While working as foreman for the cabinetmaking firm Joseph B. Barry & Son, George G. Wright (1780–1853) signed and dated the back of a paint-decorated sideboard (fig. 1) made for the dining room of William (1775–1826) and Mary (Wilcocks) Waln’s (1781–1841) Philadelphia house. Other furniture forms marked by Wright include an iconic pier table commissioned by French-born merchant Louis Clapier (1764–1837) and a card table bearing the date 1813, the year that Wright left Barry’s firm and established his own shop. These and other objects associated with Wright show how the contributions of apprentices, journeymen, and specialists contributed to the success of Philadelphia cabinet shops during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.[1]
Details pertaining to Wright’s personal life are sketchy. He was born in Pennsylvania on July 31, 1780. Wright’s parents, John and Sarah (Fleming), were married in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and later moved to Philadelphia, where John worked as an innkeeper. At the age of thirty-two, George married Elizabeth Robins (1781–1857) of Pennsylvania. They had five children, born between the years 1814 and 1823.[2]
Marriage may have prompted George to establish his own business. Between 1813 and 1817, he was listed at four Philadelphia locations: 196 Pine Street, 93 Bell’s Court, 15 Branch Street, and Back 86 Spruce Street (fig. 2). By January 16, 1818, George and his family had moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he worked independently and in various partnerships until at least 1826. George and Elizabeth moved to Washington Township, in Brown County, Ohio, before 1845. George died there on August 5, 1853, and Elizabeth on November 22, 1857.[3]
Apprenticeship and Stylistic Development
Wright began serving his apprenticeship with Philadelphia cabinetmaker John Aitken (active c. 1787–1814) at age twenty-one, seven years later than customary. Given the fact that Wright’s term was only four years (1801–1805), he may have previously served two years with another master. Born in Dalkeith, Scotland, Aitken probably trained in Edinburgh or London before immigrating to America in 1798. Two years later, the Federal Gazette reported that his “cabinet and chair manufactory” produced “chairs of various patterns, some of which are entirely new . . . and finished with an elegancy of stile peculiar to themselves [along with] . . . desks, bureaus, book cases, bedsteads, tea tables, card ditto and dining ditto etc.” During the late 1790s Aitken entered into partnership with William Cocks, a British cabinetmaker who arrived in Philadelphia by 1790. In the August 5, 1797, issue of the Federal Gazette, their firm Cocks and Company boasted that their “long experience in London” would allow them to satisfy the demands of potential customers. Regrettably, little is known about either principal’s career or work. George Washington’s household accounts record the purchase of a pair of inlaid sideboards and a set of twenty-four square-back dining chairs with elliptically cornered tops from Aitken on February 21, 1797, and a tambour cylinder desk-and-bookcase the following month, but neither entry specifies whether the cabinetmaker was in partnership with Cocks at those dates.[4]
During his apprenticeship with Aitken, Wright would have learned to make many of the forms offered by his master’s shop and become acquainted with the intricate network of furniture makers and specialists working in the city. Wright may have also met some of Aitken’s patrons and business associates, some of whom were active in the venture cargo trade. In the January 13, 1800, issue of the Federal Gazette, Aitken reported that he had “removed the store to No. 79 Dock, near Third Street, lately occupied by Cocks & Co., where he has a large and general assortment of Cabinet Furniture suitable for the home and exportation trade.”
The Journeyman Years
Much of the information on Wright’s early career as a journeyman is derived from his inscription on the sideboard illustrated in figures 1 and 3: “Made for Mr. W. Waln, Corner of Seventh and Chestnut Streets By order / of Mr G. Bridport, By Geo G. Wright, whilst Foreman for Mr. J. B. Barry & Son / No 134 South Second Streets, October 18. 1811, one thousand eight hundred / and eleven.” He must have worked for Barry much earlier in order to have earned the trust required of a foreman.
