However, at age sixty-six, perhaps Elijah Vansyckel was neither finished building his empire nor ready to acknowledge his own mortality, as if continually

expanding the former could forestall the inevitability of the latter. For example, assuming they intended to do so, he and his wife had yet to moved into one of their recently-acquired Arch Street town houses. Perhaps Vansyckel died before he was able to execute his plan to

transfer stewardship of his realm. After all, he had already directed some of his most significant assets to the parties of his choice: the Arch Street town houses to his married

children, and his business to his son(s) and the well-respected merchant William White. Significantly, however, ownership of many of these prizes changed hands only after his death.1

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Could the difference between Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's approaches to leaving their legacies be attributed to gender as well as timing? Historians of eighteenth-century

England suggest that many "men made their wills only when they were approaching

death," which was not necessarily the case with women, although evidence for the latter observation may be merely anecdotal. Certainly Robert and James Vansyckel made their wills just days before their respective deaths in 1855 and 1858; yet both were only in their mid-thirties and hardly could have expected such an early demise. By comparison, their

brother Emmet, who died at nearly the same age in 1864, had made out his will three years earlier. Samuel Smyth, husband of the Vansyckels1 eldest daughter, Amanda, made out his will in 1859, ten years prior to his decease, perhaps prompted by James Vansyckel's

death in 1858.2 A nineteenth-century woman making a will might involve certain circumstances. Presumably she had property to dispose of and might be single, often a widow. A recently-married young woman, such as the Vansyckels1 daughter Catherine Arnold, who died in 1853 at age twenty, most likely had no need of a will. Sarah Vansyckel, on the

other hand, was sixty-seven when she wrote her will, one year older than her husband was when he died, and had considerable holdings. Along with her sons Robert and James Vansyckel, she had co-administered the settlement of her husband's estate, although

apparently it was she alone who tracked the household accounts for the year subsequent to his death. Deeds indicate that she continued to buy and sell real estate after Elijah Vansyckel's death, including transactions involving properties beyond those which pertained to various family residences. Records of Franklin Fire Insurance surveys made

in her name exist for both residential and commercial properties. Those for houses, such

as 1505 and 1507 Arch Street, bear her signature; those for stores, including 101 Arch Street, 222 (formerly 136) N. Second Sheet and 519 Arch (formerly 187 Mulberry) Street are signed by her son-in-law Samuel Smyth on her behalf.3

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Like her husband, Sarah Vansyckel assigned meaningful possessions to her children before death; unlike him, she seems to have completed her dispersal. In her will, she wrote: Before proceeding to dispose of the residue of my estate it is proper here to state that it is my intention to dispose of many articles of personal estate either by gift during my life or by a separate codicil, or by both methods, and I hereby declare that such articles shall not go into the residue hereinafter disposed of, but shall go according to my disposition thereof as aforesaid, or as I shall leave parcels divided to my children or others. Sarah Vansyckel's will divided her estate among her four surviving daughters, but a codicil

mentioned one of her grandchildren specifically: I have not made provision for my grandson Frederick C. Arnold by my last will, because he will be amply provided for by inheriting the estate of his mother, my deceased daughter Catherine O. Arnold: Yet I wish him when he becomes of lawful age to have the set of silver marked for his mother, to be taken care of by my daughter Sarah during his minority, and when arrives at twenty-five, I give him, as a token of my affection for him, one thousand dollars, without interest, and if he dies before he arrives at that age the source is to fall into the residue of my estate. My daughter Sarah will also take charge of his mother's jewelry for him.

Neither will nor codicil designate further particular gifts to individuals. Other than the L. S. De Bibory portrait (ultimately inherited by the descendants of Sallie Vansyckel Heberton), other extant objects known or thought to have belonged to Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel, including their bedchamber suite, were inherited by the descendants of their daughter Mary Townsend (Fig. 69).4

When Elijah Vansyckel died without a will, either Sarah Vansyckel retained their bedchamber suite as part of the "widow's third" she was entitled to under Pennsylvania

law, or one of the couple's children took possession of it As a widow, perhaps Sarah

Vansyckel chore to divest herself of a group of objects that enacted an identity she no longer retained According to family tradition, at some point the suite became the property of Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's daughter Mary Townsend. If Sarah Vansyckel had continued to use the suite after her husband's death, perhaps when she moved into 1507

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Arch Street in 1857 she gave it to her daughter. Evidently Sarah Vansyckel did not possess the suite at the time of her death in 1871, as it was not listed among the household inventory made after her decease. Instead, the comparable bedchamber furniture forms that she owned entailed two walnut wardrobes estimated to be worth twenty-five dollars apiece, one walnut bedstead valued at fifty dollars, and one marble-top table valued at five dollars.

Most likely, as she had intended, Sarah Vansyckel had disposed of many personal possessions by the time of her death. Her household inventory, estimated to be worth $1,463.89, did not reflect a fully-furnished household; yet her entire estate, valued at $505,030.80, indicated she was a very wealthy woman (see Appendix D).5 As ownership of the bedchamber suite passed from parent to child, it became an

agent of kinship and dynasty as well as family empire. It also set a precedent for matrilineal inheritance of the bedchamber suite, which continued into the twentieth century. The suite subsequently was inherited by Mary Townsend's daughter, Pauline B.

Townsend (Fig. 70); by Pauline B. Townsend's niece Mae Townsend Pease; and by Mae Townsend Pease's children, first Henry Pease, Jr. then Pauline Pease. Some scholars

have observed another historical difference between the way in which men and women have made out their wills besides when they write them. In a most general sense, men exhibited a tendency to view their estate, real and personal, in terms of economic capital. When divvying up their possessions, women might be more likely to consider the ways in

which artifacts could maintain familial relationships among their heirs as well as provide for their livelihood. As Barbara Ward suggests, "family and female property" was often

"exchanged by gift and bequest in a system that maintained the cohesiveness of family identity."6 The descent of ownership of an ewer in the Vansyckel/Townsend/Pease families

demonstrates that other items besides beds, such as silver, continued their tradition of

matrilineal inheritance into the nineteenth-and twentieth-centuries. The Vansyckels'

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. classically-inspired silver water pitcher was made by the Philadelphia jewelers and silversmiths Jehu and W. L. Ward (stamped "J. & W. L. Ward”) who were in business

from 1837 to 1850 (Fig. 9). The following inscription is engraved on the bottom; "Elijah Vansyckel to Mercy Van Syckel 1817 to Richard H. Townsend M. D. 1856 to Mathilda Scott Townsend Feb 12th, 1898. To Mae Townsend Pease 1948.” The inscription "Richard H. Townsend M. D. to Mathilda Scott Townsend Feb 12th, 1896" is repeated on the side of the vessel as well. The initial segment of the bottom inscription pre dates the object, suggesting that possibly the extant piece was remade from an earlier one.

If so, the original object may have been a gift from Elijah Vansyckel to his sister Mercy

Vansyckel (1796-1850); perhaps 1817 was the year she married John Garrison, Elijah Vansyckel's business partner c. 1816 to 1833. (The previous Mercy Vansickcl, Elijah Vansyckel's grandmother, died in 1815). According to the inscription, the next owner was Richard H. Townsend M.D., who apparently obtained the ewer in its present form in

1856. Townsend had married Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's daughter Mary in 1848, but why he inherited the object in unclear. Mercy Vansyckel may have left it to him, although perhaps the item's ownership reverted back to her brother Elijah after her death in 1850,

and was passed on toTownsend-perhaps Mary as well as Richard—once Elijah Vansyckel died in 1855. The latter scenario is consistent with the year-long period after his death that

his administrators, Sarah and James Vansyckel, maintained accounts of his estate and presumably dispersed his possessions. The ewer's following owner was Mathilda Scott

Townsend, the wife of Richard Townsend Jr., who was the son of Mary and Richard H.

Townsend. The date she purportedly received the vessel, February 12, 1896, predates Richard Townsend senior's decease by seven months or so; he died on August 28,1898.

The occasion of Mathilda Scott Townsend's father-in-law's presentation of the family heirloom to her was inscribed on the side of the vessel and seems to have been the impetus for the bottom inscription as well, as the two scripts correspond to one another. The final

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. segment of the bottom inscription, "to Mae Townsend Pease 1948" evidences a different type style and presumably was a later addition. Although the ewer's ownership jumped from man to woman and from in-law to blood relation, it remained linked to a direct

descendant of the Vansyckel family until it finally reached Mae Townsend Pease' daughter Pauline, who in her own words, is "the last of the line."7

Vansvckel Family Artifacts

In the collection of The Athenaeum of Philadelphia are a number of artifacts that most likely also were once owned by the Vansyckel/Townsend/Pease families, including several books about Napoleon Bonaparte. One of them, George Moir Bussey's two- volume History o f Napoleon (London, 1840), contains evidence that it once belonged to a

Vansyckel; on the title page of Volume I, the family name is inscribed in pencil. Bussey's account offered a sympathetic portrayal of Napoleon as destined and duty-bound to rescue his country from crisis, restore order and carry it forward to greater glory. Of the other biographies of Napoleon that may have lined a Vansyckel's bookshelf, none are signed,

although all are comparable in date and tone of subject matter. They are also all bound in

fine leather bindings, some of which are tooled and gilt Among them are The Life of Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor of the French, Sir Walter Scott (1827); History o f the

Captivity o f Napoleon at St. Helena, Marquis de Charles Jean Tristan Montholon (1847);

Circumstantial Narrative o f the Campaign in Russia, Eugene Labaume (1850); The Imperial Guard o f Napoleon: from Marengo to Waterloo, Joel Tyler Headley (1851); and The Napoleon Dynasty; or, The History o f the Bonaparte Family, the Berkeley men (1852). Additional books that family members might have possessed include European travel

accounts published in the 1820s and 1830s.8

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Which Vansyckel was so fascinated with Napoleon? The household inventories of Elijah, Robert, James, and Sarah Vansyckel indicate that they all possessed book collections, respectively valued at $1,200; $400; approximately $150; and one hundred dollars. Elijah Vansyckel's account also shows that he owed $ 112.50 to Leary & Getz, the book sellers located next door to the family business at 136 N. Second Street As all the

titles listed were published before his death in 1855, it is conceivable that Elijah Vansyckel may have purchased them himself. Just as their fine bindings would have enhanced his library bookshelves, so to their texts would have affirmed the virtuous domination of

inferiors by their betters.9 The one book that a Vansyckel definitely owned, George Moir Bussey's History o f Napoleon (London, 1840), described "The Genius and Misfortunes of the Fallen Emperor.'' Its author claimed his account was impartial to a degree not possible for earlier partisan biographers. Bussey stated his objective as follows: "The principal aim of the writer of the present work has been to review the Life of Napoleon as a whole; not only in

its chivalric details, but as to its influence upon the state and prospects of Europe, and the progress of civilization throughout the world." According to the author, France was in such turmoil before Napoleon's reign that French citizens gladly cast aside "speculative notions of freedom," as "universal poverty, misery and discontent was the terrible meaning

which began to be attached to the term Equality." Bussey rationalized that as "'Savior and

Protector1 of the State," Napoleon "looked upon the dominion of France as the reward of

his labours in behalf of her citizens; and he therefore sought to make her the greatest and most glorious nation on earth." The author then allegedly quoted a government official who beseeched Napoleon to ensure the "hereditary transmission of the supreme magistracy" and thus the France's eternal preeminence: "It is not enough that you found a

new era, unless you render it immortal; for what is splendour without duration. To you we are indebted for our rescue from the chaos of the past; to you we are grateful for the

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. blessings of the present: it must be yours, also, to guarantee to us the future." Thus empire might be preserved through dynasty. Bussey's History o f Napoleon, which apotheosized the former emperor as one inherently superior man who judiciously exercised

absolute authority to save civilization from the rabble and propel it upward and onward, was perhaps reassuring reading for a man such as Elijah Vansyckel, prominently positioned in an "aristocracy of wealth" and atop his personal empire.10 Along with the bedchamber suite, silver ewer and books, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia has in its collection several other items that the Vansyckel family may have owned, although none specifically are documented as such. They too are indicative of late classical taste. Among them are French porcelains probably dating from the second quarter

of the nineteenth century, specifically a white and gilt urn-shaped two-handled vase painted

with mythological scenes, and a pair of white, green and gilt compotes, one of which is pictured in Fig. 71. A circa 1845 gilt pier mirror labeled by Charles N. Robinson of Philadelphia also may have belonged to the Vansyckels. All together, the various artifacts that the Vansyckel family did own, or may have owned, suggest their predilection for the

grander manifestations of classical taste epitomized in the French and American decorative arts produced from the early to mid-1800s, and the legacy of empire that they entailed.11

174

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

^Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1855 no. 70; Robert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307; James J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359; and Sarah B. Vansyckel, will 1872 no. 9 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wilis); "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); R. G. Dun & Co., credit ledgers; Philadelphia, 1849-59 (Hagley Library).

^Marcia Fointon, Strategies for Showing: Women, Possession, and Representation in English Visual Culture, 1665-1800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) p. 37; "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); and Robert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307; James J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359; Emmet A. Vansyckel, will 1864 no. 320; Samuel Smyth, will 1869 no. 653 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wills).

