On May 1, 1758, a young tradesman named Nathaniel Gould (1734–1781) made the first entry in his daybook, recording the sale of a walnut table to Salem, Massachusetts, tailor Samuel Archer Jr. Before the discovery of Gould’s account book and daybooks (fig. 1) in the Nathan Dane Papers in the Massachusetts Historical Society, he was regarded as one of many furniture makers active in Salem during the third quarter of the eighteenth century. When correlated with existing furniture and documentary references to Gould in other sources, the entries in these journals demonstrate that Gould parlayed the patronage of Salem’s merchant elite into considerable financial success.[1]
The earliest daybook covers the years 1758 to 1763. A five-year gap between the last entry in that journal and the first entry in the later one indicates that Gould originally had three daybooks. The other surviving daybook has entries from 1767 to Gould’s death in 1781 and continues to 1784. Together with his account book, these documents shed light on the furniture, trade practices, marketing strategies, and business transactions of one of Salem’s finest cabinetmakers.[2]
Born on November 17, 1734, Gould was the son of Nathaniel (1697–1746) and Elizabeth (French) Gould (1698–1746). Both parents died when Nathaniel Jr. was only twelve, too young to have begun serving an apprenticeship with his father. Guardianship passed to his uncle James Gould (1696–1771), a wheelwright, on January 3, 1747.[3]
Although no indenture documents for Nathaniel are known, it is possible that he trained with Charlestown, Massachusetts, cabinetmaker Thomas Wood (1708–1800). Gould probably completed his term by December 1756, when he was described as a cabinetmaker residing in Charlestown in a transaction involving his sale of inherited property. Four years later he married Wood’s daughter Rebecca (1739–1807) and shortly thereafter began doing business with his father-in-law. Gould’s earliest daybook records the sale of mahogany, walnut, and furniture hardware to Wood in 1761. Over the next fourteen years, Gould continued to provide hardware while purchasing two beds and forty desks from his father-in-law. Most of the desks were made of cedar and probably intended for export.[4]
The theory that Gould came of age as a cabinetmaker in Charlestown is further supported by his relationship with John Cogswell (1738–1819), who may have trained there in the shop of cabinetmaker Timothy Gooding Jr. When Gould became overwhelmed with orders for furniture in June 1759, he subcontracted the production of nine desks, a case of drawers, six tables, four stands, and a bed to Cogswell (fig. 2). The latter artisan was only twenty-one years old at that date and had only recently set up shop in Boston. Gould and Cogswell probably became acquainted while serving their apprenticeships in Charlestown.[5]
Gould arrived in Salem shortly after completing his apprenticeship. On March 14, 1757, he contributed £3.12 to a fund for soldiers from that town who volunteered to defend Fort William Henry during the French and Indian War. Among the donors, Gould was one of the youngest and the only cabinetmaker. His decision to support the fund, which provided £10 for each volunteer, may have been motivated by his cousin James Gould’s participation in the expedition. More than half of the contributors, including members of the Cabot, Derby, Pickman, and Dodge families, purchased furniture from Nathaniel over the next few years.[6]
Gould’s Daybooks and Account Book
Nathaniel Gould recorded his work and financial transactions chronologically in daybooks. Most of his entries involve the sale of furniture and other goods, including wood, hardware, sugar, fishing line, cloth, and spirits. Gould made many entries daily, but in some instances he grouped transactions, leaving gaps of as much as three weeks. After a customer had settled his or her account, Gould either drew a line through the entry or designated it paid with the abbreviation “pd” (fig. 3) or two angled lines in the left-hand margin. For credits and debits he used the abbreviations “Cr” and “Dr” respectively (fig. 4).
Gould was as meticulous in recording his transactions as he was in making his furniture. He and his workmen listed each item purchased by a patron separately, even in commissions involving multiple objects. Gould’s pricing for generic furniture forms is often discernible, as in the August 25, 1770, entry for Salem merchant Clark Gayton Pickman (fig. 3). Each of the latter’s tables cost 13s. 4d. per linear foot. Like most of his contemporaries, Gould offered standardized furniture forms with options like “carved feet” (fig. 5) and “carved backs” (chairs) available at extra cost. Because Gould’s prices changed little from the late 1750s to the Revolution, one can draw conclusions from entries that are not particularly descriptive. If a four-foot table and “mahogany four foot table” have equivalent prices, it is reasonable to assume that both were made of the same wood. The sheer volume of work produced in Gould’s shop makes such speculation even more plausible. His workforce appears to have grouped orders for certain forms to expedite production and avoid repetitive setups for cutting stock and joints, turning, finish work, and other tasks.[7]
Understanding Gould’s business would be difficult without his account book. With entries from February 1763 to 1781, it covers the period of the missing daybook (April 1763 to December 1767). The account book only lists items sold on credit, whereas the surviving daybooks document all sales but have few credit entries. By correlating the information in these records, one can identify the sources of sugar and other goods Gould sold, the ship captains who provided him with mahogany, the merchants who furnished his furniture hardware, and the cabinetmakers to whom he subcontracted work.
