| Luke Beckerdite The Early Furniture of Christopher and Job Townsend The distinctive and cohesive style of colonial Newport furniture had much more to do with mass-producing a marketable commodity than with the refinement and perfection of furniture forms. From the outset, Rhode Island differed from the other New England colonies. During the 1650s and 1660s, it became a center for Quakerism as members of the Society of Friends sought to escape religious persecution in England and in Massachusetts. This attitude of religious tolerance subsequently extended to other sects. In 1729, Anglican minister George Berkely wrote:
Historian William G. McLoughlin has asserted that “the privatization of religion led to a new emphasis on economic self-interest as a motivating force in the colony.”1 Like most other New England cities, Newport had an economy based on processing, manufacturing, and shipping rather than the production of staples such as tobacco, rice, or indigo. The three principal sources of Rhode Island’s wealth were the sugar trade, the slave trade, and fisheries. Ships left the colony with livestock, cheese, barrel staves, lumber, fish, and manufactured goods that could be bartered for tobacco, sugar, or bills of exchange in southern ports and the West Indies. Many of these vessels continued on to Africa, where part of their cargo was exchanged for slaves. Most of the slaves were bartered or sold in the West Indies and southern colonies on the return voyage.2 Several subsidiary industries developed as a result of the triangular trade. Rum, which was distilled from West Indian molasses, became Rhode Island’s most important export commodity. In 1741, Governor Richard Ward noted that “the neighboring governments have been in great measure supplied with rum, sugar, molasses, and other West Indian goods by us. . . . Nay, Boston, itself, the metropolis of Massachusetts, is not a little obliged to us.” By 1750, the colony had thirty-three distilleries, twenty-two of which were in Newport. Rhode Island’s shipping industry also grew to meet the demands of increased trade. In 1708, the colony had only 30 ships, which were primarily sloops engaged in the North American coastal trade. The fleet grew to 80 vessels in 1731, to 120 in 1740, to more than 500 in 1763. Artisans, merchants, and entrepreneurs were quick to capitalize on the expansion of the carrying trade. Cabinetmakers, for example, began producing furniture for export as well as for local consumption. At least fifty-six cabinetmakers were active in Rhode Island between 1745 and 1774. By comparison, Boston had approximately sixty-four, although its population, fleet, and manufacturing base were much larger.3 As Rhode Island’s economy developed, its dependence on Boston as a source for British manufactured goods decreased. Newport merchant John Banister was among the first to establish direct trade with London. In a 1739 letter to John Thomlinson of London, Banister wrote that the residents of Newport desired “to make themselves independent of the Bay Government to whom they have a mortal aversion.” Like Banister, many Rhode Island merchants and tradesmen resented Boston’s dominance of the coastal trade in manufactured goods. Since the late seventeenth century, the “metropolis of Massachusetts” had led all New England ports in the export of such items as British textiles and locally made furniture, particularly chairs. Although Newport merchants and tradesmen did not ship significant quantities of furniture before mid-century, the social, economic, and cultural forces that allowed them to compete with Boston emerged decades earlier. During the 1720s, artisans such as Job and Christopher Townsend began developing efficient methods of production and securing the patronage of local merchants and ship captains who would become allies in the furniture export trade.4 Members of the Townsend family of Oyster Bay began immigrating to Newport during the seventeenth century. Widower Thomas Townsend, whose mother and aunts had grown up in Newport, arrived about 1686 and married Mary Almy. His son John and nephew Solomon married into the same family, consolidating their positions among the Quaker communities in Newport and Oyster Bay. John and his wife Rebecca moved from Newport to Long Island about 1694, and Solomon, his wife Catherine, and children Job (1699–1765), Christopher (1701–1787), Solomon, and Hannah moved from Long Island to Newport in 1707.5 The earliest documented Newport furniture is associated with Job and Christopher Townsend. Although their training remains a mystery, they probably served their apprenticeships between 1713 and 1721. Similarities in the construction of their furniture suggest that both brothers had the same master. Job married Rebecca Casey in 1722, and referred to himself as a carpenter the following year. The earliest reference to him making furniture, however, is a 1733 letter in which Christopher describes a desk-and-bookcase that Job sold for £59.6 Christopher married Patience Easton (1703–1789) in 1723. Her grandfather, Nicholas, was an English-born tanner who arrived with the first Quaker settlers in the region. Her step-grandmother, Ann Bull Easton, left the Quakers a tract of