3"Van Syckel Bible Records” (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); grantor/grantee indexes (Philadelphia City Archives); and Franklin Fire Insurance Survey Nos. 24554 and 24555 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel; Nos. 28428, 28429,28430, 28431, and 28432 made for Samuel Smyth; No. 28474 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, October 7,1859; No. 30059 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, October 21,1861; No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Samuel Smyth, will 1869 no. 653 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wills). At 101 Arch Street, the northwest corner of Arch and North Front Street (the site that once included the Vansyckels' first town house at 74 N. Front), Samuel Smyth erected a "Five-Story Brick Store House with Ornamental Cast Iron front," later known as "Smyth Stores” (Fig. 19). Smyth seems to have been involved with the family business since his marriage to Amanda Vansyckel in 1837; perhaps he and his mother-in-law later became co-developers. Certainly Smyth expressed his regand for Sarah Vansyckel's financial and managerial position when he named her co- executrix of his will along with his wife Amanda, although she ultimately declined to do so at the time of his death in 1869, perhaps because her age.

^Sarah B. Vansyckel, will 1872 no. 9 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wills); Registration object files 89.12.1-6 and 96.7a,b (Winterthur Museum); deed-of-gift records, (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia); object label 1979-108-6 (Philadelphia Museum of Art); interview with Peter Strickland, January 24,1998.

^Sarah B. Vansyckel, will 1872 no. 9 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wills).

6 Registration object files 89.12.1-6 (Winterthur Museum); interview with Peter Strickland, January 24,1998; Ward, "Women's Property and Family Continuity in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut," p. 85.

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ^Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Visual Resources, Winterthur Library; John W. Van Sickle, A History o f the Van Sickle Family, p. 147; "Van Syckel Bible Records" (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania); Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (The Historical Society of Pennsylvania).; interview with Pauline Pease, February 1998.

G eorge Moir Bussey, History o f Napoleon (London: Joseph Thomas, 1840), p. i; deed- of-gift records (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia).

^Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1855 no. 70; Robert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307; James J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359; and Sarah B. Vansyckel, will 1872 no. 9 (City and County of Philadelphia Register of Wills). Vansyckel's ownership of various texts apotheosizing Napoleon also suggest his engagement with "the cult of Napoleon" that gained momentum in France after the July Revolution of 1830, in which the Bourbon monarchy was overthrown and Louis-Phillipe became "citizen-king."

lOBussey, History o f Napoleon, pp. v-vi, 273-74, 380.

1 lDeed-of-gift records (The Athenaeum of Philadelphia). Taken together with those items which the Vansyckels are known to have owned or purchased, the various artifacts also possibly owned by the family suggest what their purchasing habits were like in the late 1840s and the 1850s. The makers of the ewer and the pier mirror, for example, were both located on Chestnut Street, then a fashionable shopping district Also in business on Chestnut Street were Klauder, Deginther and Co., the upholsterer and cabinetmaker that both Elijah and James Vansyckel patronized during the 1850s, as evidenced in the accounts Sarah Vansyckel kept following each's decease. The firm operated out of First 286 then 284 Chestnut, with the former location eventually taken over by George Vogel, an importer of French goods who also procured items such as paintings for James Vansyckel. Furthermore, Vogel was a friend of James Vansyckel, to whom the latter bequeathed the gold watch he had inherited from Elijah Vansyckel. Apparently by mid-century the Vansyckels chose to frequent stylish Chestnut Street shops rather than those owned by the likes of Isaac Jones on North Front Street, or the more pedestrian vendors on Second Street.

176

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

Empire extends horizontally in space, predicted on the possibility of infinite expansion. Kinship stretches vertically through time; its presumed linearity encompasses metaphors of unending future progress, exemplified by Darwinian evolution, or preservation of a consanguinal past, enacted through ancestor worship. As empire unfolds its grasp, so too it strives to maintain what it has already colonized; it historicizes itself as it seeks to entrench its dominion. Moreover, once presumed glory is threatened or passing, imperialistic exercises become all the more vigorous. Dynasty enlists kinship in the service

of empire; it represents the desire of the latter's practitioners to attain the ascendancy over time that mere physical monuments cannot Dynasty invokes a mythical past and an imagined future to sustain an elusive present; it legitimizes empire's ongoing operations with a by-gone golden age, and promises to continually enact its hegemony through

subsequent generations. Yet dynasty carries with it the threat of decline and ultimately absence; just as material objects decay, so too progeny neglect to maintain their predecessors' realms as they busily construct their own. Inclusivity or exclusivity

endanger dynasty's continuation; blood lines can become "contaminated,” or descendants fail to reproduce.

Within the macro-context of burgeoning U. S. imperialism, and ante-bellum Philadelphia in eclipse, Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel lay claim to a family empire. They

enacted their domain through a range of artifactual self-representations distinguished by scale, quantity and classical taste. Once the province of a select cultural elite, by the first

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quarter of the nineteenth century classically-inspired domestic architecture and decorative arts were increasingly popular with and available to an expanding "aristocracy of wealth."

Artifacts ranging from the most private to the most public deployed the rhetoric of late classical taste. Thus even the most intimate personal possessions conflated the civic virtue or moral order presumably inherent in a larger, Neoclassically-articulated urban cultural landscape with the "moral disorder" that their individual owner's may have enacted through

their own empire-building. Within his own home, through the family enclave that he established on either side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets, and in the family plot in Laurel Hill Cemetery, Elijah Vansyckel positioned himself at the apex of an artifactual hierarchy that

reified his patriarchal authority. He and his wife Sarah Vansyckel asymmetrically shared head-of-household status as together they presided over their children and servants. The architecture of and objects within the family's 189 Mulberry Street town house both concretized and contested the unequal social relationships between husband and wife, parent and child, and master and servant; and shaped varying interactions among household

members and visiting outsiders. Extant objects once owned by the Vansyckel family include a portrait painted by L.

S. De Bibory, an engraved silver ewer, George Moir Bussey's biography of Napoleon,

and the Vansyckel bedchamber suite. Monuments to family empire, they also became emblems of kinship and by implication dynasty; yet all were for the most part inherited

matrilineally, at once supporting and subverting the patriarchal Vansyckel "line.” Among the family's relics, their bedchamber suite most intrinsically commingled power, intimacy, kinship and display. Among the suite's components, one could argue that the Vansyckels'

bed was a temple devoted to the consummation of family empire. It enshrined the locus of procreation, birth and death; that is, the cycle of reproduction and its presumption of

immortality by way of dynasty.

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The extent to which artifactual hierarchy seems to mirror the inherent "order of things” testifies to its success at naturalizing unequal social relations. Yet such arrangements are inherently unstable; the dynamics of human agency render them fluid. Likewise, as they are remade for a fugitive present, objects like the Vansyckel bedchamber suite solicit yet elude final interpretation.

179

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

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1. Philadelphia Empire Bedroom. Vansyckel Bedstead, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, mahogany, tulip poplar, gilt and vert antique decoration; 112 x 74 x 89 inches. (89.12.1). Courtesy, Winterthur Mu seum. 181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. te tu fJi fM MKa&tBtKfmt!

Figure 2. Vansyckel Dressing Bureau, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, mahogany, tulip poplar, pine, marble, mirror, gilt and vert antique decora tion; 90x40-1/2x21-3/4 inches. (89.12.2). Courtesy, Winterthur Mu seum.

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3. Vansyckel Wardrobe, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, ma hogany, tulip poplar, gilt and vert antique decoration; 91-1/2 x 60 x 31 inches. (89.12.3). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 4. Vansyckel Wardrobe, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, ma hogany, tulip poplar, gilt and vert antique decoration; 91-1/2 x 60 x 31 inches. (89.12.4). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 5. Vansyckel Washstand, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, ma hogany, poplar, pine, marble, gilt and vert antique decoration; 30-1/2 x 32-HA x 20 inches. (89.12.5). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figured Vansyckel Bed Steps, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Rosewood, ma hogany, tulip poplar, gilt and vert antique decoration; 24-1/2 x 29-3/4 x 23-1/2 inches. (89.12.6). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 7. Vansyckel Secretary Desk, c. 1833; Isaac Jones. Mahogany, rosewood, poplar, pine, mirror, ormolu, gilt and vert antique decoration; 72 x 48 x 19 inches. (1979-108-6). Gift of Miss Pauline Townsend Pease, Philadelphia Museum of Art.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 8. The Children o f Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel, 1842; L. S. De Bibory. Oil on linen, 58-1/8 x 54-7/8 inches. (96.7a,b). Courtesy, Win terthur Museum. From left to right: Mary Smith Vansyckel [Townsend], Robert Smith Vansyckel, Sarah Vansyckel [Heberton], and Catherine Opdyke Vansyckel [Arnold].

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 9. Vansyckel/Townsend/Pease Ewer, c. 1837-50; J. & W. L Ward. Silver, 16-1/2 inches high. (88.20). Gift of Miss Pauline Townsend Pease, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 10. Vansyckel Family Plot, Shrubbery Section, Laurel Hill Cemetery.

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 11. Elijah Vansyckel’s Gravestone, Laurel Hill Cemetery.

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dl3

Figure 12. Vansyckel Family Plot Plan, Lots 19 to 23, Shrubbery Section, Laurel Hill Cemetery.

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 13. The Course of Empire: Consummation of Empire, 1836; Thomas Cole, oil on canvas, 51-1/4 x 76 inches. © Collection of the New- York Historical Society.

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 14. “United States Bank, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.” Plate 2 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views of Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity (1838). Lithograph. Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

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

miKFi-ClEAW'J!3 '3 X C l£lA i" f &&. ntlliM tKI.I'IIIA. -««>w « ' f itit* «w. .V*». i » - . .. .# • w

Figure 15. “Merchants’ Exchange, Philadelphia.” Plate 3 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views of Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity (1838). Lithograph. Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IK*SS 6 S 2 &SI B n «aiKi3i»mae!i] ■MMWHfflinMlilM ili iiM aE SsnlM mBniiiiMi

Figure 16. Philadelphia [map], detail; 1840.

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 17. “Fairmount, Philadelphia.” Plate 1 in John Caspar Wild, Panorama and Views of Philadelphia, and Its (1838).Vicinity Lithograph. Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. h»>ri Hill V.trl'n***r uf&r .HUtSA*—+ *t ■• -** /ftr l.’yy > * £/r* 4 ( i f ** t»r~iA+ utim* * • jL

Figure 18. 77/e 5/a/e Penitentiary, for the Eastern District of Pennsylva nia, 1855; Samuel Cowperthwaite (convict no. 2954). Published by P. S. Duval & Co. Lithograph; 6-1/2 x 10 inches. The Library Company of Philadelphia.

198

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

-i 10 *< r t1 1 ^ 1 X j Jfeji m . i f t | Hi IS ! i' I h, l! # 1 1

f* • r- i i. i t i l M bft if 19 I *** iff In a t ii it v i a cj m 9 ^ j ^ .■rjywwHUfcy f

Figure 19. Smythe Stores, c. 1855-57, northwest comer of Front and Arch Streets, Philadelphia; 1997.

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 20. Uncompleted c. 1848-50 survey map of Philadelphia showing the locations of 74,75 and 77 N. Front Street. Map Collection, The Free Library of Philadelphia.

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 21. First floor plan of 136 N. Second Street, Franklin Fire Insur ance Survey No. 8734 made for Elijah Vansyckel, April 6, 1848. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 O’Brien’s Philadelphia Wholesale Business

LEAEY & GETZ, BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS, No. 138 N. Second at West side above Bace, PHILADELPHIA. Where are constantly kept on hand over 160,000 VOLUMES OF BOOKS, In every deportment of Literature. WIIOLE§ALE AND RETAIL.

Figure 22. Advertisement for Leary & Getz, Booksellers and Publishers. In O ’Brien’s Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular for the Year 1853.

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [ I ' l J-'U

GHWRT 9TRHET

(I)

Figure 23. North side of Arch Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets. Adapted from Hexamer and Locher’s 1858-60 Maps of the City of Phila delphia; drawn by Benjamin Caldwell.

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I--*" 1 - f

Figure 24. First floor plan of 519 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, December 30,1862. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 25. 521 Arch Street (right), 1911. "Arch Street," Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 26. 521 Arch Street, rear (left); 1911. "Arch Street," Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i&tiosi&aBisiaaais&MAiit # -v ^

T O IL u &

E. VANSYCKEL & SON, WHOLESALE DEALERS IN MOKfllg & [LQ^QDM AT TUB OI.D CSTADI.ISIIKD STAND, No. 196 N. SECOND STREET, BQUoQelyftfn. ''y Ui'J® V 11 J’-*' •*• 1^'r - ‘ •*"* <4^ "*» 5* •• ■•' ’Vi *0» 'it 's.'-1 J*'* *•*■ ;.J* i* ;-. •’> ■ £ • V v^V •**• •■*•“ ic i .u* y. '< •'- t *•'• ^ r* *V

Figure 27. Advertisement for E. Vansyckel & Son. In The Mercantile Register, or Business Man’s Guide (1846). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 28. “Arch Street, with the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadel phia.” Drawn, engraved and published by William Birch and Son in The City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania; as It Appeared in the Year 1800. Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 29. [Second Presbyterian] “Church in Seventh Street:—Built in 1837.” In E. R. Beadle, The Old and the New, 1743-1876: the Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1876).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 30. “The Plan of a Design for a twenty feet Front.” Plate 40 in John Haviland, The Builders’ Assistant, vol. 1 (1818). Courtesy, Winterthur Library. 210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 31. “Elevation of Plate 40.” Plate 50 in John Haviland, The Builders’ Assistant, vol. 1 (1818). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MULBERRY (ARCH) MULBERRY CONJECTURAL FLOOR PLAN 4 . ATTIC ATTIC ATTIC BACK FRONT I j A RH BACK*) fffiT 3rd FLOOR CHAM. CHAM. BATH 2nd FLOOR BEP CHAM. CHAM. BACKS J H I DIN. 5 l/u- l»t FLOOR — KIT. CELLAR Figure32. Conjectural Floor Plan for 189 Mulberry Street. Fire Based Insuranceon Elijah SurveyVansyckel’s No. 3244 household made inventory,forJoseph Sharp,March October24, 1840. Drawn by Benjamin Caldwell. 8,1855; Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 30870 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, December30,1862; and Franklin to *—• *—• to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 33. James J. Vansyckel’s Bohemian Glass Toilet Set, c. 1858. Dark green transparent glass cased with white opaque glass, decorated with polychrome enamel flowers and gilded monogram “JJVS.” (66-33-1 through 15a,b). Gift of Miss Pauline T. Pease, Philadelphia Museum of Art.