Gould specialized in the production of several different forms. During the years covered by his surviving daybooks and account book, he sold 1,144 chairs, 321 conventional table forms, 441 desks, 196 bedsteads, 76 “cases of drawers,” 52 “bureau tables,” 17 “chamber tables,” and 19 desk-and-bookcases (total includes an entry for “1/2 desk-and-bookcase”). Side chairs, usually offered in sets of six, accounted for most of the seating produced in his shop; however, Gould also made round, close-stool, and easy chairs. His production of seating is surprising, since chairmaking tended to be a specialized trade in New England. Salem chairmakers who were contemporaries of Gould included William Lander, William Gray, and Benjamin Symonds.[8]
The tables listed in Gould’s daybooks were described as “round,” “square,” “card,” “silver,” “sideboard,” “twilight” (toilet), “breakfast,” “tea,” “chaney” (china), “riting” (writing), and “side.” The term “chamber table” probably referred to a cabriole-leg case form, whereas the term “bureau table” almost certainly denoted a four-drawer chest (figs. 6, 7). The average price Gould charged for a “case of drawers” was too high for a four-drawer chest, suggesting that he reserved that term for a high chest or double chest. On April 15, 1765, Salem tanner Joseph Southwick paid Gould £4.4 for a “case of draws with steps” (fig. 8). Presumably this entry referred to a flat-top high chest with a platform for displaying china or other valuable objects.[9]
One of the most expensive objects made in Gould’s shop was a “case of draws swelled ends” commissioned by Salem merchant John Appleton and completed by July 1767 (fig. 9). New England cabinetmakers used the term “swelled” to refer to bombé, blocked, commode (serpentine), and bowed forms, but only bombé shaping was appropriate for the sides of a case. Valued at £17.6.8, Appleton’s chest probably resembled the example illustrated in figure 10. Gould charged the same amount for cases of drawers sold to Mark Hunking Wentworth of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on November 22, 1764, and Rebecca Orne of Salem, on August 1, 1768, before her marriage to merchant and shipowner Captain Joseph Cabot. This suggests that those examples were also of bombé form.[10]
Equally demanding from the perspective of construction were desk-and-bookcases. Of the nineteen examples listed in Gould’s daybooks, six were shipped elsewhere: two to Salem shipmaster Joseph Grafton; one to Marblehead, Massachusetts, merchant Jeremiah Lee; one to Marblehead shipmaster Nicholas Bartlet; one to Beverly shipmaster Josiah Batchelder; and one to Philadelphia minister and merchant Peletiah Webster. The prices charged for five of these desk-and-bookcases were significantly less than those of other examples made in Gould’s shop. Lee’s desk-and-bookcase is the exception. An April 9, 1775, entry in the cabinetmaker’s daybook (fig. 11) indicates that Lee purchased seven pieces of furniture including the desk-and-bookcase and was assessed additional charges for crating each. The corresponding entry in Gould’s account book (fig. 12) reveals that Lee purchased the furniture for his daughter Mary (1753–1819) and her husband, Newburyport merchant Nathaniel Tracy (1751–1796). The couple had married one month earlier, which suggests that the furniture commissioned by Lee was part of his daughter’s wedding dowry (fig. 13). Most of the individuals who purchased desk-and-bookcases from Gould were members of Salem’s merchant elite, including Edward Allen, Joseph and George Cabot, George Deblois, Francis Gardner, Benjamin Goodhue, Thomas Mason, and Richard Routh.[11]
Of all the furniture forms listed in Gould’s daybooks, desks appear to have contributed the most to his financial success. Notations regarding charges for “casing” (crating), sales to ship captains, and the use of cedar as a primary wood suggest that at least three-quarters of the desks he sold were intended for export. Gould purchased most of these examples from local cabinetmakers. On June 23, 1768, Philemon Parker charged him £1.4 for a desk that Gould sold for £4 the same day (fig. 14).
Gould’s shop produced a variety of stands, one hundred of which were described as “standtables.” That term probably referred to the square or round tilt-top tea tables with baluster or urn-shaped pillars and simple cyma-shaped legs. Many examples of this form survive from the North Shore of Massachusetts. More specialized variants from Gould’s shop included reading, glass, bottle, and candlestands.