land called Easton’s Point, which became one of the town’s leading residential and manufacturing centers (fig. 1). Christopher undoubtedly profited from his association with the Eastons. Patience’s brothers were in the house-joinery, shipbuilding, and furniture-making trades, and several other members of her family were ship captains.7 Christopher and Job both settled at Easton’s Point. Job purchased lot 86 and Christopher purchased lots 49 and 51. Job’s house was demolished during the mid–twentieth century, but Christopher’s still stands with his shop attached to one side (fig. 2). The shop, which measures 12' x 24', is comparable in size to those managed by contemporaries such as Constant Bailey. As historian Margaretta Lovell has noted, the small size of these shops suggests that they were not the sole place of production. Like other urban artisans, Newport cabinetmakers undoubtedly purchased components and commissioned services such as carving and gilding from other tradesmen.8 During the 1720s and 1730s, Job and Christopher may have spent much of their time working as house joiners. Evidence suggests that each built his own house (see figs. 2, 3) and received commissions for public and private buildings. Accounts pertaining to the construction of the Colony House (fig. 4) reveal that Christopher Townsend was the principal joiner and that Thomas Melvil and Israel Champan were hired as carpenters. Townsend probably furnished many of the interior components including the paneling in the senate chamber (figs. 5, 6) and the stair balusters and newel posts (figs. 7–9). He may also have constructed two turned and joined tables (see figs. 10, 11) that were among the original furnishings. These tables, which have turning sequences identical to those on the stair, probably stood in either the senate chamber or courtroom below.9 Many eighteenth-century cabinetmakers supplemented their income by doing house joinery. Their work often entailed fabricating architectural components such as chimneypieces, paneling, and “bowfats” as well as more mundane fixtures like the cupboard illustrated in fig. 12. The cupboard probably dates from the mid-1740s, when Christopher Townsend and the carpenters working on the Colony House were completing their work. It has finely wrought dovetail hinges and remnants of dry pigment that appear to match the blue paint on the joined tables. Architectural historians Antoinette F. Downing and Vincent J. Sculley, Jr., were the first to note that elements of the frame and panel moldings in the senate chamber of the Colony House (fig. 6) match those in Trinity Church (figs. 13, 14) and the Seventh Day Baptist Meeting House (figs. 15, 16). Although it is possible that other Newport joiners owned sets of planes similar to those of Christopher Townsend, his involvement with these buildings and several contemporary houses is quite plausible. The newel posts on the gallery stair in Trinity Church have distinctive, acorn-shaped pendants or “drops” (fig. 17) that appear to be precursors to those in the Colony House (fig. 9), and the “barley-twist” balusters in the Seventh Day Baptist Meeting House (fig. 18) are similar to those shown in figure 8. A furniture joiner like Christopher Townsend undoubtedly worked on the interior of the meeting house. The balusters on the gallery stair (fig. 19) have turnings that match those on a group of Newport gateleg tables from the 1720s and 1730. Oral tradition credits Newport master builder Richard Mundy, the “architect” of the Colony House with the design of the Seventh Day Baptist Meeting House and Trinity Church.10 The earliest reference to Christopher’s working in the furniture-making trades is his purchase of hardware, nails, and other materials in 1732. On February 4, 1738, Christopher wrote Newport merchant Abraham Redwood:
Christopher had several important patrons in addition to Redwood. In 1742, he sold Newport merchant Isaac Stelle a desk-and-bookcase for £65. Christopher may also have worked for Samuel Ward, who served as Governor of Rhode Island twice during the 1760s. The high chest illustrated in figure 20 descended in his family, and Ward is known to have purchased at least eight pieces of furniture from Job Townsend.11 The dressing table illustrated in figure 21 is the earliest piece of furniture that can be associated with Job. It is thought to be the one valued at £13.10 in his 1746 bill to Quaker merchant Samuel Ward: Bot of Job Townsend