Born in Dublin, Ireland, Barry immigrated to Philadelphia before 1790. After partnering with Alexander Calder in 1794 and Lewis G. Affleck (son of cabinetmaker Thomas Affleck) in 1795, Barry established his own business and began advertising furniture in the “newest London and French patterns.” By the turn of the century, Barry enjoyed the patronage of many prominent clients. In 1800 Barry sold Thomas Jefferson’s agent “J. Barnes” $193 worth of furniture, probably for the president’s house in Washington, D.C. Although it is impossible to determine the size and scope of Barry’s business or the number of tradesmen he employed, the 1811 Tax Assessment valued his shop and property at $21,000. By comparison, in 1809 the shop and property of John Aitken and Henry Connelly received valuations of $2,500 and $3,000 respectively. In addition to producing furniture, Barry imported and sold British and European goods. In the January 12, 1812, issue of the Aurora General Advertiser, Barry reported that during his recent “stay in London and Paris,” he had “made some selections of the Most Fashionable and Elegant Articles in Their Line, which in addition to [his] . . . excellent stock on hand, forms a display of furniture well worth the attention of the respectable citizens of Philadelphia.”[5]
During the time that Barry was abroad, Wright oversaw the day-to-day operations of his master’s shop, which included the production of William and Mary Waln’s sideboard and the mirror probably intended to hang above it (fig. 1). In 1805 the couple commissioned Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764–1820) to design a house for their lot at the corner of Seventh and Chestnut streets. Construction began in late 1807, and the house was completed the following year (fig. 4). Like many of his British contemporaries, Latrobe was intimately involved with the furnishing of his buildings. The suite of painted furniture he designed for the Walns’ drawing room (figs. 5-7) was intended to resonate with the finishes, fabrics, and interior architectural details of that space. Although the firm responsible for making the furniture remains unknown, the decoration has been convincingly attributed to immigrant British painter and architect George Bridport (1783–1819). The name of Philadelphia carpenter Thomas Wetherill (d. 1824) is written on the backboard of a pier table from the suite, but it is unlikely that he was the maker of the entire suite, which also included at least sixteen side chairs, a pair of card tables, a window bench, and a Grecian sofa. The size of the suite suggests the involvement of a large cabinet- and chair-making shop. Joseph Barry & Sons is a likely candidate, since the suite dates circa 1808 and Bridport ordered the sideboard for the Walns’ dining room from that firm three years later.[6]
The pier table illustrated in figure 8 was also made under Wright’s supervision while Barry was in England and France. The initials “GW” are incised on a medial brace under the subtop (fig. 9), and the inscription “Jos B. Barry & Son” is written on the bottom of the plinth in Wright’s hand (fig. 10). Commissioned by Louis Clapier, who fled Santo Domingo in 1793 and arrived in Philadelphia in 1796, the pier table indicates that Barry’s shop was capable of working in the latest English and French styles. Clapier married Philadelphia native Mary Heyl in 1801, and several pieces of furniture commissioned by the couple for their house at Sixth and Lombard streets and their country house in Nicetown survive. A sofa carved with dogs and fleur-de-lis and a matching pair of chairs that descended in the same line as the pier table may also have been made in Barry’s shop.[7]
Like many of Philadelphia’s French immigrants, Clapier settled in an area of the city that was home to several important cabinet shops (fig. 2). Local furniture makers were influenced by the work of French tradesmen as well as furnishings imported by French merchants. Wealthy patrons like Clapier and merchant and financier Stephen Girard typically imported some furnishings from France and commissioned others from Philadelphia craftsmen.[8]
The Clapier pier table is a superb example of Philadelphia furniture in the French antique taste, or le goût antique. Beginning in 1802 Parisian architect and designer Pierre de La Mésangère began publishing Collection de Meubles et Objets de Goût, a serial publication responsible for the dissemination of French neoclassical style to other fashion centers in the Western world. A pier table illustrated in that work is similar in form to the Clapier example (fig. 11), although the latter has columns with spiral garlands rather than the verdigris caryatids advocated by Mésangère. Barry had probably seen ormolu garlands on European furniture while traveling abroad, but they may have been prohibitively expensive or difficult for his shop to obtain. Wright’s alternative was to have the garlands executed in mahogany. The carved lyre alludes to the seventh-century Greek poet Arion, who was celebrated in classical mythology for his skill on that instrument. Like other American and European furniture adorned with such imagery, the Clapier table was most likely made for a room where music and dancing occurred.[9]