Identifying the Work of Nathaniel Gould’s Shop
For nearly twenty years scholars have debated the authorship of an imposing desk-and-bookcase bearing the inscription “Nath Gould not his work” (figs. 15, 16) and other case pieces with similar structural and stylistic details. In American Furniture in The Metropolitan Museum of Art II, Late Colonial Period: The Queen Anne and Chippendale Styles (1985), furniture historian Morrison Heckscher speculated that the desk-and-bookcase was from Gould’s shop and that its unusual inscription may represent the sentiments of a disaffected workman who made the object and did not want his master to receive undue credit. Heckscher also referred to an additional eighteenth-century inscription—“Jos—— Gould 177_”—and noted that the design of a block-front desk marked “H x RUST” (figs. 17, 18) was similar to that of the desk-and-bookcase. Since the early 1970s that desk had become a cornerstone for attributing other case pieces to Salem and some examples to the shop of Henry Rust. Indeed, decorative arts scholar Charles Venable argued that the desk-and-bookcase illustrated in figure 15 was made by Rust after comparing its construction to that of the desk marked “H x RUST” and another example inscribed “This desk Made By Henry Rust of Salem / Salem New England / One Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy” (figs. 19-21).[12]
Venable’s attribution of the desk-and-bookcase (fig. 15) to Rust can be refuted on several points. Although the desk marked “H x RUST” is attributed to the same shop that produced the desk-and-bookcase, evidence suggests that the chiseled inscription on the former is not a maker’s mark. The construction of the other desk (fig. 19), which has an authentic inscription, differs significantly from that of the desk-and-bookcase. This is most apparent in the dovetailing of their drawer sides and backs, since the pins and tails on the desk are the reverse of the more conventional ones on the desk-and-bookcase (figs. 22, 23). Similarly, the desk-and-bookcase has lap-joined backboards, whereas those on the desk are butt-joined. Other structural features cited by Venable as evidence that these pieces originated in the same shop are generic. The glue blocks supporting the feet and drops on the desk-and-bookcase and desks are essentially the same as those used by Salem cabinetmakers Abraham Watson and John Chipman, and double-beaded drawer edges are common in furniture from Salem and Marblehead, Massachusetts, as well as other areas of New England. Venable also erred in concluding that the writing on the desk-and-bookcase and desk illustrated in figures 15 and 19 was “by the same hand.” The inscription “Nath Gould not his work” is actually by two different individuals (fig. 16), and the “Nath Gould” section matches the cabinetmaker’s signature on the title page of his account book (fig. 1) and an invoice to Salem merchant Richard Derby (fig. 24). The fact that the phrase “not his work” is by a different hand supports Heckscher’s theory that it was written by one of Gould’s workmen. The cursive style of both inscriptions (fig. 16) differs from that on the desk illustrated in figures 19–21.[13]
The construction of case furniture attributed to Gould and other Salem cabinetmakers differs from that of their Boston counterparts. All but two of the case pieces attributed to Gould have claw-and-ball feet with side talons that are vertical rather than being raked back in Boston fashion (fig. 25). His feet are further distinguished by having toes that are almost square in cross section and talons that are undercut slightly on the sides. Gould’s secondary woods are generally knot-free and scraped smooth, whereas those in many Boston case pieces display saw kerfs or rough plane marks. His drawer sides and backs are typically 3/8–1/2 inch thick, which provided ample surface for a widely spaced double bead at the top (fig. 26). Most Boston and Salem cabinetmakers limited their beading to the tops of drawer sides. Gould and his workmen constructed their large drawers with the bottom boards set parallel to the front. This practice, which had become common in Salem by the middle of the eighteenth century, differed from the perpendicular arrangement favored by most Boston cabinetmakers. Only in the precision of dovetail joints does Boston casework surpass that associated with Gould’s shop. The angles of his pins and tails are often asymmetrical, and his dovetails occasionally have gaps between the joints.[14]
Gould’s work can be separated from that of other Salem cabinetmakers, although not by any single diagnostic detail. Like all large urban furniture-making shops, he had a sizable workforce composed of apprentices and journeymen with slightly different work habits. Variations can be observed from piece to piece, but Gould’s casework is structurally consistent when evaluated as a group. The prospect doors of his desk-and-bookcases are cut from a solid block of wood; he used square blocking on the lids and top drawers of blocked case furniture; the hinges of his prospect doors and lock faces of his desk lids are surface mounted (fig. 27); his pigeonhole valences have exceptionally vigorous cyma curves (fig. 28); his drawer dividers and fallboard supports are made of mahogany rather than having mahogany faces glued to white pine boards; and the numbering system he usually employed on large exterior drawers is distinctive (fig. 29).