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 34. “Emmet Armstrong Van Syckel.” In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 35. “Harry Van Syckel.” In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supple ment to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 36. Front chamber of house No. 42 South 8th Street. Residence of J. S. Russell in 1835, 1835; Joseph Shoemaker Russell. Watercolor on paper. In Elisabeth Donaghy Garrett, ‘The American Home, Part III: The Bedchamber,” The Magazine ANTIQUES (March 1983). Photograph by Helga Photo Studio by courtesy of The Magazine ANTIQUES.

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 37. Dressing Bureau, 1830; Walter Pennery. Maple, tulip poplar, pine, marble, mirror, glass, brass, gilt and vert antique decoration; 87-3/8 x 43-38 x 24-1/2 inches. (80.116). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B/tre.ra fee/

SiriebourtlB e s t

f'ltrr/. Breakfast a/alA'to tabfe Beet.

Figure 38. “Bureau Feet; Sideboard Feet; Card, Breakfast and Loo table Feet; Sofa Feet.” Plate 3 in The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers’ Union Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware (1828). Courtesy, Winterthur Library. 218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 39. “Cabinet-Maker.” In Edward Hazen, The Panorama o f Profes sions and Trades; or Every Man’s Book (1839). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 40. Joseph Meeks & Sons.’ Manufactory of Cabinet and Uphol stery Articles, 43 & 45, Broad-Street, New York; 1833. Published by George Endicott and Moses Swett. Hand-colored lithograph; 21-1/2 x 17 inches. © Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Gift of Mrs. R. W. Hyde, 1943. 220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 41. Pier Table, attributed to Anthony Quervelle. Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Accession No. 71.668, Visual Resources, Win terthur Library.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 42. Untitled Plate (Bed). In Janies Barron, Modern & Elegant Designs of Cabinet & Upholstery Furniture (c. 1814). Courtesy, Winter thur Library.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a 7 I f

Figure 43. "Z./7 de Fantaisie." Plate 142 in Pierre de La M^sangfere, Collection des Meubles et Objets de Gout (1802-1835). Courtesy, Winter thur Library.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 44. “A French Bed.” Plate 23 in Rudolph Ackermann, A Series, Containing Fourty-Four Engravings in Colours, of Fashionable Furniture (1823). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 45. “Bed Steps.” In Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator (1826-27). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fig. 46 Vansyckel Bedstead; detail of headboard during treatment. (89.12.1). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 47. Upright Piano, c. 1835; C. F. L. Albrecht. Mahogany with gilt decoration, 76-1/4 x 43-9/16 x 26-9/16 inches. Smithsonian Institution Photo No. 56381.

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 48. “Greek Pateras.” In Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson, The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, & Complete Decorator (1826-27). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 49. Vansyckel Bedstead; detail of column capital and comice. (89.12.1). Courtesy, Winterthur Museum.

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 50. Corbit Sideboard, 1831; Isaac Jones. Mahogany, tulip polar, pine, and chestnut; 56-3/8 x 66-5/8 x 24-5/8 inches. Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Accession No. 78.527, Visual Resources, Win terthur Library.

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 51. “Design for a Mantle.” Plate 24 in John Haviland, The Build ers’ Assistant, vol. 1 (1818). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aettfTU9T.

■Hvnvrs,

Figure 52. “Grecian Architecture.” Plate 97 in John Haviland, The Build ers’ Assistant, vol. 2 (1819). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 53. Card Table from William Wain’s drawing room suite, c. 1808- 10. Designed by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, constructed by Thomas Wetherill, and painted by George Bridport. Gessoed, painted and gilded tulipwood and maple; 29-1/2x36 inches. (1986-126-1). Philadelphia Museum of Art.

233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 54. French Empire Pier Table, c. 1800-10. Formerly owned by Joseph Bonaparte and installed at “Point Breeze,” Bordentown, New Jersey. Mahogany, marble, mirror, and ormolu. (50-49-1). Gift of Edward Hopkinson, Philadelphia Museum of Art.

234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 55. “Englifh State Bed.” Plate 19 in Thomas Sheraton, Appendix to The Cabinet-Maker and Uphohlerer’s Drawing (3rdBook ed., 1802). Courtesy, Winterthur Library.

235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 56. Children of Commodore and Mrs. John Daniel Danels, Albermarle Street, Baltimore, c. 1825-26; attributed to Robert Street. Oil on canvas, 69-1/2 x 59-3/4 inches. (73.12.1). Collection of the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.

236

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 57. The Coleman Sisters, 1844; Thomas Sully. Oil on canvas, 44- 1/4x34-1/2 inches. (1947.9.3.905) National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC; Gift of William C. Freeman, 1947.

237

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 58. 1518 and 1520 Arch Street, 1910. “Arch Street,” Philadelphia Contributionship Collection; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 59. First floor plan of 1518 and 1520 Arch Streets, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 7972 made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 9, 1847. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I“U ARCH STREET 1534 1520 1513 1503 1500

CUTHBERT STREET

FILBERT STREET n__j

Figure 60. South side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets. Adapted from Hexamer and Locher’s 1858-60 Maps of the City of Philadelphia; drawn by Benjamin Caldwell.

240

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 61. North side of Arch Street looking west from Fifteenth Street, detail; 1917. Philadelphia City Archives.

241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P"“I IT j — 1 2

CHERRT STREET

©RACE STREET

ARCH STREET n

Figure 62. North side of Arch Street between Fifteenth and Sixteenth Streets. Adapted from Hexamer and Locher’s 1858-60 Maps o f the City of Philadelphia; drawn by Benjamin Caldwell.

242

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 63. First floor plan of 1509 and 1511 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 12049 made for Elijah Vansyckel, July 27, 1850. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 64. First floor plan of 1505 and 1507 Arch Street, Franklin Fire Insurance Survey No. 24554 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, August 12, 1856. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 65. 1805 Walnut Street, 1922. Philadelphia City Archives.

245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 66. 2000 block of Walnut Street, south side, showing partial view of Second Presbyterian Church (right); c. 1920. Philadelphia City Ar chives.

246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. '•/Sirjrjuvt rxjrvy o? u t k l iq x L cjnaaxjarr

Figure 67. “General View of Laurel Hill Cemetery.” In Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1844).

247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. t S'MD'UXT'i) J'lS iU T * * LAMM. RIU CRXETtir.

Figure 68. “Ground Plan of Laurel Hill Cemetery.” In Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia (1844).

248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 69. “Mary Smith (Van Syckel) Townsend.” In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 70. “Pauline Townsend.” In Kingston Goddard Hadley, Supple ment to the Van Syckel Genealogy (1943). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

250

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

Figure 71. French Compote, c. 1820-40; probably Paris. Porcelain, green, white and gilded; 12-3/4 x 13-1/4 inches. (79.7.1-.2). The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

251

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B ELIJAH VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY

Inventory and Appraisement of the Goods and Chattels, Rights and Credits which were of Elijah VanSyckel late of the City of Philadelphia, taken and made in conformity with the above deposition [March 8 , 1855].

LIBRARY:

Lot of Books $1,2 0 0 . " 4 Rosewood Book Cases 435. ■ Arm Chair 45. ■ 9 Chairs @ 16.00 144. ■ Office Table 70. " Paper Case (Marble top) 40. " Violin Case 2 0 . " Music Stand 25. " Brussels Carpet 35.20 2 Venetian Blinds 7.00 14. " 2 Spittoons 2 . " 4. " 2 do .37»/2 .75 4 Bronze Figures 50. " Clock 40. ■ Gas Chandelier 2 0 . • Inkstand 2.50 125 Pieces Cut Glafs (Decanters, Tumblers &c) 141. " 4 Cut Decanters 1 2 . " 12 " Tumblers 9. ■ N M 12 4.20 7 " Champagnes 1.50. 2 Terra Cotta Bowls @3.00 6 . " Ice Pitcher 9. " Terrapin Dish 7. " Plated Waiter 18. • Tools in case 4." 2,357.15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DRAWINGROOM: 5 Rosewood Sofas @70.00 350. 8 " Chairs 12.00 100. ■ Arm Chair 45. H N N 25.00 100. " Sofa Table 55. Tea Trays 10. Refreshment Table 15. 2 Side Mirrors 120.00 240. 2 Pier " 115. " 230. 2 Mantle ” 100." 200. 4 Venetian Blinds 7. " 28. 122 Yands Carpet 1. " 122. 4 Mantle Lamps 10. " 40. Piano Forte 250. ” Stool 10. Music Rack 18. 2 Chandeliers 40. " 80. 4 Curtains & ornaments 25. " 100.

HALL: 34 Yards Tapestry Carpet 1.50 51. " 3 Door Mats 5. " Iron Hat Stand 10. " Barometer 10. • Chandelier 20 . " Oil Cloth (back Entry) 13.50. "

STAIRS to 2nd Storv.

25 Yards Tapestry Carpet 1.50 37.50 57 Flat Brass Rods .30 15.30

ENTRY 2nd Storv.

30 Yards Tapestry Carpet 1. 121/2 33.75 Venetian Blinds 2. " 4 Chairs 3.50 14. " Pedestal Sideboard 12. " Gas Pendant 4,579.20

253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BACK CHAMBER 2nd Storv,

French Bedstead 80. " Spring Mattress & Bedding 45. " Cabinet (Marble top) 22. " Wardrobes 60.00 120. " Dressing Table 45. " Washstand 28. " 4 Chairs 10.00 40. " 2 Ottomans 4. " 8. " Cheval Glass 60. • Mantle Minor 60. " Clock 45. " 2 Lamps 8.00 16. " 50 Yards Carpet .50 25. "

FRONT CHAMBER 2nd Storv.

Rosewood Bedstead 1 0 0 . • 2 " Dressing Bureaus 50.00 1 0 0 . " 2 " Wardrobes 75. ■ 150. " 2 " Washstands 30. " 60. • 2 Toilet Sets 30. " 60. " Bedsteps 15. " Bookcase & Secretary 65. " 9 Chairs 6 . ■ 54. " Sewing Chair 1 2 . " 2 Ottomans 4.00 8 . " Mantle Minor 1 0 0 . " 2 Mantle Lamps 8 .0 0 16. " Footstool .50 80 Yards Brussels Carpet .80 64. " Gas Chandelier 1 0 . ■ Spring Mattress (on Bedstead) 60. " Curtains & Ornaments .... §, 6,053.70

STAIRS to 3d Storv.

38 Yards Carpet (to attic) .85 32.30 18 Stair Rods ” .121/2 2.25

254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ENTRY. 3d Storv

4 Chairs 3.50 14. " Clothes Basket 2.50 Shoe Box 2. " Candle Stand 2.50 Blind 1. "

FRONT ROOM 3d Storv. 2 Cabinets 20.00 40.00 Centre Table 18. ” Bedstead & Bedding 34." 4 Walnut Chairs 3.00 12. " Lot Glass Ware 12." Mahogany Secretary Bureau 35. " Tea Box 5. "

BACKROOM 3d Storv. Bedstead 25. " Mattress & Bedding 35. ” Cheval Glass 25. " Washstand 15." Dressing Table 26. " 2 Wardrobes 25.00 50. " Card Table 9. " Clock Cover 2.50 Secretary Bookcase 30." Table 4. " 2 Engravings $4& 3 7. " Wanning Pan 1. " 3 Candelabras 7. ” 2 Lamp Stands 2. " Thermometer & Match pots 2. " Bellows & Brush 1.50 50 Yards Carpet .85 42.50 6 Chairs 3.50 21." Chandelier Covers 1. ” Toiletware 10." 6,582.75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Closet 3d Storv Entry. Old Curtains S. ” " " (assorted) 5. " 6 Candlesticks 4.75 Snuffers & Tray .75 Match holder .50 6 Quilts & 2 Blankets 18. ”

Back Attic. Feather Bed 22. ” Bedstead & Bedding 10. ” Covers for Furniture 35. " 2 Small Tables & Glass 1.75

Front Attic. Case of Drawers 4.00 Lot Curtain Ornaments 1. ” 2 Tin Roasters .50 Foot Tub 1. " Cushion 1. ” 2 Mahogany Chairs 5. " Lot Matting 10. " " do on Parlour 9. " Paper Case 3.50 Clothes Basket 5. " Lot Trunks 8 . ” Water Cooler 2.50 3 Demijohns & Jug 1. " Embroidery Frame 2. * Lot Frames 2. " 6 Stair Rods .75 Mahogany French Bedstead 10. * Umbrella Stand 1.50 Marble Slab 2.50 Trundle Bedstead 3. " Lot Bedding 17.11 6,775.75

256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. French Bedstead 30. " Straw Bed 1.50 Mattress, Bolster & Pillows 16. " 2 Works tands 6 . 0 0 1 2 . " Cherry Table 3. " Washstand 14. " Wardrobe 50. ■ Carpet 15. • Recumbent Chair 1 2 . * 5 Cane Seat Chairs 6.50 Windsor Rocking do 1.50 Plaster Bracket 1 . ■ 2 Blinds 2.50 Cradle &c 3. " Toilet Ware 2.50

Small Back room. 3d Storv back building.