The seated griffins and arabesques on the frieze of the Clapier table are derived from plate 36 in Thomas Sheraton’s Drawing Book (1791) (figs. 12, 13). The inclusion of these details is somewhat unusual, since they reflect an earlier phase of neoclassicism somewhat at odds with the table’s avant-garde French form. New York cabinetmaker Charles Honoré Lannuier began making pier tables in le goût antique as early as 1805, but that style did not attain widespread popularity in America until the 1820s. A narrow and early date range can be assigned to the Clapier table based on the pencil inscription on its label (fig. 14) and Wright’s departure from Barry’s shop in 1813. The words “& Son” refer to Joseph Barry Jr. (active 1810–1840) who became a partner in 1810.[10]
Furniture Documented to George Wright’s Shop
A pair of “mechanical” card tables initialed and dated by Wright are benchmarks for attributing other work to his shop (figs. 15, 16). New York cabinetmaker John Hewitt mentioned that form in his account book in 1809, but the earliest reference to mechanical tables in Philadelphia is in The Journeyman Cabinet and Chair Makers’ Pennsylvania Book of Prices published two years later. This design may have arrived through the venture cargo trade or been transmitted by New York journeymen who moved to Philadelphia (fig. 17). Given the fact that Joseph Barry advertised in a New York newspaper for four experienced journeymen cabinetmakers in 1810, it is possible that Wright learned to make mechanical tables while working as a journeyman in his former master’s shop. Based on the number of surviving examples, mechanical tables appear to have been less popular in Philadelphia than in New York. Price may have been a factor. According to the Pennsylvania Book of Prices, workmen received $16.36 for making a mechanical table. That was more than seven times the amount received for a standard square card table with swing leg ($2.31) and more than three times the amount received for a standard kidney-shaped table with a commode front ($4.68). Wright’s mechanical tables (figs. 15, 16) would probably have been more expensive than any mechanical table listed in the Pennsylvania price book, owing to the lavish use of satinwood.[11]
Unlike most New York mechanical tables, which have a single columnar support, Wright’s examples have three thin pillars that rest on a trefoil-shaped plinth. This unusual design required him to bore out two columns (rear) to accommodate the iron rods of the swivel mechanism rather than one. The curved shoulders of his legs are modifications of the “sweep” pattern common on New York tables as well as in French Directoire and English Regency designs. Wright used contrasting panels to decorate the plinth and the tops and sides of the legs. Later examples made by Wright and his competitors often have legs with paneled sides and acanthus carving on the top.
Probably made of horizontally laminated boards, the plinths of the satinwood tables are capped with thin, thumbnail-molded boards that overhang slightly (fig. 18). This feature occurs on other tables documented and attributed to Wright’s shop. On the convex sections of the plinth, the veneer that covers the vertical surfaces is tucked into grooves in the pine core. Wright knew this would prevent the veneer from popping off if the glue joint weakened.
The aprons of the satinwood tables consist of solid boards at the front and sides glued to horizontally laminated, curved sections with butt joints staggered for strength (fig. 19). Typical of Wright’s work, the laminated sections are nailed from the underside at each end. The concave sections of the façade are made from a separate vertical board so the veneer on the outside never goes over end grain. Wright eventually abandoned this feature, probably because of the extra work it required. The fly rails are attached to a birch block and their joints are held together with a metal pin. Like many cabinetmakers, Wright made the fingers circular for greater clearance and gave them a shoulder to stop the fly rails from rotating past ninety degrees (fig. 20).
The Pennsylvania Book of Prices described card tables similar to the documented examples as having “Serpentine Corners with Straight Front and End Rails.” In all of his later card tables, Wright used a slightly elliptical, or “round,” front—a standard Philadelphia design for which journeymen received an additional twenty-eight cents. The tops of the satinwood tables are constructed in the method specified in contemporary price books, with two pine boards held in place with “square clamps,” or battens, and a narrow “slip” of mahogany glued across the exposed rear edges of the tops. Wright made his clamps out of mahogany, for strength and stability, and attached them to the pine center boards with a tongue-and-groove joint. Afterward, he applied the veneer and crossbanding (fig. 21). On later tables, he set the clamps at an angle to provide additional strength and more glue surface for the crossbanding.[12]
A breakfast table (fig. 22) made en suite with the card tables has another feature typical of Wright’s work. The crossbanding below the drawers is set into a separate mahogany strip that is glued and nailed to the underside of the apron (fig. 23). This made the crossbanding less susceptible to damage and loss.