An exceptional bombé desk-and-bookcase (fig. 30) can be attributed to Gould based on its provenance and stylistic and structural parallels with other furniture from his shop. Oral tradition maintained that the desk-and-bookcase descended in the family of Robert Treat Paine II (1861–1943) and his wife, Ruth (Cabot) Paine (1865–1949). Ruth and her husband shared a common ancestor, Joseph Cabot (1719–1767) of Salem. Ruth descended in the line of Joseph’s youngest son, Samuel (1758–1819), whereas Robert descended in the line of Joseph’s eldest son, John (1745–1821).[15]
The Cabots were one of Salem’s leading families during the mid-eighteenth century. Their patriarch was John Cabot (1680–1742), who emigrated from the Channel Island of Jersey to Massachusetts in 1700 and married Anna Orne (1678–1767) in Salem two years later. Four of their seven children married members of the prosperous Higginson family. John’s sons Joseph (1719–1767) and Francis (1717–1786) followed him in the shipping business, which, supplemented by other mercantile activities, was the source of the Cabots’ great wealth.[16]
Members of the Cabot family commissioned five of the nineteen desk-and-bookcases listed in Gould’s daybooks (fig. 31). Joseph and Francis purchased the first example for their business in March 1765. That desk-and-bookcase may have been used in the brothers’ office and warehouse on Essex Street in Salem and probably remained there until Francis’s death in 1786. His inventory lists two examples. Three of Joseph’s children also purchased desk-and-bookcases from Gould. His son Andrew commissioned two, the first for £24 on May 18, 1773, and the second for £40 on April 6, 1780. Andrew’s brother George paid Gould £20 for a desk-and-bookcase on March 26, 1774, shortly after marrying Elizabeth Higginson (1756–1826). Seven years later, Gould charged Francis Cabot Jr. £45 for a desk-and-bookcase. At that date, the cabinetmaker’s patron was only twenty-four years old. While it is impossible to determine which Cabot commissioned the desk-and-bookcase illustrated in figure 30, Andrew clearly had a taste for bombé furniture. He paid Gould £12 for a “bureau table” on February 24, 1781 (figs. 6, 7), three months before purchasing his second desk-and-bookcase.[17]
Like the desk-and-bookcase illustrated in figure 15, the Cabot example is made of dense, highly figured mahogany. Although Gould sold large quantities of wood to other Salem cabinetmakers, he reserved some of the best material for his own use. The fallboards on all of his surviving desk-and-bookcases appear to have been cut from the same board (fig. 32), which is remarkable when one considers that the production of these case pieces probably spanned six to ten years. Gould or his workmen oriented each fallboard so the stripe figure drops from one upper corner and rises to the other. Furniture from his shop is distinguished both by the quality of the materials used and the attention given to grain pattern. On the Cabot desk-and-bookcase (fig. 30), the grain of the tympanum board echoes the shape of the upper door rails and panel arches beneath (fig. 33).
The construction of the desk-and-bookcases is nearly identical save for the dimensions of some parts, including foot brackets and drops, and the dovetailing of their lower exterior drawers. Surprisingly, Gould does not appear to have used patterns for transferring the design of such components from piece to piece (fig. 34). As these desk-and-bookcases suggest, most of the major case pieces attributed to him appear to have been commissioned rather than purchased from Gould’s stock-in-trade. Concerns for strength apparently led Gould to reverse the pins and tails on the backs of drawers with sides curved to accommodate bombé shaping (fig. 35). The joints of drawers with curved sides and a conventional pin-and-tail arrangement were more likely to separate if the drawers were heavily loaded.[18]
The fastidious construction, superb materials, and exceptionally refined design of Nathaniel Gould’s furniture set it apart from that produced by many of his Massachusetts contemporaries. Other Salem cabinetmakers copied some of his shop’s details, including the scallop shell drops and pinwheel rosettes seen on furniture illustrated here, but few possessed comparable skill and business acumen. Although he died at the relatively young age of forty-seven, Gould’s furniture and the daybooks and account book he left behind illuminate the career of one of Salem’s finest and most successful craftsmen.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For assistance with this article the authors thank Judy Anderson, Elizabeth Barker, Sidney E. Berger, Allan Breed, Darren J. Brown, John D. Childs, Wendy A. Cooper, Peter Drummey, Sean Farrell, Katherine Flynn, Catherine Futter, Nonnie Gadsden, Katherine Griffin, Elaine Grublin, Stephen P. Hall, Morrison H. Heckscher, Brock Jobe, Frank Levy, Robert Lionetti, Christine Michelini, Robert D. Mussey Jr., Richard Nylander, Clark Pearce, Clarence, Craig, and Todd Prickett, and Gerald W. R. Ward.