The slipper feet and cyma reversa curves of the front rail are repeated, with minor variation, on Long Island high chests and dressing tables made during the late 1720s and 1730s. With a history of descent in the Cox family of Oyster Bay, the high chest shown in figure 22 is one of the earliest New York examples. Its bold ogee cornice, pulvinated frieze, and broad waist molding have parallels in baroque case furniture made in New York City, Flushing, and Oyster Bay. At least five high chests and two dressing tables appear to be from the same shop as the Cox example, the most elaborate of which have knees with carved strapwork and thick line inlay on the drawer fronts (fig. 23). One high chest reputedly belonged to Oyster Bay merchant Samuel Townsend, who was a relative of Job and Christopher. Samuel married Sarah Stoddard, whose father William was a cabinetmaker. William probably moved from Rhode Island to Oyster Bay during the mid-1720s.12 Like many Rhode Island Quakers, Job and Christopher Townsend maintained ties with family members and business associates in New York City and Long Island. Christopher attended the New York Men’s Monthly Meeting at least twice during the early 1740s and consigned furniture to Quaker cabinetmaker Joshua Delaplaine in 1744. In exchange, Delaplaine shipped Townsend flour, bread, butter, and milk. Delaplaine had been selling foodstuffs to Quaker merchants in Newport since the early 1730s. One of his patrons, Samuel Holmes, was an acquaintance of Christopher Townsend. Like the case pieces mentioned above, these commercial and familial connections strongly suggest that Quaker communities functioned as conduits for the movement of people, ideas, and styles during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.13 Although the high chests and dressing tables attributed to Christopher and Job Townsend share details with early New York examples, their construction is entirely different. The New York pieces have cabriole legs that are joined to the back, sides, and front rails with mortise-and-tenon joints (see figs. 22, 23), whereas the Newport ones have dovetailed cases and legs that are attached to the inside corners with glue and glue blocks (see figs. 24, 25, 30). The dovetails on the front corners of Newport high chests and dressing tables are typically concealed by thick, vertical strips of veneer. Considering the fact that Christopher and Job apprenticed during the 1710s and early 1720s, it is logical to assume that some of their construction techniques developed from earlier practices. Baroque high chests and dressing tables almost invariably have dovetailed cases and turned legs that are tenoned into blocks glued (or glued and nailed) to the inside corners. Further research may reveal Irish antecedents for these distinctive Newport construction features. An unusual dressing table from the Rappahannock River Basin of eastern Virginia has a dovetailed case and angular cabriole legs that are attached with glue and glue blocks like those on most Newport high chests and dressing tables (figs. 26, 27). As furniture historian Ronald L. Hurst has observed, Irish influences account for many of the stylistic and structural features found on mid–eighteenth-century tables and chairs from Virginia’s Northern Neck.14 Scholars have long contended that Newport cabinetmakers used glued-on legs to facilitate transport, but evidence suggests otherwise. If cases and legs were shipped disassembled, why do none of the examples with southern histories have glue blocks made of indigenous woods such as yellow pine or cypress? A more logical explanation for the persistence of this structure and its use by virtually every cabinetmaker in colonial Newport is that it saved time and materials. A tradesman could cut and fit the dovetails for the lower case of a high chest or the carcass of a dressing table (see fig. 24) faster than chopping and fitting the fourteen or more mortise-and-tenon joints required to construct a comparable form. Because the cabriole legs of Newport case pieces have much shorter stiles than those attached with mortise-and-tenon joints, they required less wood. A Newport cabinetmaker could conceivably produce five legs with the same amount of stock required to make four legs using mortise-and-tenon joinery. Evidence also indicates that Newport cabinetmakers and carvers produced legs as piecework and sold them to other tradesmen in town. In 1759, William Barker charged fellow cabinetmaker Benjamin Hunt £1.5 for “1 set legs” and on numerous occasions in 1774 Joseph Martin paid £1.2 for sets of legs. With four saw cuts, virtually any Newport leg could be adapted to fit a given case.15 The patterns and construction techniques used by Christopher Townsend differed slightly from those of his brother. The high chest illustrated in figure 28 is the earliest documented example of his work. Its delicate slipper feet, angular cabriole legs, and lower case construction (fig. 29) are similar to those of the Ward family dressing table, but the skirt has cyma curves interrupted with fillets and arches rather than a carved shell. Judging from the Ward dressing table and the high chests illustrated in figures 20 and 28, Christopher Townsend’s construction was superior to that of his brother. His dovetailing tends to be more precise, and the interior surfaces of his stock are better finished. The high chest shown in figure 20 and a slipper-foot dressing table (in the Metropolitan Museum of Art) display additional features that occasionally occur on work attributed to Christopher’s shop. On both examples, the rear legs are glued into shallow rabbets planed in the backboard (see fig. 30). These rabbets increased the glue surface and made the joints stronger. From the standpoint of form, the high chest illustrated in figure 20 is the most elaborate example attributed to Christopher Townsend and the only Newport piece with stepped shelves for displaying valuables. The shelves are made in three sections