2 Cases of Drawers 3.50 7.00 2 Blinds 1.25 2.50 Bedstead, Mattress &c 18. " Toilet Table 1 .0 0 Glass 2.50 2 Chairs 1.50 Carpet 4. " Brushes 1 . •

Table and Bed Linen.

30 Sheets Linen 2 . 0 0 60. " 2 1 " Cotton .371/2 7.88 2 Dimity Spreads 1 .0 0 3. " 4 Small " .50 2 . " 5 Bolster Cases .30 1.50 2 1 N H .30 6.30 3 White Counterpanes 5.00 15. " 28 Cotton Pillow Cases .25 7. " Large Table Cloth 8 . " 1 2 Table Cloths 3.50 42. " 13 II H 1.75 22.75 134 Doylies .1 2 16.75 24 Towels .2 0 4.80 40 Doylies (Cd.d) .04 1.60 3 Fruit Cloths 5. " Cloth Cover 1.25 11 ps. Bolster & Pillow Cases 1.50 16.50 3 Blankets 7. " Lot Valance 1.25

257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ptetgj War?- Large Plated Waiter 25. " 2 Plated Vegetable Dishes 15.00 30. " * Tureen 25." ■ Cake Basket 5. " " " " 3.50 " Round Tray 5. "

Silver Sec.

26918/2 o Oz. 2 Dishes & Stands 1.50 404.85 4 9 6 16/20 " Spoons, Forks, Ladles &c 1.40 695.52 24 Ivory handle Knives 18.00 Carving Knife & fork 7* " Bread Knife, Corkscrews &c 9. " 6 Nut Cracks 4." 6 Picks 1. " 18 Table Knives 9. " 3 Steels 1.50 18 Desert Knives 6 ." 7 Dinner " 5. " Silver & Knife Baskets 3. "

Bath Room:

Settee St 5 Chairs 10. " Meat Trays 4. " Wash Stand & Glass 6 ." 8,490.70

China Closet:

Runted Dinner Set 200." Medicine Box See 1. " Tub & 2 Candlesticks 1.50 Sugar Cracker &c .50 Coffee Set 4.50 White & Gold Band Dinner Set 45. " Lot Shades & Jelly Cups 5. " White St Gold band Dinner Set 60. " Painted Tea Set 40. " Lot India China 6 . " 2 Cut Glass Celleries 4.00 8 . " 2 " Salts & Stands 2.50 5. " ^ n n 1.25 2 w n .40 .80

258

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 " Preserves 11. * 41 " Lemonades .18 7.38 49 Champagnes .15 7.35 11 " tall . 1 0 1.10 Cut Fruit Bowl 7.00 2 " Sugar Dishes 4.00 8. * 11 Tumblers A 2 li2 1.37 18 Wines 2.25 36 Champagnes .15 5.40 Water Filterer 2. * Lot Toilet Ware 2 0 . » 20 Finger Bowls 4. " Preserving Kettle, Baskets &c 6. • OilCan 1. * 2 Cake Stands 2.50 Soap Bbl. & Boxes 1.50 Lot Jars & Stone Ware 12. ■ OilCloth 4.50 2 Venetian Blinds 4. " Lot Canisters &c 8. ■ 4 Decanters 8. ■

DININGROOM: Lot Chairs 2.50 8 Tumblers .12 ^ 2 1. " Lot Knives 4. • 9 TableCloths 1.75 15.75 Goth Table Covers 1.25 3 Tea Trays 2. " 18 Tumblers .25 4.50 20 Champagnes .20 4. ■ 15 Wines . 15 2.25 Range Dining Table 18. * Lounge & Cushion 22. * 7 Chairs 3.50 24.50 Arm Chairs 14. • Sideboard 35. * Small do 12. * Rosewood Box 3. ■ Cock 50. ■ 2 Lamps 8.00 16. ■ Thermometer & Vase 1.50 2 Spittoons 2. " 2 Venetian Blinds 2.00 4. " Gilt Frame Glass 45" 4 5 ^ 2 Yards Carpet 1.00 45.50 14 " Crumb Cloth .50 7. " Chandelier 25. "

259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 Ormalou Candelabras & Shades 25. " Terra Cotta Barrel 15. " Ice Pitcher & Tray ...5-50 9,400.85

KITCHEN: Clock 5.00 2 Pine Tables 4.50 Cooking Stove 6 . " Carpet 8 . " Chairs & Stools 2.50 6 Tin Boxes, 6 Candlesticks &c 6 . " Lot Tools 3.50 Crockery 4. * Tin Ware & Canisters 14. " Lot Iron Ware 3.50 " Tin ■ .75 Preserving Kettle &c 8 . " Ironing Board &c 3. " 1 0 Sadirons .25 2.50 Pie-board &c 1.25

c?lton Lot Coal 30. " Bench & Shovel 1. • 186 Bottles Wine .75 139.50 71 " Champagne 1 .0 0 71. - 1 2 " Wine .75 9. " 16 Demijohns, part full, 1 .0 0 16. " 8 Butter Pots 1.25 1 0 .0 0 4 Barrels .75 3. " Tub & Skid 1. " Safe Basket &c 7. ■ Refrigerator &c 4u" 9,674.85

Carriage 2 0 0 . " do 500. " Sleigh 75. " 2 do Robes 30. " Step-ladders, Jack See 5. • Harness 1 2 0 . " 2 Horses 600. "

260

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . . " . . " 8 6 11,964.10 .75 ^ 2 261 SUNDRIES: Glass 2.50 &

" " Long 3. " " " Chain 25. " " " Collar do " Suspender do 1.00 3. • 16. "

" " " " 35. " Letter Clips Clips Letter Port Monie .37 Pin BreastDiamond .75 35" Lot Dental Instruments & Knives Knives & LotInstruments Dental Instruments Mathematical 18. " Watch Key Watch Lot Cutters Paper TweezersGold Lancets &PaperCutters Brush & Pin Cushion 3. ” 2.25 3.00 1. " 2.50 Silver & Box Shaving Mug GoldSpectacle Case GoldWatch Watch Alarm 18. " 20. " 75." 3. " Inkstand 4. " Gold Pen Pencil & 7. " Silk Umbrella & Ring Silk&Ring Umbrella PaperWeight Clip Letter Umbrella&Ring 5. " 3. " 7. " 3. ” Hook& Ring (Watch) Watch Box Lot Canes 1.25 1. " Clothing Gold Mounted & Pistols Case Rifle 100. ” 100. ” 45." Revolver &Case 50. " pr ” Spectacles 6.00 " 12. 2 2 Violins 2 Tongue Scrapers 10.00 20. " 1.50 2 2 Stones Eye Glasses 5. " 5. " 2 2 Combs & Paper-folders Razor Straps .75 m 'O N d 2 Cologne Bottles 7. " 11 11 " Buckles Vest 1.00 " 11. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pew in 2nd Presbyterian Church 100.00 Premium on 16 Policies of Insurance 1,399.35 Undivided Interest 1/6 part of the North American & U. S. Gazette 10,000.00 1500 Shares Penna & Lehigh Zinc Company@ 1.75 2,625.00 400 " Philad* & Reading RRoad 37.75 15,100.00 1000 " N. Jersey Zinc Company 4.00 4,000.00 1 " Academy of Fine Arts 25.00 Bond of Mortgage C. M. Berry 672.00 ” " French & Richards 5.000.00 ” ” Sam'I A. Smith 3.000.00 " " French & Richards 6.000.00 5,000.00 Cash on Hand 413.90 Bills Receivable 468,914.40 do do 28,000.00 .550,249,65 $562,213.75 Also the following, value not yet ascertained, supposed to be worthless: William Allen, Oct 23, 1848, 132.36 Tobias Huber, May 9, 1850, 206.65 William Allen Oct 23, 1849, 132.35 Geo. R. Graham, March 15,1885 3,000.00 do do 180.00 T. E Gubert, July 27, 1847 152.16 Judgment against Sami. Yardley 1,633.73 Share in Philada Museum 0 0 0 .0 0 $562,213.75 Martin Thomas J. Nelson Davis

262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Summary of Values for Elijah Vansyckel's Room-by-Room Inventory:

LIBRARY...... $2,357.15 DRAWING ROOM...... 1,993.00 HALL...... 109.50 STAIRS to 2nd Story ...... 52.80 ENTRY to 2nd Story ...... 66.75 BACK CHAMBER 2nd Story ...... 594.00 FRONT CHAMBER 2nd Story ...... 880.50 STAIRS to 3d Story ...... 34.55 ENTRY, 3d Story ...... 22.00 FRONT ROOM 3d Story ...... 156.00 BACK ROOM 3d Story ...... 316.50 Closet 3d Story ...... 34.00 Back A ttic...... 68.75 Front A ttic ...... 90.25 NURSERY...... 170.50 Small Back room, 3d Story back building ...... 37.50 Table and Bed Linen ...... 229.58 Plated W are...... 93.50 Silver &c...... 1,163.87 Bath Room ...... 20.00 China Closet ...... 502.90 DININGROOM...... 407.25 KITCHEN...... 72.50 Cellar...... 291.50 [Coach House and Stable] ...... 1,530.00 SUNDRIES...... 669.25 $11,964.10

263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C ROBERT VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY

Inventory and Appraisement of the Goods and Chattels, Rights and Credits which were of Robert S. Vansyckel late of the City of Philadelphia, taken and made in conformity with the above deposition [c. September 19, 1955]: Lot of Books $ 400.- Painting and frame (Gipsy scene) 300.- do do (Queen Elizabeth & Sir W Raleigh) 500.- Engraving and frame (Napoleon) 5 .- 4 Engravings and frames 25.- 3 do do (Dogs) 3 .- 6 do do 1 0 .- 3 Oil Paintings and frames 50.- 2 do do 1 0 .- Lot of Engravings 25.- Oil Painting and frame (Beggar) 2 0 .- do do (Sleighing Party) 30.- 2 do do (Fisher boy & Lady at brook) 2 0 .- do do (Cattle scene) 25.- do do (Robbers) 2 0 .- do do (Fancy piece) 50.- 3 do do Chinese scene/ Still life 50.- do do (Hogarth) 1 0 0 .- 6 do do (small size) 50.- do do (Landscape) 75.- do do (Fisherman) 150.- do do (Lake view) 75.- 2 do do (small size) 40.- do do and two engravings 30.- $2,063.

$2,063. 2 Oil Paintings and frames Cattle scene 40. 3 do do (heads) 75. do do (scene from Don Quixote) 60. 2 do do (scenes in Germany) 60. do do 60. do do (preparing for market) 150. do do (Artist's closet) 1 0 0 . 2 do do (Nautical lesson & pirates) 40. do do (Fancy portrait) 30.

264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. do do (Martin Luthers defense) 60. do do (Revolution in Paris) 75. do do (small Landscape) 2 0 . do do (Seeing home) 15. do do (Snow scene) 50. do do (Cattle scene) 40. do do (Picnic) 50. do do (Artist) 30. do do (Horse) 50. 7 Parian Figures 60. Bronze Figures (Combat) 75. 2 do do (Deer - Horses) 1 0 0 . 4 do do Stands and brackets 60. 2 do do and brackets 2 0 . 2 do do 25. 5 do do (small size) and two brackets 50. 2 Alto Relievo Castings and frames 25- 3,483.

Shaving Box, Cup and Shinge (?) Box 75. Clock 60. Rocking Chair 2 0 . Bronze Clock and Candelabras 2 0 0 . One Pier Glafs 1 0 0 . Set Damask Curtains 1 0 0 . 2 Double Barrel Guns 150. Cane 5. 2 Rifles 150.- Rose Wood Escrutoire 1 0 0 .- Fancy Cigar Holder 5.- 2 Drefsing Cases 1 0 .- 4 Spittoons 4.- Vase 2 0 .- Fender 5.- 2 Fancy Boxes 5.- Fancy drefsing case 125.- Pair Pistols 50.- Teapoy and Basket of Flowers 5.- Jewelry Case 5.- Lot of Cigars 50.- 2 Chandeliers 50.- Music Rack 5.- 2 Pier Tables 50.- 1 do 2 0 ,- 4,852.-

6 Chairs 30.- 2 Arm Chairs (damask) 30.- 2 Fancy do (do) 1 0 .- Lounge (do) 40.- Wardrobe 150.-

265

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lot of Musical instruments 1 0 0 — Parian Figures 2.50 Cigar Cases 15— Three gold Snuff Boxes and two match boxes 150— One gold Cigar Case 25— Fancy Boxes 5— Toilet Set 50— Fancy Bottles 1 0 — Fancy drefsing case 5— Razors & Straps 5— Sabre and Fishing rod 2 0 — Two small Etageres and nicknacs 5 9“ 5,549.50 $5,549.50 One Bronze Horse 1 0 — Bedstead & Matrefs 1 0 0 — Washstand 25— Drefsing Bureau 25— Carpets 50— Gun Tools 1 0 — Pen Knives, Purses and Fancy articles 1 0 0 — Watches 400.- Fob Chains 7 5 .- Seals 6 0 .- Pencil Cases 5 0 .- Sleeve Buttons &c 1 0 .- Diamond Pin and Diamond Ring 1,500.- Horse Carriage and Hamefs 650,-- 8,614.50 50 Shares Franklin Fire Ins: at $ 125 $6,250— Cash received, dividend on above Stock 600— 100 Shares Penna Rail Road at 45 $4,500— 100 do Lehigh Coal & Navig. Co. at 82 8 ,2 0 0 — 1 do Arch St Theatre 325— 5 do Academy of Music (amt paid in) 2 0 0 — 1 do Point Breeze Park (do) 2 0 0 — 1/8 interest in 960 Acres of Land in Clinton County (being R. S. VanSyckels portion of 1/4 of said 960 Acres in jount a/c with Jas Dufiy of Marietta) 1,0 0 0 .- Cash in hands of White & VanSyckel 5.000— 26.275.- 34,889.50

