1. John Cadwalader Waste Book, box 8, General John Cadwalader section (hereafter cited GJCS), Cadwalader Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, p. 53. The payment to Peale was for “2 minature & 3 portrait Paintings in full.” For more on the sitters, see Nicholas B. Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur in Philadelphia: The House and Furniture of General John Cadwalader (Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1964), pp. 108–11, 114–15. Some scholars have argued that the chair in Lambert’s portrait is from a different set because it has plain stiles; however, evidence suggests otherwise. Peale’s portrait of the John Cadwalader family depicts one of the commode front tables owned by Cadwalader. The table and chair in the paintings show similar degrees of artistic license when compared with the actual objects. For more on these portraits, see ibid., pp. 108–11, 114–15. 2. All of Cadwalader’s commode-seat side chairs are numbered on the underside of the shoe. On the chair shown in figure 3, the number was made with a chisel using converging angled cuts. The chair illustrated in fig. 5 has the number 11 on the rear seat rail under the shoe. 3. Samuel W. Woodhouse, Jr., “Benjamin Randolph of Philadelphia,” Antiques 11, no. 5 (May 1927): 366–71; and Samuel W. Woodhouse, Jr., “More About Benjamin Randolph,” Antiques 17, no. 1 (January 1930): 21–25. For more recent studies of these chairs, see Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976), pp. 113–15; Philip D. Zimmerman, “A Methodological Study in the Identification of Some Important Philadelphia Chippendale Furniture,” in American Furniture and Its Makers, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby (Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the Winterthur Museum, 1978), pp. 193–208; and Mark J. Anderson, Gregory J. Landrey, and Philip D. Zimmerman, Cadwalader Study (Winterthur, Del.: Winterthur Museum), pp. 8–13. 4. Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 22. Wainwright notes that Cadwalader purchased a painted high-post bedstead, window cornices, and rods and hooks from Randolph in September 1769. Part of the £94.15 payment to Randolph may have been for this work (Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 38). 5. For more on the chairs with Randolph labels, see Philip D. Zimmerman, “Labeled Randolph Chairs Rediscovered,” in American Furniture, edited by Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 1998), pp. 81–99. Luke Beckerdite, “Philadelphia Carving Shops, Part III: Hercules Courtenay and His School,” Antiques 131, no. 5 (May 1987): 1052–63. Ringgold had business dealings with John Cadwalader (Thomas Ringgold and Co. to John Cadwalader, October 21, 1769–December 9, 1770, GJCS) and an account with Benjamin Randolph. Randolph’s account book contains a debit entry under Ringgold’s name “To Shop £23.6.6” (Pennsylvania-Philadelphia Account Book, 1768–1787, Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, New York Public Library, p. 144). For more on Courtenay’s apprenticeship, see Morrison H. Heckscher, American Furniture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art II, Late Colonial Period: The Queen Anne and Chippendale Styles (New York: Random House, 1985), p. 24. Courtenay signed the Non–Importation Agreement in 1765 (Philadelphia: Three Centuries, p. 111), the same year he began work in Randolph’s shop (Benjamin Randolph Receipt Book, 1763–1777, Winterthur Museum). Randolph made several payments on Courtenay’s account. The carver’s term probably expired by May 19, 1768, when he married Mary Shute (Philadelphia: Three Centuries, p. 111). Courtenay advertised independently in the August 7, 1769, issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. His bill for architectural carving in Cadwalader’s house is in Incoming Correspondence, Bills, and Receipts, 1770, box 2, folder 17, GJCS and is reproduced in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 12. 6. Pennsylvania-Philadelphia Account Book, 1768–1787, passim. For more on the styles of other major Philadelphia carvers, see Luke Beckerdite, “Philadelphia Carving Shops, Part I: James Reynolds,” Antiques 125, no. 5 (May 1985): 1120-33; Luke Beckerdite, “Philadelphia Carving Shops, Part II: Bernard and Jugiez,” Antiques 128, no. 3 (September 1985): 498-513; and Luke Beckerdite, “Philadelphia Carving Shops, Part III: Hercules Courtenay and His School,” pp. 1044–63. Plates 1–5 in Matthias Lock’s The Principles of Ornament, or the Youth’s Guide to Drawing of Foliage (1769), illustrate the principle of placing more complex designs closer to the eye. Similarly, Thomas Sheraton’s Cabinet Dictionary (1803), states: Figures, foliage, and flowers are the three great subjects of carving; which, in the finishing, require a strength of delicacy suited to the height or distance of the object from the eye. . . . It requires some command of the mind, for the carver to work so close as to suit considerable height or distance; in which case, his eye, in working at so short a distance, must not govern him . . . but his judgement must take the lead, and constantly suggest to him the folly of finishing, in a tender manner, those flowers, and foliage . . . which are only to be viewed at a distance. In architectural carving, apprentices and less experienced journeymen often worked on cornice moldings, brackets, and flowers, whereas master carvers and more accomplished journeymen focused their attention on chimneypiece appliqués and other prominent components. A ceremonial chair in St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia has an elaborately carved back with acanthus leaves that are very similar to those on the backs of the Cadwalader commode-seat chairs. The carved details on the ceremonial chair are more carefully rendered, like those from the Ringgold and Stamper-Blackwell parlors. 