and attached to the upper case with glue blocks and nails driven through the scalloped backboard into the upper edge of the top. Typical of Christopher Townsend’s work, the front corners of the shelves have finely cut dovetails that are smaller versions of those on the case drawers. Although “china shelves” are rare in New England furniture, the feet of the high chest (fig. 31) are equally noteworthy features. With their ovoid balls and competently carved toes, these feet are much less mannered than those of other Newport tradesmen. The toes are also more “professional” in being finished with gouges and chisels rather than with abrasives as was most Newport carving. The dining table illustrated in figure 32 and a high chest discussed in Michael Moses’ Master Craftsmen of Newport are the only other Rhode Island objects with related feet. All of these feet have flattened ovoid balls and no webbing between the toes (see fig. 31). The toes of the dining table have larger knuckles and shorter claws than those on the high chest; however, the feet on these pieces have more in common with each other than with other Newport work. Other features of the dining table have parallels in furniture documented and attributed to Christopher Townsend and his son John (1732/33–1809). The frame has tightly interlocking dovetails cut at approximately the same angle as those on the high chest, three cross-braces dovetailed to the upper edge, and two cross-braces dovetailed and nailed to the bottom edge. Separating the work of these two tradesmen is extremely difficult because John Townsend trained with his father. Many pieces attributed to him may be by Christopher, who worked for nearly sixty years and amassed an estate greater than any other cabinetmaker in his extended family.16 The pinnacle of Christopher Townsend’s known work is a desk-and-bookcase (fig. 33) that reputedly belonged to Reverend Nathaniel Appleton (1693–1784) and his wife Margaret (Gibbs) (1699–1771). Appleton graduated from Harvard College and served as minister of the First Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from 1717 until his death in 1784. Three of his children also attended Harvard, including his son Nathaniel (junior) (1731–1798) who reputedly inherited the desk-and-bookcase. The piece subsequently passed to the younger Nathaniel’s son John (1758–1829), to his son John-James (1792–1864), to his son Charles-Louis (1846–1935), to his son Henri.17 Although the façade of the desk section is relatively plain, it is fitted with ornate silver pulls, escutcheon plates, and bird-shaped mounts (fig. 34) by Samuel Casey (ca. 1724–1779). Casey apprenticed with Boston silversmith Jacob Hurd and established his own shop in Exeter, Rhode Island, by 1745. Five years later he moved to Kingston, about seventeen miles west of Newport across the Naragansett Bay. Casey evidently cast the bird-shaped mounts from patterns carved by Christopher Townsend or one of his associates. Two Newport desks have fallboard supports with similarly carved wooden birds, and another has cast brass mounts of the same basic pattern. The silver mounts on the desk-and-bookcase differ from the brass ones primarily in having inlaid agate eyes.18 The interior of the desk section features a central prospect compartment with a shell-carved door flanked by blocked drawers surmounted by pigeonholes with turned and carved valances and tiers of three drawers. The two lower drawers in each tier are blocked and the upper ones have carved shells. This interior design is very similar to that of a desk-and-bookcase made by Job Townsend (fig. 35) and another example attributed to Christopher (fig. 36). As Christopher’s letter to Abraham Redwood suggests, he and Job were familiar with each other’s designs, prices, and patrons. They may have collaborated on important projects and farmed out work to each other and to other family members.19 The upper section of the desk-and-bookcase has only one parallel in Newport furniture (see fig. 36). It features an enclosed domed pediment, which may have been inspired by imported British examples, and doors with complex panel moldings and shells carved in relief. In typical Newport fashion, the lobes of the shells were originally finished with an abrasive. Although the cornice molding is an enlarged version of that on the high chests documented and attributed to Christopher Townsend, its attachment is different. The pieces on the sides of the bookcase are rabbeted in addition to being glued and nailed (fig. 37). The molded plaques on the tympanum of the desk-and-bookcase are one of the most conventional features. The finials also relate to Newport work, but they are more attenuated than those on other regional case forms (fig. 38).20 The interior of the bookcase is fitted with shelves, pigeonholes with elaborately shaped dividers, blocked drawers, and a prospect compartment flanked by document drawers with Doric column appliqués. The document drawers are unusual in having sides that are glued as opposed to being nailed or dovetailed. Like some of his contemporaries, Christopher Townsend often used nothing more than glue to secure drawer components, moldings, and other elements. The small drawers of the