Also promifsary notes and drafts amounting to 129.367.53

$164,257.03

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D SARAH VANSYCKEL'S INVENTORY

Inventory and Appraisement of the Goods and Chattels, Rights and Credits which were of Mrs. Sarah B. Vansyckel dec'd late of the City of Philadelphia, taken and made in conformity with the above deposition [January 30,1872]:

16 Volumes Books ® 300 100.80 2 Walnut Wardrobes @ $25 50. " 1 Do Bedstead 50. " 1 Hair Mattress 2 0 . " 1 Spring Do 1 2 . " 1 Dressing Bureau & Glass 25. " 1 Brussels Carpet 70 yds. 70. ■ 1 Marble Top Table 5. " 1 Cushion 1. " 1 Rocking Chair Iron Rockers 6 . ■ 1 Extension Chair 1 0 . • 1 Rocking Do 1 0 . " 1 Mantel Clock 35. " Lot of Ornaments 6 . - " China 5. • Wearing Apparel & Bed Clothing 50. ■ 2 Camel Hair Shawls ® 125 250. " 1 Lace Shawl 1 0 . " 1 Doz German Silver Knives 5. " 1 German Silver Powder Flask 1. " 1 Plated Soap Box .50 3 Boxes Razors & Hone 4. • 1 Iron Safe 30. " Forward 756.30 Amount bro't forward 756.30 1 Gold Card Case 15. " 1 Do Snuff Box 1 0 . " 1 Do Do 15. " 1 Do Do 1 0 . " 1 Tortoise Shell Do 3. " 1 Gold Watch (Lepine) 1 0 . ■ 1 Silver Watch (broken) 1. " 1 Geneva Watch (inlaid & diamonds) & chain 50. " 1 Gold Watch (Hyde & Son) 2 0 . " 1 " Do & chain Briquet 25. "

267

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 " Do Broken 1 . " 1 " Chain (horses) 1 0 . " Seals (Lion & wild boar) 2 . " 1 Do. 2 . " 1 Large Seal Ring 2 . " 1 Small Do 2 . " 1 Thermometer 1 . " 1 Eye Glass & chain 5. " 1 Gold chain & slide 15. " 1 Do Fancy chain 1 0 . " 1 Do Curb Do 15. " 1 Do Chain and Charms 15. " 1 Do BreastPin 2 . " 1 Do Lava Pin 2 . " 1 Do Shawl Pin 2 . " 1 Do & Diamond Breast Pin (hair) 2 0 0 . " 1 Lot of Pen Knives 5. " Side Tables ea $20 40. " 1 Side Board 75. " 1 Lounge 1 0 . " 1 Clock and 2 Candelabras 150. ■ 1 Bronze (Chas Mantel) 1 0 0 . " 1 Do (Stags) 50. " 1 Do (Horses) 30. " Lot of Silver Coins $17.50 @1.04 18.20 Lot Silverware 96oz@ 1.25 120." 1799.50 1 Diamond Ring 1 1 0 0 . " 1 Carriage, Pair of Horses, Set of Double Harness — Coachman coats and Sundry articles pertaining to the same 1463.89

Money in purse of decedent &c. 314.49 Deposit in a/c with Jay Cooke & Co. 19118.48 16 Shs West Philada Pass RR Co. 82. 1312. " 2 0 0 ” American Life Ins. & Trust Co. 51. 1 0 2 0 0 . " 138 " Union Bank Term in Liquid 0 0 . 0 0 . " 60 ” Franklin Fire Ins. Co. 425. 25500. " 1 " Penn3 Academy of Fine Arts 13. 13. " 3 " United States Bank 0 0 . 0 0 . " 2 0 0 " Minehill & Sch Haven RR Co. 52. 10400. " 160 " Green & Coates St Pass RR Co. 46. 7360. " 250 ” Locust Mountain Coal & ? Co. 40. 1 0 0 0 0 . " 703 " Fenn.a RR Co. 60. 42180. " 148 " Lehigh Valley RR Co. 60. 8880. " 17 ” Philada & Trenton RR Co. 128. 2176. ■ 1 0 " Del & Rar Canal & Cam & Am RR Co. 128. 1280. " 225 " Philada City Pass. RR Co. 55. 12375. " 128 ” Pennsylvania Canal Co. 2 0 . 2560. " 1 0 0 ” Philada & Reading RR Co. 57. 5700. " 2 0 0 ” Northern Central RR Co. 39. 7800. ■

268

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 • Penn* Slate Co. 0 0 . 0 0 . * 33 " Chapman Slate Co. 25. 825. * 100 ■ Do Preferred 25. 2500. " $22,150 Schuylkill Nav 6 % Loan "1882" 79. 17498.50 31,000 Phi lad* 6 % Loan Free 1 0 0 . 31000. " 1,000 Morris Canal & Bkg Co 7% Boat Loan 80. 800. " 1,000 United States 6 % Bond 1881 115. 1150. • 21,000 North Penn* RR 6% Bonds 98. _ 2 QS 0 u .\ Forward 245,885.86 Amount bro't forward 245,885.86 $2000 Delaware RR6% Bonds 95. 1900. " 6000 Del & Rar Canal & Cam & Am RR 6 's 1883 91. 5460. ■ 2000 Belv. Delaware RR 6% Bonds 1887 83. 1660. ■ 13000 Morris Canal & Bkg Co. 6 % Do 1876 92. 11960. " 12000 Del & Rar Canal & Cam & Am RR 6 's 1875 96. 11520. " 46000 United States 5/20 Bonds 1864 1 1 0 . 50600. " 22500 North Penn* RR 1% Bonds 96. 21600. ■ Bond & Mortgage of Chas Brodhead on premises in the Borough of Bethlehem — 3000. " Do E. Kewerlinus (?) on Store and premises East side of 4 St. above Arch II 15000. " Do EX) Do N 15000. " Do Do Do N 15000. ■ Do Do Do H 15000. ■ Do Bernard Berens on Dwelling & premises 1507 Arch S t " 25000. Do John Rush on Dwelling & premises No 2110 Walnut " 25000. Do Seth Craig on Dwelling & premises Arch S t above 12 * 15000. • Promissory Note Ellwood Shannon with Colls Due Mch 14/72 5000. • Do Do Do " " 23/72 5000. " Do Ellwood Wilson Due Feb 7,1872 4000. ■ Due Bill W. T. Elbert with Collaterals 6000. " Do Fannie H Burt for 500 500. ■ Do AT. Lane agent 400 [no value] Do E B Crowell 1000 [no value] Pew No 49 Second Presbyterian Church [no value] 2 Shares Philad* Museum Company [no value] Pros. Note of Thos P. Remington & Co. Oct 1857 6 mo 448.24 [no value] Do 9 448.24 [no value] Do 12 448.24 [no value] Do 15 448.24 [no value] Do 18 448.23 [no value] Amount of Dower Interest to date of death of dec'd from Sundry parties 4780.69 Deposit Money for Insurances on Real Estate viz 1235. " Less 5% &L25 1173,25 Total $505,030.80

269

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E 519 ARCH STREET FIRE INSURANCE SURVEY

Franklin Fire Insurance Survey, Volume 220, No. 30870; two pages including description and floor plan: Survey made December 30th 1862 for Sarah B Vansyckel 30870 A Three story Brick Building, Piazza, with a one story and a two story brick building 5000 adjoining and connected situate on the North side of Arch Street and extending 200 through to Cherry Street, no 519 beginning about 175 ft west of Fifth Street, in 4 the City of Philadelphia $5000 Insured. Dimensions 25 ft front by 50 ft deep. Piazza 10 by 23 ft. long the one story building 170 ft long and the two story part 42 ft long. Cast Iron front first story, granite sills and platform, 3 openings, pilasters with ornamental caps, lintel & comice extending across the front; Yellow pine floor boards, first and second stories and White pine above; building plasterd. The first story is in one room die whole extent, 2 doorways and 1 window front, having folding sash doors with 6 lights 30 by 36 glass, lifting shutters, transom + 2 lights to each door + window, 16 ft story to the front part, steps up to the one story part, a Counting room partitiond off alongside of the piazza 26 ft long, sash and panel'd partition & sash doors, a marble pilaster mantel in it and fireplace; 6 upright Skylights or Lanterns on the roof with 24 lights 10 by 12 glass in each end and 36 lights in each side of Skylight and Iron rods across the opening below, 13 ft story, Single pitch gravell roof, batdement walls each side, the two story part has a large doorway with folding doors transom and fancy sash over head and a small door frame with sash door having 9 lights 11 by 15 glass and lifting shutters and a 12 light 12 by 20 window on Cherry Street, the second story or loft has a doorway with folding doors and 2 windows front thus and 1 window with panel shutters back, Single pitch roof, gravell roof. The Second Story of the Main building is in one room, 3-12 light 13 by 21 windows front recessd to floor + paneld below, and 2 ditto 1 2 by 2 1 back, all recessd to floor and paneld below, inside panel shutters and boxes for them, a marble pilaster mantel, Stucco Comice + centre on Ceiling, a plank passage door into Stairway, 12 ft story, pilasters + washboard. The Third Story is in 3 rooms, viz 2 front + 1 back Entry + garrett stairs off back room, 3-12 light 13 by 15 windows front and 2-12 light 12 by 15 windows back all recessd to floor and paneld below, inside panel shutters + boxes for them moulded pilasters + comer blocks, washbrd, double worked passage doors -i- single closet doors, closets between die rooms, a plain marble in back room, and a white marble pilaster mantel + panel in the front room 10 ft story, a flight of Straight stairs to garrett, close string, square ballusters and

270

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. turned newel post, closet underneath; the garrett is in 2 rooms, a 1 2 light circular top Dormer window front + back 12 by 14 glass. Double pitch roof, Slate roof, Tin gutters + conducts, trap door, valley with piazza roof, moulded brick eave front, a doorway with segment head, side lights, fan sash first story a 1 2 light 1 0 by IS window in the Second 8-10 by 12 ditto in the third story, a flight of continu'd rail stairs to the third story with turned ballusters, scroll + curtail step, mahogany rail open string retumd nosings + bracketts. A Hatchway with ledge doors in the front second + third floors and a hoisting machine in the third story over them: The windows are Reveal frames with Stone sills + heads and Venetian shutters to second story, cased frames back, sash double hung. Joseph W Flickwir Surveyor by Sam. Smyth for S. B. VanSyckel [See Fig. 24 for drawing; notes in red below drawing] Jany 5th 1869 Alternations have been made to the within described buildings viz a French or Mansard Roof has been built on the front and the back wall carried up Square, the front part is cover'd with slate, sunk (?) Tin gutter and eave comice + bracketts, 2-4 light 15 by 30 Dormer windows with Circular top sash, and 3-12 light 12 by 14 windows in the back front, the flat part of roof coverd with Tin, battlement walls, the piazza had been removed, and a flight of straight stairs put up in front from story to story enclosed with planed boarding, the attic story is 8 ft 6 in high at the Eave. a counting room has been put up with sash and paneld work in partition and divided into 2 rooms; 40 ft long by 15 ft wide, 11-12 light 14 by 26 sash double hung and 4 sash doors in it, an upright skylight or Lantern on the roof having 3-12 light sash on each side and 2-ditto each end, and Iron rods under it; the roof is all on a line. A Heater put up in the cellar which appears safe for warming the store + counting room, a wire guard from the stairs to the doorway first story, a water closet + urinal in front story + a water closet in second story. Joseph W Flickwir Surveyor rcvd one dollar fwr (?) Alan Wood [Notes in red in margin of first page]

The Second story of the two story building on Cherry is now fitted up and occupied as a stable the back and front walls have been raised 2-12 light windows front and a door (?) frame and 3-12 light 11 by 17 windows back. 9 ft 6 story at the eaves. Double pitch roof. Tin roof+ a Ventilator on it, the floor is of 3 Hickory of boards, and room fitted with 7 stalls for mules rough boarding and Hay + feed box to each; a gangway or Inclined plane from the pavement up to it June 21th 1871 Joseph W Flickwir Surveyor rcvd one dollar fwr (?)

271

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

Bedchamber Suite

• When Elijah Vansyckel died without a will in 1855, presumably Sarah Vansyckel (1799-1871) retained the bedchamber suite as part of her "widow's third" under Pennsylvania law. • According to family tradition, ownership of the bedchamber suite descended to her

daughter Mary Smith Vansyckel Townsend (1822-1892).

• In her will, Mary Townsend left her furniture to her husband Richard Townsend (1817-1898) for use during his "natural life." • The bedchamber suite became the possession of Mary Townsend's only daughter, Pauline B. Townsend (1858-1932). In her will, Pauline Townsend refers to inheritance from her late mother, Mary S. Townsend.

• In her will, Pauline B. Townsend (who does not marry) bequeathed her furniture and

so forth to one of her nieces, Mae Townsend Pease (1881-1964), the daughter of

brother Eugene Townsend and also a Philadelphia resident Pauline B. Townsend specified that after her death, her estate should be shared equally by Mae Pease's children, Henry Pease Jr. (1907-1979) and Pauline (Polly) Pease (b. 1909). • When Pauline Pease obtained the bedchamber suite after her brother's death in 1979, she donated the secretary desk to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the remainder of

the extant suite (bedstead, bed steps, two wardrobes, dressing bureau, and washstand) to The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

272

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • The Athenaeum of Philadelphia loaned their suite components to the Wurtz House, a fledgling house museum in Philadelphia. • When Wurtz House closed in 1968, The Athenaeum of Philadelphia sold their portion of the suite at auction at Sotheby's in New York in January 1989, where it was purchased by dealer Leigh Keno. • Leigh Keno subsequently sold the extant suite components that he had purchased to

Winterthur; the museum accessioned the objects in 1989.