7. Cadwalader Waste Book, p. 63. Morrison H. Heckscher, “English Furniture Pattern Books in Eighteenth-Century America,” in American Furniture, edited by Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 1974), p. 185. The author thanks Charles Hummel for the information on Randolph’s venture. 8. This estimate of Elizabeth Lloyd’s wealth does not include her land on Maryland’s eastern shore, seventy-eight slaves, one hundred horses, and livestock (Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 3). In 1774, John Adams wrote, “we visited a Mr. Cadwallader a Gentleman of large Fortune, a grand and elegant House and Furniture.” Ibid., pp. 11, 13, 19–20, 33, 104. Thomas Nevell worked on several important Philadelphia buildings, including Captain John McPherson’s house, Mount Pleasant, in Fairmount Park (Thomas Nevell Account Book, Rare Book Collection, University of Pennsylvania). For more on these carvers and their work for Cadwalader, see Beckerdite, “Bernard and Jugiez,” 502–5; and Beckerdite, “Hercules Courtenay,” p. 1051. The bills for all of these carvers are either reproduced or transcribed (Randolph) in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur. 9. Thomas Affleck to John Cadwalader, April 18, 1771, box 2, folder 18, GJCS. Affleck’s bill requested payment for eighteen pieces of furniture, two knife trays, bed and window cornices, and services from October 13, 1770, to January 14, 1771. Notations at the bottom of the bill indicate that Affleck subcontracted the carving on these pieces to James Reynolds and the shop of Bernard and Jugiez. Affleck’s bill, which totaled £119.8, is reproduced in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, p. 44. Bernard and Jugiez’s receipted bill, dated February 13, 1771, is in box 2, folder 18, GJCS. Reynolds’s receipted bill, dated June 29, 1771, is in box 2, folder 20, GJCS. The bills from both carving firms are reproduced in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 29, 46. 10. The bills from Fleeson, Webster, and Rushton & Beachcroft (the London company that provided the silk fabrics, fringe, and tape) are reproduced in Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40–41, 59, 61. For more on the wall colors and carpets in Cadwalader’s house, see ibid., passim. Cadwalader owned a second suite of furniture with hairy paw feet and straight rails. Examples are in the Winterthur Museum, Stratford Hall, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The chairs and matching card tables in the second suite may have sat in the small front parlor, which had green walls. Assuming that there were twelve chairs in this suite and twenty commode-seat chairs, that would account for the thirty-two that Fleeson covered over the rail. Although chair “bottoms” could be interpreted as slipseats, this term probably referred to slipcovers. The use of two terms in the inventory may result from its having been taken by John Cadwalader’s sister Rebecca and his brother-in-law Samuel Meredeth. Three copies of the inventory survive, and they vary slightly. The 1786 inventory also lists one mahogany dining table, one marble slab [table], and one card table in the “small front parlor”; one marble slab [table], one card table, and ten mahogany chairs, in the “back parlor”; one large settee, one small settee, one card table, ten mahogany chairs in the “front parlor”; one small settee in the “entry” on the second floor; six mahogany chairs with chintz “furniture” in the “back chamber” on the second floor; six mahogany “carpet bottom” chairs in the “front chamber” on the second floor; two old chairs and six mahogany chairs in the “front room” on the third floor; and two green covers for card tables, one large easy chair, and ten old mahogany chairs “many broke” in the “front garrett” on the third floor (ibid., p. 73). 11. Although Fleeson’s name is used in conjunction with the upholstery on the commode-seat chairs, journeymen probably did much if not all of the work. Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 40–41 12. Ibid., pp. 40–41. Colonial Williamsburg conservator Mark Kutney performed the finish microscopy. 13. The side chair illustrated in fig. 3 may have left the Cadwalader family as early as the 1780s. Recent research by Jennifer Olshin suggests that the chair passed from the Cadwalader family to David Lewis (1766–1840), who lived on “Second Street north of Spruce” (Christie’s, Important American Furniture, Folk Art and Chinese Porcelain, October 14, 1999, lot no. 174, p. 89). Lewis may have purchased the chair from Cadwalader’s second wife, Willimina, or from one of John’s children. (For more on Willimina and the Cadwalader children, see Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 72–77.) If this history is correct, it supports the theory that the slipcovers were originally tied off at the rear stiles and that the holes in the rails are additions. Screws have been inserted in some of the holes, possibly to attach a deck for spring upholstery. A circa 1720 armchair attributed to James Moore has seat covers tied off in a similar manner (Geoffrey Beard, Upholsterers and Interior Furnishings in England [New Haven: Yale University Press for the Bard Graduate Center, 1997], p. 176, fig. 151-4). 14. Wainwright, Colonial Grandeur, pp. 61–67. 15. Ibid., pp. 68–77. 16. Ibid., pp. 72–73.