desk-and-bookcase, for example, have bottom boards that are glued into rabbets in the front, sides, and back (fig. 39).21 The stock preparation, dovetailing, and blocking on the desk-and-bookcase are meticulous, but other aspects of its construction are relatively coarse by contemporary urban standards. Like the upper cases of the high chests illustrated in figures 20 and 28, the desk section has drawer blades with exposed dovetails and drawer supports that are nailed to the sides of the case. Nailed supports prevent the sides from expanding and contracting with seasonal changes in temperature and humidity. As a result, they can force the drawer blades and backboards out of their joints and cause the sides to split. Nailed supports are, however, faster and cheaper to install than dustboards. As furniture historian Wallace Gusler has noted, styles and construction techniques were profoundly influenced by the “economic and commercial conditions prevailing at the time and place . . . [of manufacture] as well as by the professional and ethnic background of the maker.” From the outset, cabinetmakers like Christopher and Job Townsend understood the potential of the middle-class market in Rhode Island and abroad. They had witnessed the success of Boston artisans, merchants, and entrepreneurs who shipped vast quantities of furniture to nearly every colonial port. To compete for a segment of this market, Newport tradesmen had to develop construction methods that saved time and materials and form partnerships with other tradesmen, ship captains, and merchants.22 Collaborative arrangements helped small shops increase production and cut costs. Job and Christopher Townsend’s extended family included at least twelve joiners. Artisans within this circle probably purchased materials together; sold each other lumber, prepared stock and piecework; and formed partnerships to produce and ship venture cargo. Job and Christopher, for example, purchased brasses, locks, screws, and nails from their brother Solomon, who also shipped furniture for them. Their brass purchases suggest that Christopher made at least two major case pieces each month, whereas Job made approximately four. The latter’s son Job Townsend, Jr., purchased mahogany and at least one set of maple legs from his brother-in-law John Goddard and helped his brother Edmund Townsend make a “Large Mahogany Desk” for Nicholas Anderese in 1767.23 A desk-and-bookcase formerly in the collection of Cornelius C. Moore (fig. 36) also appears to be from Christopher Townsend’s shop. Like the preceding example (fig. 33), it has a tall bookcase section with an enclosed ogee head and applied panels on the tympanum. The tympanum openings, panel shapes, and cornice moldings differ, however. On the Moore piece, the tympanum and panel arcs are larger and the cornice molding has a bold cyma reversa element rather than a cove. The desk sections differ primarily in the width of the drawers on either side of the prospect door and the number of pigeonhole brackets above them. Not surprisingly, the Moore desk, which has one less pigeonhole, is slightly narrower than Appleton’s.24 An imported case piece may have inspired the design of the Moore and Appleton desk-and-bookcases. Domed pediments were popular on British desk-and-bookcases, chest-on-chests, and tall clock cases from the late 1600s to the 1720s. Architectural books represent another possible source for Townsend’s designs. Prototypes for his domed pediments can be found in numerous volumes including William Salmon’s Palladio Londonensis (1734), James Gibb’s Book of Architecture (1728), and Batty Langley’s The City and Country Builder’s and Workman’s Treasury of Designs (1740). Although external styles clearly influenced Rhode Island furniture, evidence suggests that Newport cabinetmakers intentionally developed forms that were very different from those made in Boston, New York, and Britain. In effect, they created a “brand name,” a style recognizable both to local consumers and those in distant ports. In The London Tradesman (1747), Robert Campbell observed: “He who first hits upon any New Whim is sure to make by the Invention before it becomes common in the Trade; but he that must always wait for a new Fashion till it comes from Paris, or is hit upon by his neighbor, is never likely to grow rich or eminent in his Way.” The “new whim” that contributed to the success of Newport artisans was not really new at all. Instead, it involved the distillation, modification, and, often, exaggeration of stylistic details from Boston, New York, Britain, continental Europe, and the Orient. During the late 1730s, Newport cabinetmakers began codifying these details, and by 1750 they had refined them to the point that stylistic changes from shop to shop remained almost imperceptible for the next half century.25 Two factors reinforced this stylistic hegemony. Most Newport shops were connected either through marriage or trade associations. Christopher Townsend, for example, trained his sons Job, Edmund, Thomas, and John Townsend, who in turn passed their knowledge on to the next generation. Similarly, John Goddard apprenticed with Job Townsend, married his daughter Hannah, and trained three of their