Family Portrait

• Ownership of the family portrait by L. S. De Bibory may have descended in the Vansyckel family to a family member who had moved to California (possibly Frederick C. Arnold, d.1910; son of Catherine Opdyke Vansyckel and George Arnold, and

grandson of Sarah and Elijah Vansyckel).

• Upon the owner's death earlier this century, the family portrait was inherited by

Elizabeth Morris Wistar. Elizabeth Morris Wistar (b. 1908) was the daughter of Harriet Stevenson Heberton and J. Morris Wistar (m. April 4,1906). Harriet Stevenson

Heberton was the granddaughter of Sarah Vansyckel Heberton (Elijah and Sarah Vansyckel's daughter "Sallie").

• The family portrait may have been in storage for thirty to forty years. When the Wistar

estate was auctioned by Charles Whittaker, the portrait was purchased by Brian Bartolanno, a dealer.

• The family portrait was purchased by another dealer, William McCarraher, who sold it to Winterthur; the museum accessioned the painting in 1996.

273

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

Unpublished Sources

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia Deed-of-gift records, December 1,1979; object files.

Philadelphia inventory studies. University of Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Program.

Citv and Countv of Philadelphia Wills and Administrations Elijah Vansyckel, administration 1855 no. 70. George F. Arnold, will 1855 no. 214.

Robert S. Vansyckel, will 1855 no. 307. James J. Vansyckel, will 1858 no. 359. Emmet A. Vansyckel, will 1864 no. 320. Isaac Jones, will 1867 no. 129. Samuel Smyth, will 1869 no. 653.

Sarah B. Vansyckel, will 1872 no. 9. G. Craig Heberton, will 1880 no. 626.

Mary S. Townsend, will 1892 no. 535.

Richard H. Townsend, will 1898 no. 1273. Sarah V. S. Heberton, will 1898 no. 154. Amanda G. Smyth, will 1902 no. 809.

Pauline B. Townsend, will 1932 no. 2425.

Mae Townsend Pease, will 1964 no. 3545.

274

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Henry H. Pease, Jr., will 1979 no. 1911.

The Free Library of Philadelphia Uncompleted survey map of Philadelphia, c. 1848-50.

Hagtey Library R. G. Dun & Co., credit ledgers, Philadelphia (microfilm).

The Historical Society of Pennsylvania Franklin Fire Insurance Surveys: No. 1875 made for Samuel Smyth, July 5, 1837. No. 3244 made for Joseph Sharp, October 24, 1840.

No. 6920 made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, July 25, 1846.

Nos. 7972 and 7973 made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 9, 1847.

Nos. 9213 and 9214 made for John Kilgour and John R. Hudders, August 3, 1848. Nos. 9216, 9217, 9218,9219, and 9220 made for John Grigg, August 3, 1848. No. 8734 made for Elijah Vansyckel, April 6,1848. Nos. 12049 and 12050 made for Elijah Vansyckel, July 27,1850. Nos. 24554 and 24555 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, August 12, 1856.

Nos. 28428,28429,28430,28431, and 28432 made for Samuel Smyth, September 20, 1859. No. 28474 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, October 7,1859. No. 30059 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, October 21, 1861.

No. 30670 made for Sarah B. Vansyckel, December 30,1862. No. 31740 made for Sarah V.S. Heberton, May 1864.

275

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mutual Assurance Company Policies: Nos. 2067 and 2068 (Survey Nos. 859 and 860) made for Robert Ralston, November 28, 1805. No. 2975 (Survey No. 1558) made for William Singleton, June 21, 1810. No. 3694 (Survey No. 2697) made for Samuel Wetherill, Junior, August 28, 1815. No. 7661 made for Mary S. Townsend, October 14, 1872.

"Arch Street," Campbell Collection. "Arch Street," Philadelphia Contributionship Collection.

"Arch Street from Schuylkill 8 th to Sch. 6 th," 1839; David Johnson Kennedy, watercolor. Kennedy Collection. Graham, George R., to Elijah Vansyckel and Thomas McElrath. "Bill of Sale for the North American and Gazette of the United States for $14,750 and other considerations.” 9 August 1848. Graham Collection. Hadley, Kingston Goddard. Supplement to the Van Syckel Genealogy. Media, Pennsylvania, 1943. "Inscriptions in the Burying Ground of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia," Collections of the Genealogical Society o f Pennsylvania, Vol. 287. Philadelphia: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, 1913.

"Records of the Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Baptisms, Marriages & Burials, 1745-1833," Collections o f the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, Vol. 32. Philadelphia: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, 1913.

Ritter, George. "Receipt Book.” 1834-1849. 2vols. Manuscript Collection. "Van Syckel Bible Records." Transcribed by E. Claude Goddard, Philadelphia, 1915. In Genealogical Notes, vol. XXVIII.

"Van Syckel Family Notes: Van Syckel Family of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania." Miss Helen N. Wurst Collection.

Laurel Hill Cemetery

Vansyckel family (riot records. Lots 19-23, Shrubbery Section.

276

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philadelphia Citv Archives Agreement between Emmet A. Vansyckel and Harriet A. Vansyckel, recorded September 27, 1858. Grantor/grantee indexes; deeds granted to: Elijah Vansyckel by John McCutchen, recorded April 20, 1819. Thomas Elmes by Stephen Kingston, recorded October 23, 1827.

Elijah Vansyckel by Peter Wager, recorded February 21,1828. Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas and Lydia Elmes, recorded June 13, 1832. Elijah Vansyckel by Samuel and Amanda Smyth, recorded January 26,1838. John Dalzell by John and Abigal Hazzard Proudfit, recorded March 9,1839.

Elijah Vansyckel by the Laurel Hill Cemetery Company, recorded June 29,1839. Elijah Vansyckel by John and Eliza Dalzell, recorded April 4, 1840. John Dalzell by Elijah and Sarah B. Vansyckel, recorded April 4, 1840. Elijah Vansyckel by the American Fire Insurance Company, recorded September 23, 1842.

Elijah Vansyckel by John and Mary Kilgore, recorded February 29, 1848. Elijah Vansyckel by John and Nancy Grigg, recorded March 1, 1848.

Elijah Vansyckel by Daniel Man, recorded November 24,1849.

Elijah Vansyckel by Robert and Sarah Patterson, recorded September 26,1851. Elijah Vansyckel by Thomas Dugan, recorded December 12, 1851. Elijah Vansyckel by James and Martha Hamill, recorded December 24,1851.

Elijah Vansyckel by George R. and Mary R. Smith, recorded April 22,1852.

Emmet A. Vansyckel by George Clay, recorded February 14,1856.

Emmet A. Vansyckel by Richard and Mary Townsend, recorded February 28, 1856.

Sarah B. Vansyckel by James J. and Susan Vansyckel, recorded April 15, 1856. Sarah B. Vansyckel by George Craig and Sallie Heberton, recorded April 15, 1856.

277

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. James J. Vansyckel by Sarah B. Vansyckel, recorded October 11, 1858.

Philadelphia Historical Commission Historic buildings Hies.

Philadelphia Museum of Art Object files 1979-108-6; 66-33-1 through 15a,b.

Presbyterian Historical Society Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Burial Records, Receipt Book with Stubs for Interment, 1826-1910. Second Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pew Book, 1830-1852. Plan of Second Presbyterian Church, 21st and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, n.d.

Winterthur Museum and Library Joseph Downs Collection of Manuscripts and Printed Ephemera. Decorative Arts Photographic Collection, Visual Resources, Winterthur Library.

Winterthur Museum Collection Information Management System; Registration and Conservation object files 80.116; 89.12.1-.6; 96.7a,b.

Unpublished Papers. Theses and Dissertations

Barquist, David L. "The Meaning of Taste for Wealthy Philadelphians 1750-1800." Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1981.

Borchert, Carol E "The Inventory of Lucretia Constance Radcliffe: The Material World of Elites in the Federal Period, Charleston, South Carolina." Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1996.

Bracken, Carolyn E "Victorian Privacy: an Analysis of Bedrooms in American Middle- Class Homes from 1850-1880.” Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1991. Calvert, Karin Lee Fishbeck. "To Be a Child: An Analysis of the Artifacts of Childhood." Ph.D. diss., University of Delaware, 1984.

278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cleary, Calista K. "A Conjectural Nineteenth Century Philadelphia House Museum: The John Garrison Residence, 1220 Arch Street.” Typescript, University of Pennsylvania, 1995. Catalano, Kathleen Matilda. "Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840." Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1972. Corrigan, Karina. "George Thomas: The Auctioneer at 529 Arch Street” Typescript University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Courtney, John. "All That Glitters:" Freehand Gilding on Philadelphia Empire Furniture 1820-1840. Master's thesis, Smithsonian Institution, 1998. Diethom, Karie. "Domestic Servants in Philadelphia, 1780-1830." Typescript, Independence National Historical Park, 1986. Fennimore, Donald L., comp. Records from Philadelphia city directories 1813-1848. Manuscript

Gregory, Stacia. "'In the Most Approved and Latest Fashions,' Ornamental Plasterwork in Philadelphia 1760-1840.” Typescript, University of Delaware, 1985. Heckscher, Morrison H. "The Organization and Practice of Philadelphia Cabinetmaking Establishments, 1790-1820." Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1964. Hunter, Jr., Dard. "David Evans, Cabinet Maker; His Life and Work.” Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1954. Johnston, Philip M. "A Checklist of Books Relating to Architecture and the Decorative Arts Available in Philadelphia in the Three Decades Following 1780." Master's thesis. University of Delaware, 1974.

Mclnnis, Maurie Dee. "The Politics of Taste: Classicism in Charleston, South Carolina, 1815-1840." Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1996.

Powell, Cheryl. A Research Tool for Reference Work on Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Beds and Bed Dressings. Typescript, Winterthur Museum, 1985.

Venable, Charles L "Philadelphia Biedermeien Germanic Craftsmen and Design in Philadelphia, 1820-1850.” Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1966. Wick, Wendy C. "Stephen Girard: A Patron of the Philadelphia Furniture Trade." Master's thesis, University of Delaware, 1977.

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

Ackermann, Rudolph. The Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics. London: R. Ackermann, 1809-1828. . A Series, Containing Fourty-Four Engravings in Colours, of Fashionable Furniture. London: R. Ackermann, 1823. Aigus, Pauline. Ackermann's Regency Furniture and Interiors. Marlborough: The Crowood Press, 1984. Alberts, Robert C. The Golden Voyage: The Life and Times o f William Bingham, 1752- 1804. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Alotta, Robert I. Street Names of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975. April, Nietta. Empire Style. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1973. Arrowsmith, James, and King, Thomas. An Analysis o f Drapery, James Arrowsmith & The Upholsterers'Accelerator, Thomas King: A Reprint of Two Rare 19th-century Drapery Manuals from the Winterthur Library. Reprint, with an introduction by Gail Caskey Winkler, New York: Acanthus Press, 1993. Barnes, Albert The Immorality of the Traffic in Ardent Spirits: A Discourse, delivered in the First Presbyterian Church, April 13,1834. Philadelphia: George, Latimer, 1834.

Banon, James. Modern & Elegant Designs of Cabinet & Upholstery Furniture. London: printed by W. M. Thiselton, [1814].

Beadle, E. R. The Old and the New, 1743-1876: the Second Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: printed by J. B. Chandler, 1876. Beecher, Catharine. A Treatise on Domestic Economy. 1841. Reprint with an introduction by Kathryn Kish Sklar, New York: Schoken Books, 1977.

Bell, J. Munro, Arthur Hayden and Charles Messer Stow. The Furniture Designs o f Chippendale, Hepplewhite and Sheraton. Reprint, New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1940.

Beach, Laura. *Winterthur Acquires Classical Bedroom Suite.* Antiques and The Arts Weekly, 3 March 1969, p. 42.

[The Berkeley men]. The Napoleon Dynasty ; or, The History of the Bonaparte Family. New York: Comish, Lamport & Co., 1852. Biddle, Owen. The Young Carpenter's Assistant; or, a System o f Architecture Adopted to the Style o f Building in the United States. Philadelphia: printed by Benjamin Johnson, 1805.

280

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Biddle, Owen, and John Haviland. An Improved and Enlarged Edition o f Biddle's Young Carpenter's Assistant. Philadelphia: M'Carty and Davis, 1837. Bishir, Catherine W. 'Good and Sufficient Language for Building.” In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, IV, ed. Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman. Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 1991. Blumin, Stuart M. The Emergence o f the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900. Reprint, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment o f Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Bronner, Edwin B. 'Quaker Landmarks in Early Philadelphia." "Historic Philadelphia:'1' Transactions o f the American Philosophical Society 43, Part I (1953): 210-16.

Buckingham, James S. America, Historical, Statistic, and Descriptive. London and Paris: Fisher, Son & Co., 1841 Bushman, Richard L. 'Popular Culture and Popular Taste.' In Wendy A. Cooper, Classical Taste in America 1800-1840. Baltimore: The Baltimore Museum of Art; New York, London and Paris: Abbeville Press, 1993.

. The Refinement o f America: Persons, Houses and Cities. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1993. Bussey, George Moir. History of Napoleon. London: Joseph Thomas, 1840. Bywater's Philadelphia Business Directory and City Guide, 1850-51. Philadelphia: Maurice Bywater, 1850-51.

