INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13119^8 PRENDERGAST, SUSAN MARGARET FABRIC .FURNISHINGS. USED IN PHILADELPHIA HOMES ,. 1700-1775. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE (WINTERTHUR PROGRAM), M.A., 1978 Untersto: Microfilms International 300 n. zeebroad. ann a rb o r, mi8 io«6 © 1977 SUSAN MARGARET PRENDERGAST ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FABRIC FURNISHINGS USED IN HULADELPHIA HOMES, 1700-1775 BY Susan Margaret Prendergast A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Faster of Arts in Early American Culture. June, 1978 Copyright Susan Margaret Prendergast 1977 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FABRIC FURNISHINGS USED IN PHILADELPHIA HOMES, 1700-1775 BY Susan Margaret Prendergast Approved: Dr. Keimeth L. Ames Professor in charge of thesis on Behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: Dr,. Stedhanie lSTolfe Coordinator of the ■ogram in Early American Culture 1 / - Approved: i/ylttf/l/tbLd/ /• " Dea>ni pofh/ef cChoel lCeoglele<ge of Graduate Studies Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREFACE Purpose and Scope Fabric furnishings easily rank among the least studied a-nd most misunderstood aspects of early American material culture. Despite the passage of almost a century of serious research, we know less about fabric furnishings— bedding and bed hangings, table cover- « ings, upholstery, window hangings, floor coverings— than we do about any other component of the colonial interior. The dearth of informa­ tion on eighteenth century fabric furnishings results primarily from the long-standing and rarely challenged association between the study of American material culture and the collection of American antiques. Despite pretensions to objective scholarship, decorative arts histo­ rians have, until the very recent past, concentrated their research almost exclusively on the identification, description, and elucidation of those objects which, for aesthetic or historical reasons, have been most prized by collectors. The latter have eagerly sought furniture, silver, glass, ceramics, pewter, and researchers have followed suit by fljna-g.<dng information on these materials. In contrast, relatively few collectors have valued fabric furnishings, and scholars have rarely investigated them in any great depth. The noticeable lack of interest in collecting or studying iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv fabric furnishings stems primarily from the very low survival rate of these items. Fabric furnishings are inherently perishable, for the ■'.extiles that compose them are among the most fragile elements of man's material culture. Age, abrasion, and exposure to light and air cause severe and irreversible damage to textiles j the fibers themselves deteriorate, thus altering the essential characteristics of the fabric. Even when the material itself survives intact, the form is often altered. Because fabric hangings and furniture coverings can be easily cut and sewn into new shapes, they have always been particularly sub­ ject to the changing dictates of fashion. Modern museums and private collectors have been as guilty of altering fabric furnishings as have past generations. The patina of age enhances the appeal of a Queen Anne chair, but its brittle, faded upholstery rarely attracts modern admiration. Many an otherwise reputable institution has reshaped sur­ viving historic hangings or furniture coverings to suit the needs of particular installations; these same institutions would stand aghast at the suggestion of shortening a chair's legs to suit a particular table. The frequent alteration of the form combines with the deterio­ ration of the fabric to reduce drastically the survival rate of his­ toric fabric furnishings; the few examples that do survive seldom approach their original appearances. Lacking a large body of authentic material evidence, decorative arts historians have largely neglected to investigate the use of fabric furnishings in American homes. Most of the existing information on fabric furnishings results from the research of students and curators Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V of textiles. These writers have focused primarily on the fabrics then- selves— period names, weaves, fiber contents, design sources— and only secondarily on their use. This situation again reflects the low sur­ vival rate of fabric furnishings. The majority of the historic tex­ tiles preserved in museum collections are unused pieces that have sur­ vived precisely because they were never made into garments or house­ hold furnishings. In many museums, the textile collection is organised, housed, and studied separately from the decorative arts collection. The textile staff studies fabrics* the decorative arts staff studies household furnishings sans fabrics. The isolation of textiles as a separate category has frag­ mented and distorted our Image of the early American interior. looking sufficient, accurate documentation on the historic use of fabric fur­ nishings, museum installations generally have not presented an accurate view of this aspect of colonial living. Instead, they have tended to depict a romanticized, twentieth century image of what an eighteenth century interior should have looked like. Too often, museum instal­ lations have projected modern tastes in hangings, upholstery, and floor coverings onto supposedly colonial settings. Early period rooms were often equipped with fabric furnishings designed primarily to satisfy modern aesthetic needs and project a picturesque atmosphere. As curators have recently become more aware of inaccurate fabric instal­ lations, they have begun to rely heavily on contemporary documentary and pictorial sources for authentic designs, colors, and fabrics. Recent research on fabric furnishings has concentrated on locating Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi specific, descriptive details, both verbal and pictorial, that can aid in fabricating authentic reproductions. Decorative arts research should not stop with the mere iden­ tification and description of historic artifacts} this data should he the key to understanding and interpreting the values and life styles of past cultures. Several scholars have formulated conceptual models for interpreting material artifacts as cultural expressions. Anthro­ pologist Ralph Linton has suggested that every artifact possesses four distinct hut interrelated qualities: form, meaning, use, and func­ tion.^ Archaeologist Lewis Binford has further subdivided function into three separate levels: technomic, sociotechnic, and ideo- 2 technic. Another archaeologist, James Deetz, has postulated four critical aspects for each object: contextual, functional, structural, and behavioral. None of these models adequately answers the needs of the cultural historian. More recently, art historian Kenneth Ames has proposed a fourth conceptual model for art if actual interpretation. According to this model, each artifact possesses five distinguishable qualities: material (physical substance), motif (decorative or ornamental embellishment), form (physical shape), function