sons. Because of the importance of the venture cargo trade, artisans within these family networks appear to have focused their efforts on competing with Boston tradesmen and merchants rather than with each other. Newport’s large Quaker population also had a profound influence on local styles. Like Pennsylvania Quaker William Penn, some members of the sect endeavored to “avoid the vain arts and inventions of a luxurious world.” Newport cabinetmakers and their patrons typically eschewed such superficial forms of decoration as gilding and veneer in favor of solid figured woods and restrained carving. The high chest illustrated in figure 40 is the only veneered case piece attributed to an eighteenth-century Newport shop. Its drawer construction, cornice molding, and skirt shape are consistent with work attributed to Job and Christopher Townsend, but the unusually thick leg stock and composite core of the lower case suggest that the maker was unaccustomed to producing veneered forms. By contrast, the structure of conventional Newport high chests varies little from piece to piece.26 The standardization of style and construction clearly occurred at all levels of production. The bureau tables shown in figures 41 and 42 probably date from the late 1740s or early 1750s and are the earliest Newport examples known. Their wood selection, case construction, dovetailing, and shell carving have close parallels in furniture attributed to Job Townsend and John Goddard. The concave shells (see fig. 43), for example, are similar to those on the waist doors of a circa 1755 tall clock case that furniture historian Michael Moses associates with Goddard and an earlier example (in the Winterthur Museum) with a movement by James Wady. Unlike most Newport bureau tables from the 1760–1780 period, which vary primarily in the number and detail of their carved shells, these examples have an experimental quality to their construction and design. The cyma-shaped drawers above the recesses on the early examples represent a departure from conventional Newport work. These drawers appear to have been inspired by those on Boston bureau tables, which were undoubtedly imported into Rhode Island during the second quarter of the eighteenth century.27 Later bureau tables attributed to John Townsend (see fig. 44) and his cousin Edmund (see fig. 45) demonstrate how Newport cabinetmakers “perfected a narrow range of designs and motifs” for this form. Both pieces are made of dense figured mahogany, and both have blocked façades, an upper drawer with a concave relief-carved shell flanked by two convex applied shells, a recess with a paneled door and a concave shell, cyma-and-fillet base moldings, and similar ogee feet. Aside from minor differences in construction and carving, these pieces are visually the same even though their makers trained in different shops. The same can be said about other case forms and tables produced by the Townsends and Goddards as well as by their non-Quaker contemporaries.28 In the venture cargo arena, Newport cabinetmakers were so successful that they had little need to develop new forms. John Goddard made the desk illustrated in figure 46 in 1745, shortly after he completed his apprenticeship with Job Townsend. Aside from its mahogany primary wood, it differs little from a circa 1765 desk (fig. 47) that descended in a family from Edenton, North Carolina—undoubtedly a relic of the coastal furniture trade. Most Newport cabinetmakers produced desks of this type. Christopher Townsend, the most successful of the town’s cabinetmakers, left his son John a one-third interest in all of the unfinished desks in his shop, except for one large mahogany example made by his son Jonathan. Maple desks like the one shown in figure 47 probably accounted for a much higher percentage of Christopher’s income than elaborate table and case forms.29 Although plain maple desks and simple pad-foot tables may be visually less appealing than the great shell-carved, blockfront case pieces and serpentine tables attributed to the Townsends and Goddards, they are, nevertheless, critical to understanding the origin and development of Newport furniture styles. Early cabinetmakers like Job and Christopher Townsend understood that mass-producing furniture for the middle-class market and export trade could be more profitable than commissioned work. Judging from the small body of furniture that can be documented and attributed to their shops, they developed many of the procedures for quickly and efficiently manufacturing furniture that are manifest in even the most costly Newport pieces. They also established much of the stylistic vocabulary that gave and continues to give the town’s furniture its “brand appeal.” Acknowledgments For assistance with this article, the author thanks Gavin Ashworth, Ralph Carpenter, Dean Failey, John Hays, Leigh Keno, Leslie Keno, Deanne Levison, Jack Lindsey, John Nye, Nancy Sazama, Robert Trent, Joan Youngkin, and the museums and collectors who shared their knowledge and objects. I am especially grateful to Joan Barzilay Freund for her research on Newport Quakers and to Jeanne Vibert Sloane and Margaretta M. Lovell for their insightful publications on the cabinetmaking business there. |