Calvert, Karin. Children in the House: The Material Culture o f Childhood, 1600-1900. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992. Catalano, Kathleen M. 'Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820-1840." Winterthur Portfolio 13(1979): 81-138.

. "The Empire Style: Philadelphia." In Nineteenth Century Furniture, ed. Art & Antiques, with an introduction by Mary Jean Madigan. New York: Art & Antiques, Billboard Publications, Inc., 1982. Comstock, Helen. American Furniture: Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Styles. New York: The Viking Press, 1962.

Conradsen, David H. "The Stock-in-Trade of John Hancock and Company." American Furniture (1993): 39-54. The Constitution o f the Pennsylvania Society of Journeymen Cabinet-Makers, o f the City o f Philadelphia. Philadelphia: printed by Garden and Thompson, 1829.

281

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cooper, Wendy A. "Classical America, 1800-1840." The Magazine Antiques 143 (May 1993): 765-775. . Classical Taste in America 1800-1840. Baltimore: The Baltimore Museum of Art; New York, London and Baris: Abbeville Press, 1993. . In Praise o f America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1980.

Craven, Wayne. American Art: History and Culture. Madison, Wisconsin; Dubuque, Iowa; Indianapolis, Indiana; Melbourne, Australia; Oxford, England: Brown & Benchmark Publishers, 1994. Cromley, Elizabeth C. "Sleeping Around: A History of American Beds and Bedrooms." Journal o f Design History 3, no. 1 (1990): 1-17. Cuyler, Cornelius C. Dr. Cuyler's Sermon on the Death o f Robert Ralston, Esq. Philadelphia: William S. Martien, 1836. Cummings, Abbot Lowell, comp., Nina Fletcher Little and Jane C. Nylander. Bed Hangings: A Treatise on Fabrics and Styles in the Curtaining of Beds, 1650-1850, 3rd ed. Boston: Society for Preservation of New England Antiquities, 1994. Dallett, Francis James. "Michel Bouvier, Franco-American Cabinetmaker.” The Magazine Antiques 81, no. 2 (1962): 198-200. Davis, Allen F., and Mark H. Haller, ed. The Peoples of Philadelphia: A History of Ethnic Groups and Lower-Class Life, 1790-1940. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1973.

Deschamps, Madeleine. Empire. New York, London and Paris: Abbeville Press, 1994. Desilver's Philadelphia Directory A Stranger's Guide, 1828-37. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver, 1828-37.

Doeiflinger, Thomas M. A Vigorous Spirit o f Enterprise. Williamsburg: Institute of Early American History and Culture; Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Downs, Joseph. "The Greek Revival in the United States." The Magazine Antiques 44, no. 11 (1943): 218-20. Ducoff-Barone, Deborah. The Early Industrialization o f the Philadelphia Furniture Trade, 1800-1840. Ann Arbor University Microfilms, 1985.

. "Philadelphia Furniture Makers, 1800-1815.” The Magazine Antiques 139, no. 5 (1991): 982-95.

. "Philadelphia Furniture Makers, 1816-1830." The Magazine Antiques 145, no. 5 (1994): 742-55.

282

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eden, Mary and Richard Carrington. The Philosophy o f the Bed. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1961. Edwards, Lee M. Domestic Bliss: Family Life in American Painting, 1840-1910. Yonkers: The Hudson River Museum, 1986. Eisenhart, Luther P., ed. "Historic Philadelphia :" Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43, Part I (1953). Ettema, Michael J. Technological Innovation and Design Economies in Furniture Manufacture.” Winterthur Portfolio 16, nos. 2/3 (1981): 197-223. [Farrar, Eliza W. R.] A Young Lady's Friend. 1836. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1974.

Fennimore, Donald L. "Fine Points of Furniture, American Empire: Late, Later, Latest." In Victorian Furniture , ed. Kenneth Ames. Philadelphia: The Victorian Society in America, 1983. . "Gilding Practices and Processes in Nineteenth-Century American Furniture." In Gilded Wood: Conservation and History, ed. Deborah Bigelow, et al. Madison, Connecticut: Sound View Press, 1991.

Finkel, Kenneth. Nineteenth-century Photography in Philadelphia: 250 Hbtoric Prints from the Library Company o f Philadelphia. New York: Dover Publications; Philadelphia: Library Company of Philadelphia, 1960. Fitzgerald, Oscar P. Four Centuries o f American Furniture. Radnor, Pennsylvania: Wallace-Homestead Book Co., 1995.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: the Birth o f the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1995. . The Order o f Things: an Archaeology o f the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.

Fryd, Vivien Green. Art and Empire: The Politics o f Ethnicity in the United States Capitol, 1815-1860. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992.

Gallery, John Andrew, ed. Philadelphia Architecture: a Guide to the City, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Foundation for Architecture, 1994.

Gaines, Edith. "At Home in Yesterday's Philadelphia" Art & Antiques 3, no. 6 (1980): 92-99.

Garrett, Elisabeth Donaghy. At Home: The American Family 1750-1870. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990.

. "The American Home, Part III: The Bedchamber.” The Magazine Antiques 123, no. 3 (1983): 612-25.

283

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Garvan, Beatrice B. Federal Philadelphia, 1785-1825: The Athens o f the Western World. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art and the University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation o f Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1973. Gibson, Jane Mork, and Robert Wolterstorff. "The Fairmount Waterworks." Bulletin, Philadelphia Museum o f Art 84, nos. 360 & 361 (1988): 1-48. Gilchrist, Agnes Addison. "The Philadelphia Exchange: William Strickland, Architect" 'Historic Philadelphia:* Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43, Parti (1953): 86-95. . William Strickland: Architect and Engineer, 1788-1854. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950. Gopsill's Philadelphia City Directory, 1870-1872. Philadelphia: James Gospill, 1870- 1872. Grandjean, Serge. Empire Furniture 1800 to 1825. London: Faber and Faber, 1966. Groce, George G, and David H. Wallace. The New-York Historical Society's Dictionary of Artists in America 1564-1860. New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1957. Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia. Philadelphia, 1844. Guide to Laurel Hill Cemetery, near Philadelphia. Philadelphia, 1847. A Guide to the Lions o f Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Thomas T. Ash and Company, 1837. Habermas, JUrgen. The Structured Transformation o f the Public Sphere. Trans. Thomas Burger. Reprint, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1991.

Hamlin, Talbot Greek Revival Architecture in America. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1944.

Harris' Commercial Directory and Merchants* Guide for Philadelphia, 1838. Philadelphia: S. Harris, 1838. Haviland, John. The Builder's Assistant. Philadelphia: John Bioren, John Haviland and Hugh Bridport, 1818-1819. Haviland, John. The Practical Builder's Assistant , 2nd ed. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr., [1830?]. Hazen, Edward. The Panorama o f Professions and Trades; or Every Man’s Book. Philadelphia: Uriah Hunt, 1839. Headley, Joel Tyler. The Imperial Guard o f Napoleon: from Marengo to Waterloo. New York: Charles Scribner, 1851.

284

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Heppiewhite, George. Hepplewhite Furniture Designs from the Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer's Guide, 1794. Reprint, with a preface by Ralph Edwards, London: A. Tiranti, 1947. Herman, Bernard L. The Stolen House. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1992. Hexamer, Ernest and William Locher. Maps o f the City of Philadelphia, Surveyed by Ernest Hexamer and William Locher, Civil Engineers and Surveyors. Philadelphia: E. Hexamer & W. Locher, 1858-60.

Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, 2nd ed. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Hope, Thomas. Household Furniture and Interior Decoration Executedfrom Designs by Thomas Hope. 1807. Reprint, with an introduction by Clifford Musgrave, London: Alec Tiranti, 1970. How, Samuel B. Funeral Service on the Death o f Rev. Jacob J. Janeway, D.D. Philadelphia: William S. & Alfred Martien, 1859. Hutchins, Catherine, ed. Shaping a National Culture: The Philadelphia Experience, 1750- 1800. Winterthur, Delaware: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1994. Janeway, Jacob Jones. Antidote to the poison o f popery, in the writings and conduct of Professors Nevin and Shaff, professors in the German Ref. Ch. U.S.A. In 3 pis. New Brunswick, NJ: Terhune, 1856.

Johnston, Norman, Kenneth Finkel, and Jeffrey A. Cohen. Eastern State Penitentiary: Crucible o f Good Intentions. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1994.

Joseph Meeks <£Sons'. Manufactury of Cabinet and Upholstery Articles, 43 & 45, Broad-Street, New York. New York: Endicott & Swett, 1833. The Journeymen Cabinet and Chairmakers Pennsylvania Book of Prices for 1811. Philadelphia: printed for the Society, 1811.

Kenny, Peter M., Frances F. Bretterand Ulrich Leben. Honori Lannuier, Cabinetmaker from Paris: the Life and Work o f a French fcbiniste in Federal New York. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998. King, Thomas. Neo-classical Furniture Designs: A Reprint of Thomas King's "Modem Style o f Cabinet Work Exemplified , " 1829. Reprint, with an introduction by Thomas Gordon Smith, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1995. Klepp, Susan E. "Demography in Early Philadelphia, 1690-1860." Proceedings o f the American Philosophical Society 133, no. 2 (1989): 85-111.

285

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. [A Lady]. The Workwoman's Guide, 1838. Reprint, Guilford, Connecticut: Opus Publications, Inc., 1986. Larkin, Jack. The Reshaping of Everyday Life 1790-1840. New York, Cambridge, Philadelphia, San Francisco, London, Mexico City, S5o Paulo, Singapore, and Sydney: Harper & Row, 1988. Labaume, Eugene. Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia . . . Hartford: S. Andrus & Son, 1850. La Mdsangfcre, Pierre de Collection des Meubles et Objets de Godt. Paris: Pierre de La Mdsangfcre, Au Bureau de Journal des Dames, 1802*1835. Leslie, Miss [Eliza]. The House Book; or a Manual o f Domestic Economy. Reprint, Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1841. Lindsey, Jack L. "An Early Latrobe Furniture Commission." The Magazine Antiques 139, no. 1 (1991): 208-19.

The London Cabinet-makers' Union Book of Prices. London: by a Committee of Masters and Journeymen, 1824. Looney, Robert F. Old Philadelphia in Early Photographs, 1839-1914: Prints from the Collection o f The Free Library of Philadelphia. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1976. Lovell, Margaretta M. Painters and Their Customers: Aspects o f Art and Money in Eighteenth-Century America. In Of Consuming Interests, ed. Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1994. Loudon, John Claudius. Loudon Furniture Designs from the Encyclopedia o f Cottage, Farmhouse and Villa Architecture and Furniture. 1839. Reprint, with an introduction by Christopher Gilbert East Ardsley, Wakefield, Yorkshire: S. R. Publishers Ltd.; London: The Connoisseur, 1970. Mayhew, Edgar deN., and Minor Myers, Jr. A Documentary History of American Interiors from the Colonial Erato 1915. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1980.

McDonnell, Colleen. Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995. [A.] M'Elroy's Philadelphia Directory, 1837-69. Philadelphia: A. MTElroy, 1837-40; Orrin Rogers, 1841-42; Edward C. Biddle, 1843-44; E. C. & John Biddle, 1845- 6 3 ;E C .& John Biddle, A. McElroy & Co., 1864; A. McElroy, 1865-69. Mease, James. The Picture o f Philadelphia. Philadelphia: B. &T. Kite, 1811.

286

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mease, James, and Thomas Wilson The Picture of Philadelphia, for 1824, Containing the "Picture of Philadelphia, for 1811, by James Mease, MD " with All Its Improvements Since That Period. Philadelphia: Thomas Town, 1823. Mease, James, continued by Thomas Porter. The Picture of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: R. Desilver, 1831.

A Member of the Philadelphia Bar. Wealth and Biography of the Wealthy Citizens o f Philadelphia. Philadelphia: G. B. Zieber & Co., 1845. The Mercantile Register, or Business Man's Guide. [Philadelphia], 1846.

Montgomery, Charles F. Montgomery. American Furniture: The Federal Period, in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum. New York: The Viking Press, 1966.

Montgomery, Florence M " 18th-Century American Bed and Window Hangings.” In Upholstery in America and Europe from the Seventeenth Century to World War I, ed. Edward S. Cooke, Jr. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1987. . Printed Textiles: English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700-1850. New York: The Viking Press, 1970.

. Textiles in America, 1650-1870. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984. Montholon, marquis de Charles Jean Tristan. History o f the Captivity of Napoleon at St. H elena . . . Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1847. Miller, Frederic M., Morris J. Vogel, and Allen F. Davis. Still Philadelphia: A Photographic History, 1890-1940. Philadelphia: Temple University Ptess, 1983.

Morley.John. Regency Design 1790-1840. London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1993. Moss, Roger W., and Gail Caskey Winkler. Victorian Interior Decoration. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1986. Moyer, Cynthia. "Conservation Treatments for Border and Freehand Gilding and Bronze- Powder Stenciling and Freehand Bronze.” In Gilded Wood: Conservation and History, ed. Deborah Bigelow, et al. Madison, Connecticut: Sound View Press, 1991.

Mugerauer, Robert Interpreting Environments: Tradition, Deconstruction, Hermeneutics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.

Murtagh, William John. *The Philadelphia Row House." Journal o f the Society of Architectural Historians 26, no. 4 (1957): 8-13.

Newark Museum Association. Classical America 1815-1845. Newark: The Newark Museum Association, 1963. Nicholson, Peter and Michael Angelo Nicholson. The Practical Cabinet Maker, Upholsterer, <& Complete Decorator. London: H. Fisher, Son & Co., 1826-27.