Furniture Attributed to George Wright’s Shop
Several tables can be attributed to Wright’s shop based on details shared with his documented work. The mechanical table illustrated in figure 24 is made of mahogany with no contrasting inlay. Except for having a single pillar, which dictated a slightly different mechanism, and a glued and nailed bead on the lower edge of the apron, the construction of this table matches that of the satinwood examples (figs. 15, 16). The top has pine clamps attached to the core board with tongue-and-groove joints, and its primary veneered surface features nine rays emanating from a semicircle. The sweep legs follow conventional Philadelphia style in having acanthus carving and reeding on top. Wright probably made this table before 1815, when mechanical examples became increasingly obsolete.[13]
During the early to mid-1810s, Wright began making swivel-top card tables. The examples illustrated in figures 25 and 26 are attributed to his shop based on parallels with the marked satinwood tables: the tops have nine rays of highly figured veneer; the plinths are capped with a thin, thumbnail-molded board; and the tables have similarly constructed aprons. The pillars on the table illustrated in figure 25 also have turnings similar to those on furniture in the satinwood suite (see figs. 15, 22). On the other swivel-top example (fig. 26), the pillars are superimposed balusters with reeding at the top and leaf carving below. The leaves mirror those on the legs and harmonize with the floral carving on the curved sections of the plinth. This concave plinth design is found on all swivel-top tables attributed to Wright. On the table illustrated in figure 26, he added decorative veneer to the playing surface (fig. 27), an option that would have increased the cost.[14]
Although the construction of Wright’s swivel-top tables is relatively consistent, minor variations can be observed. On the card table illustrated in figure 26, he glued and nailed wide strips of lightwood (possibly satinwood) to the tooth-planed lower edges of the apron (fig. 28) just as he did on the satinwood breakfast table (figs. 22, 23). These strips were intended to simulate stringing and protect the veneer on the lower edge. The plinth construction represents a more significant departure. To form the core, Wright used six pieces of mahogany, two boards arranged in an X-shape and four blocks to fill in the interstices (fig. 29). The circa 1815 addendum to the New-York Revised Prices for Manufacturing and Cabinet and Chair Work (1810) described this structure as “lapp’d and the corners filled in.” The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers’ Union Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinet Work (1828) referred to “lapping and filling in blocks.”[15]
A similar pair of card tables (fig. 30) has slightly different carving, suggesting that Wright may have employed more than one carver or purchased piecework (plaques, legs, pillars) from specialists who employed different carvers. Although these tables originally had thin strips of wood glued and nailed to the lower edges of their aprons like the objects illustrated in figures 22 and 26, Wright made the front and side rails out of solid mahogany, rather than his customary laminated white pine, and joined them at the front corners with large mahogany “keys” (fig. 31). He also used a solid block of mahogany for the core of the plinth.
Although Wright was a native-born artisan, his stylistic vocabulary emerged in a cosmopolitan setting. During the 1790s craftsmen from England and France came to Philadelphia in search of opportunities created by that city’s burgeoning economy. Wealthy patrons like William and Mary Waln, Louis Clapier, and Stephen Girard were eager to furnish their homes in the latest European neoclassical styles, and immigrants like Wright’s master John Aitken were more than capable of meeting their demands. To maintain a competitive edge, some Philadelphia tradesmen ventured abroad. When his shop produced the sideboard illustrated in figure 1, Joseph Barry was traveling through England and France, ostensibly to keep abreast of current designs and acquire European-made furnishings that he could sell at home. As an apprentice in Aitken’s shop and then as a journeyman working for Barry, Wright experienced a broader range of stylistic influences than many of his peers.
Wright also appears to have been familiar with the work of Philadelphia cabinetmakers Robert McGuffin (b. 1778) and Henry Connelly. McGuffin worked as a journeyman for Connelly from before 1806 to at least 1809, producing elaborate satinwood tables with veneered tops similar to those made by Wright (figs. 32, 33). This suggests that Wright may have worked with McGuffin in Connelly’s shop before joining Barry’s workforce.[16]
Wright’s furniture attests to his training in an immigrant tradition, his experience as foreman in a major cabinetmaking shop, and his ability to make the transition from journeyman to master. His innovative construction, eye for wood selection, and mastery of veneer decoration set him apart from many of his contemporaries. The tables documented and attributed to Wright further suggest that he was an astute businessman. Faced with the nuances of the Philadelphia marketplace, he developed a range of forms and options to satisfy the different tastes and budgets of his customers. Undoubtedly case furniture and possibly seating by Wright will come to light and provide a clearer picture of this talented cabinetmaker’s total output.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For assistance with this article, the authors thank Irfan Ali, Louisa Bartlett, Nicholas R. Bell, Lynda Cain, Katherine Chabla, Tara Chicirda, Jeff Cohen, David H. Conradsen, Wendy A. Cooper, Kathryn Coyle, David deMuzio, J. Michael Flanigan, Samuel M. Freeman II, John Stuart Gordon, Ryan Grover, Michael Harkless, Brock W. Jobe, Linda Kaufman, Peter M. Kenny, Kelly Lyles, Robert Lyles, Lisa Minardi, Robert D. Mussey Jr., Sumpter Priddy III, Karl J. C. Saberg, Christopher Swan, Christine Thomson, Matthew A. Thurlow, Nicholas Vincent, and Gregory Weidman.