287

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nylander, Jane C. "Bed and Window Hangings in New England, 1790-1870." In Upholstery in America and Europe from the Seventeenth Century to World War I, ed. Edward S. Cooke, Jr. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1987. Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. Philadelphia, A History of the City and Its People. Philadelphia, Chicago and S t Louis: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1912. O'Brien's Philadelphia Wholesale Business Directory & Circular, 1850, 1853. Philadelphia: John G. O'Brien, 1850, 1853. Otto, Celia Jackson. American Furniture o f the Nineteenth Century. New York: The Viking Press, 1965. . "Pillar and Scroll: Greek Revival Furniture of the 1830s." The Magazine Antiques 81, no. 5 (1962): 504-7. Pardailhd-Galabrun, Annik. The Birth o f Intimacy: Privacy and Domestic Life in Early Modem Paris. Trans. Jocelyn f%elps. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. Parkes, Mrs. William [Frances Byerley]. Domestic Duties: or Instructions to Young Married Ladies, on the Management of Households, and the Regulation of Their Conduct in the Various Relations and Duties o f Married Life, 3rd American ed. New York: J. & J. Harper, 1830. Parry III, Ellwood Comly. The Art o f Thomas Cole: Ambition and Imagination. Newark: University of Delaware Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1988. . Thomas Cole's "The Course o f Empire" A Study in Serial Imagery. Ann Arbor University Microfilms, 1970.

Paxton, John Adems. The Stranger's Guide. .. Philadelphia: John Adems Paxton, 1810. Pendleton, Jr., Othniel Alsop. "The Influence of the Evangelical Churches upon Humanitarian Reform: A Case Study Giving Particular Attention to Philadelphia, 1790-1840." Journal o f The Presbyterian Historical Society 25, no. 1 (1947).

Percier, Charles, and Piene Fontaine. Empire Stylebook o f Interior Design: AU 72 Plates from the "Recueil de decorations interieures , " with New English Text. Reprint, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1991. Peterson, Charles E , ed. Building Early America. Radnor, Pennsylvania: Chilton Book Company, 1976.

Peterson, Harold L. American Interiors from Colonial Times to the Late Victorians. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971.

”Philadelphia"[map]. London: Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, 1840.

288

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair-Makers' Union Book o f Prices. Philadelphia: printed by Richard Folwell, 1796. The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers ' Union Book o f Prices for Manufacturing Cabinetware. by a Committee of Employers and Journeymen. Philadelphia: printed for the Cabinet and Chair Makers by William Stavely, 1828. The Philadelphia Circulating Business Directory for 1838. Philadelphia: J. R. Savage, 1838. The Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide for 1825. Thomas Wilson, ed. Philadelphia: Thomas Wilson & Wm. D. Van Baum, 1825. Philadelphia House Carpenters' Book of Prices and Rules. Philadelphia, 1819. Philadelphia Wholesale Merchants and Artisans' Business Directory. Philadelphia: T. Ellwood Chapman & Co., 1853. Pierce, Lorraine W. "American Empire Furniture in the White House." The Magazine Antiques 81, no. 5 (1962): 515-19. Pierson, George Wilson. Tocqueville in America. Reprint, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. "Plan showing the interior of the Second Presbyterian Church, Seventh Street below Arch, East side.” Philadelphia: James Little, Missionary of the Church, 1857. Pointon, Marcia. Strategies for Showing: Women, Possession, and Representation in English Visual Culture, 1665-1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pollack, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and the Histories o f Art. London and New York: Routledge, 1988.

"Population Schedule of the Fourth Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1820; National Archive Microfilm Publications. "Population Schedule of the Fifth Census of the United States” [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1830; National Archive Microfilm Publications. "Population Schedule of the Sixth Census of the United States” [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1840; National Archive Microfilm Publications.

"Population Schedule of the Seventh Census of the United States” [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1850; National Archive Microfilm Publications.

"Population Schedule of the Eighth Census of the United States" [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 1860; National Archive Microfilm Publications.

Rae, Julio H. Roe’s Philadelphia Pictorial Directory & Panoramic Advertiser. Philadelphia, 1851.

289

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Randall, Jr., Richard H. "Sources of the Empire Style." The Magazine Antiques 83, no. 4 (1963): 452-53. Regulations o f the Laurel Hill Cemetery, on the River Schuylkill, near Philadelphia; the Act o f Incorporation by the Legislators o f Pennsylvania in 1837; and a Catalogue of the Proprietors o f Lots. Philadelphia: printed by John C. Clark, 1840. Reif, Rita. "Auctions." The New York Times, 20 January 1989. "Report of the Committee of Judges of Cabinetware," Report of the Committee on Premiums and Exhibitions o f the Franklin Institute o f the State o f Pennsylvania [1824-54]. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute, 1824-54. Rutledge, Anna Wells, ed. Cumulative Exhibition Record o f Exhibition Catalogues, The Pennsylvania Academy o f the Fine Arts, 1807-1870. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1955. St. George, Robert Blair, ed. Material life in America, 1600-1860. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988. Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast. "Form, Function, and Meaning in the Use of Fabric Furnishings: A Philadelphia Case Study, 1700-1775." Winterthur Portfolio 14, no. 1 (1979): 25-40. Schoeser, Mary, and Celia Rufey. English and American Textiles from 1790 to the Present. London: Thames and Hudson, 1989. Schdten, Catherine M. Childbearing in American Society: 1650-1850. New York and London: New York University Press, 1985. Schuyler, David. The New Urban Landscape. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Schweitzer, Mary M. "The Spatial Organization of Federalist Philadelphia, 1790." Journal o f Interdisciplinary History 24, no. 1(1993): 31-57. [Scott, Sir Walter.] The Life o f Napoleon Buonaparte, Emperor o f the French. Philadelphia* Carey, Lea & Carey, 1827.

Shackel, Paul A. Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology o fAnnapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1993. Sheraton, Thomas. The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer's Drawing Book. 1802. Reprint, with an introduction by Lindsay O. J. Boynton; ed. Charles F Montgomery and Wilfred P. Cde. New York, Washington, and London: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

Siegel, Adrienne. Philadelphia. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, Inc. Smith, Billy G. The "Lower Sort:" Philadelphia's Laboring People, 1750-1800. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990.

290

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Smith, George. A Collection of Designs for Household Furniture and Interior Decoration. London: J. Taylor, 1808. Smith, R. A. Philadelphia As It Is, in 1852: Being a Correct Guide to All the Public Buildings: Literary, Scientific, and Benevolent Institutions; and Places of Amusement . . . Philadelphia: Linsday and Blakiston, 1852. . Smith's Illustrated Guide to and through Laurel Hill Cemetery. Philadelphia: Willis P. Hazard, 1852. Smith, Robert C. "Late Classical Furniture in the United States, 1820-1850." 7 Tie Magazine Antiques 74, no. 6 (1958): 519-23.

. "The Furniture of Anthony G. Quervelle, Part II: The Pedestal Tables." The Magazine Antiques 104, no. 1 (1973): 90-9. . "The Furniture of Anthony G. Quervelle, Part III: The Work Tables." The Magazine Antiques 104, no. 2 (1973): 260-68. Smith, Thomas Gordon John Hall and the Grecian Style in America: A reprint o f Three Pattern Books Published in 1840 [The Cabinet Makers' Assistant, A Series o f Select and Original Modem Designs for Dwelling Houses, and A New and Concise Method o f Hand-Railing]. New York: Acanthus Press, 1996. Snyder, Jr., John J., ed. Philadelphia Furniture & Its Makers. New York: Main Street/Universe Books, 1975. Snyder, Martin P. City o f Independence: Views o f Philadelphia before 1800. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975. . Mirror o f America: The Developing Life o f Philadelphia Seen in Engravings, 1801-1876. Gladwyne, Pennsylvania: Martin P. Snyder, 1996. Solis-Cohen, Lita. "A Blue-Ribbon Cabinet." Maine Antique Digest, June 1989, p. 18-A. Sparkes, Ivan G. Four-poster and Tester Beds. Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd., 1990.

Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. The Politics and Poetics o f Transgression. London: Metheuen & Co., 1986. The State Penitentiary, for the Eastern District o f Pennsylvania. Samuel Cowperthwaite (convict no. 2954). Philadelphia: P. S. Duval & Co., 1855.

Stayton, Kevin L. Dutch by Design: Tradition and Change in Two Historic Brooklyn Houses. New York: The Brooklyn Museum; Phaidon Universe, 1990. Stewart, Susan. On Longing. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.

291

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stillman, Damie. "City Living, Federal Style." In Everyday Life in the New Republic, ed. Catherine E Hutchins. Winterthur, Delaware: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1994. Strickland, Peter. "Documented Philadelphia Looking Glasses, 1800-1850.” The Magazine Antiques 109, no. 4(1976): 784-94. Stuart, James, and Nicholas Revett The Antiquities o f Athens. London: printed by J. Haberkom, 1762-1830. Swan, Susan Burrows. Plain and Fancy: American Women and Their Needlework, 1650- 1850, rev. ed. Austin, Texas: Curious Works Press, 1995. Talbott, Elizabeth Page. The Philadelphia Furniture Industry, 1850 to 1880. Ann Arbor University Microfilms, 1980. Talbott, Page. Classical Savannah, Fine and Decorative Arts 1800-1840. Savannah: Telfair Museum of Art, 1995.

Tatum, George B. Penn’s Great Town. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1961.

. Philadelphia Georgian: The City House o f Samuel Powel and Some of Its Eighteenth-Century Neighbors. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1976.

Teitelman, S. Robert Birch’s Views o f Philadelphia: a Reduced Facsimile o f the City of Philadelphia ...as it appeared in the Year 1800, with Photographs o f the Sites in 1960 and 1982. Philadelphia: The Free Library of Philadelphia, 1982. Thorton, Peter. Authentic Decor: The Domestic Interior 1620-1920. New York: Viking Press, 1984.

Tindall, George Brown, and David E Shi. America: a Narrative History, 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1984. Truettner, William H., and Alan Wallach, ed. Thomas Cole: Landscape into History. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1994.

Upton, Dell. "Another City, The Urban Cultural Landscape in the Early Republic." In Everyday Life in the New Republic, ed. Catherine E. Hutchins. Winterthur, Delaware: The Henry Francis du Pbnt Winterthur Museum, 1994.

. "The City as Material Culture." In The Art and Mystery o f Historical Archaeology, ed. Ann Elizabeth Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London, and Tokyo: CRC Press, 1992.

. "Pattern Books and Professionalism.” Winterthur Portfolio 19, no. 1 (1964): 107-50.

292

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vaux, Tina, ed. Historic Rittenhouse: a Philadelphia Neighborhood. Philadelphia* University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Van Sickle, John W. A History o f the Van Sickle Family in the United States o f America. Springfield, Ohio: John W. Van Sickle, 1880. Views in Philadelphia and Its Environs, from Original Drawings taken in 1827-30. Philadelphia C. G. Childs, [1830]. Von Rosenstiel, Helen, and Gail Caskey Winkler. Floorcoverings for Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting Reproductions. Washington: The Preservation Press, 1988. Ward, Barbara McLean. "Women's Property and Family Continuity in Eighteenth-Century Connecticut." In Early American Probate Inventories, ed. Peter Benes. Boston: Boston University for The Dublin Seminar for New England Folk Life, 1989. Warner, Jr., Samuel Bass. The Private City, rev. ed. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987. Wainwright, Nicholas B. Philadelphia in the Romantic Age of Lithography. Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1958. Webster, Richard. Philadelphia Preserved: Catalog o f the Historic Buildings Survey. niiladelphia Temple University Press, 1976. Webster, Thomas, the late Mrs. [Frances Byerley] Parkes, and D. Meredith Reese. An Encyclopedia o f Domestic Economy, rev. ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1845. Weidman, Gregory R., et al. Classical Maryland 1815-1845. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1993. Wertz, Richard C. and Dorothy C. Wertz. Lying-In: A History o f Childbirth in America, exp. ed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989. White, Theo B., ed. Philadelphia Architecture in the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953. Wild, John Caspar. Panorama and Views o f Philadelphia, and Its Vicinity. Philadelphia: J. B. Chevalier, 1838. Willich, A. F. M., and Thomas Cooper. The Domestic Encyclopedia, 2nd American ed. Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1826.

Winkler, Gail Caskey. "Capricious Fancy: Curtains and Drapery, 1790-1830. The Magazine Antiques 145, no. 1 (1994): 154-65. Influence o f Godey's ■Lady's Book " on the American Woman and Her Home: Contributions to a National Culture (1830-1877). Ann Arbor University Microfilms, 1968.

293

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Winslow, Stephen Noyes. Biographies o f Successful Philadelphia Merchants. Philadelphia: James K. Simon, 1864. Wolf, Edwin. Philadelphia, Portrait of an American City. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1975. Woodside, Joan. French Influence o f American Furniture as Seen through the Engraved Design o f Pierre de La Mdsangire's "Collection des Meubles et Objects de Gout" Published from 1802 to 1835. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1986. Woodward, E. M. Bonaparte's Park and the Murats. Trenton, New Jersey: MacCrellish & Quigley, 1879. Wright, Lawrence. Warm and Snug: the History of the Bed. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1962.

294

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.0 |50 U £ « U £ If i £ uiif L . i l i a 1.1 Ik lets m

1.25 1 .4 1II 1.6

150mm

A P P L IE D A IIVMGE. Inc -= = 1653 East Main Street Rochester. NY 14609 USA -= = ~— Phone: 716/462-0300 -= = ~-^= Fax: 716/288-5989

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