Connecticut Needlework: Women, Art, and Family, 1740–1840
240
Connecticut Needlework: Women, Art, and Family, 1740–1840
240eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780819571267 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Wesleyan University Press |
| Publication date: | 01/01/2012 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 240 |
| File size: | 13 MB |
| Note: | This product may take a few minutes to download. |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Explanation of Cataloging Terms
Because the catalog entry headers include information essential to situating each needlework in time and place, it is useful to articulate the analytical criteria and decisions that underlie each category of information.
Titles combine personal and object names. Inclusion of the maker's name serves largely as a mnemonic device, individualizing each creation and avoiding the cold anonymity of object nomenclature (bedcover, sampler, family register, and so forth). The personal name used in the title is that inscribed on the object (in the case of samplers and other signed works), or ascribed on the basis of estimated age or marital status at the time of production; in most cases, this name is the maker's birth name.
For object names, I have attempted to impose an analytical rigor on usage that has often lacked precision. The term sampler is particularly problematic, all too often applied to virtually any two-dimensional piece of antique needlework. The technical definition of a sampler is rooted in the Latin word exemplar; as described by Glee Krueger: "The sampler began [in the sixteenth century] as a reference for creating embroidery — a source for designs and patterns. It bore the same relationship to the completed embroidery as did the sketch to the painting." The sampler's original function of teaching or recording stitches has apparently limited relevance to Connecticut samplers, which do not appear as a recognizable genre until the end of the colonial period. Ironically, the vast majority of needleworks that modern observers recognize as American samplers display a quite limited range of stitches; many are worked predominantly or even exclusively in cross stitches. It thus seems more accurate to regard these works as demonstration or recital pieces, formulaic performances serving to display the maker's refinement.
In this project, I have applied the term sampler to two-dimensional embroideries distinguished by two features: first, the inclusion of alphabets or other lettering as a major component; and second, the use of stitches oriented to the grid of the underlying ground fabric (primarily cross stitches, sometimes tent stitches). Additional components found in various combinations in Connecticut samplers include numbers, verses, maker's signatures, horizontal line dividers, and perimeter borders. The more elaborate examples have pictorial elements, which may be scattered, arrayed in lines, or arranged into a representational composition. Numerous samplers incorporate elements of other needlework forms, most notably family registers and memorial pictures; for analytical purposes, I have distinguished these hybrid forms by compound names. Thus, the term "family register" designates two-dimensional embroideries that record marriage, birth, and death dates for family members; if the work includes an alphabet, it is classified as a hybrid "family register sampler." Similarly, if a family register includes a tomb or other funerary device, it is classified as a "family register memorial"; if an alphabet appears as well, it becomes a "family register memorial sampler." When applied to a large body of evidence, this seeming hairsplitting appears to be analytically useful, allowing us to discern trends that would not otherwise be evident.
Dates are stated as precisely as available evidence allows. Dates explicitly inscribed on an embroidery or original mat are labeled as "dated —". Dates that can be firmly ascertained on the basis of either integral or external evidence are given with no modifier. If a girl's birth date and age is known, her sampler can be dated within a two-year bracket: thus, Betsey Benton, born in September 1788, made her sampler in her eleventh year, that is, sometime between her tenth and eleventh birthdays; her sampler date is therefore given simply as 1798–1799 (fig. 32.1). Dates ascribed on the basis of less certain evidence, such as style features or assumptions about a girl's age, are preceded by "circa" (abbreviated as "ca."). The period practice of dual dating has been modernized to conform to a calendar year beginning on 1 January (thus, 15 February 1745/1746 is given as 15 February 1746).
Makers are identified by full birth and married name (or names), plus life dates (to the extent known), in order to distinguish between multiple women (often related) with the same birth name. Modifiers signal varying levels of certainty. "Made by" denotes authorship that is internally documented, as by a sampler signature that includes name and birth date and so can be linked firmly to a specific individual. "Attributed to" is used for pieces that have no internal documentation, but for which external evidence provides a nearly equivalent level of certainty. Prudence Punderson Rossiter's Mortality picture is categorized as "made by" because it bears her signature; her Apostle pictures are unsigned and thus "attributed to" her (cats. 24, 26). "Probably" and "possibly made by" denote decreasing levels of supporting evidence. Given the repetition of names within families, even inscribed, provenanced pieces cannot always be definitively attributed.
Places of origin are generally the maker's residence. If a piece is attributed to a particular school or teacher, the place of instruction is given first, followed by the maker's residence. Modifiers for instructional attributions parallel those for makers. If a school or teacher is named on the piece itself, the label is "instructed at" or "instructed by". If a school or teacher is identified on the basis of external evidence — either textual documentation or similarities to documented works — the strength of evidence determines whether instruction is labeled as "attributed," "probable," or "possible." Sorting out works produced at specific schools proves quite complex, given that some girls attended multiple schools in order to learn different techniques; others offered their own classes, disseminating and varying what they themselves had been taught; and many taught for short periods before marrying and retiring. The evidence for attributed schools and makers, as well as ascribed dates, is presented in the entry narratives, enabling readers to assess the validity of my conclusions. All place names given in the entries are in Connecticut, unless otherwise stated.
Understanding regional geography and the historical, demographic, and economic relations between different towns is essential to understanding patterns in needlework production and the transmission of designs and skills. Unfortunately, identification of geographic origins is complicated by the process of town formation in Connecticut. As the population of the older towns grew, outlying areas formed new towns, often combining with the outlying areas of neighboring towns; in some areas, this process was repeated multiple times (maps 1 and 2 show Connecticut towns in the 1760s and 1830s, respectively). A property located in colonial Norwich, for example, could be part of today's Bozrah, Franklin, Griswold, Lisbon, Preston, Sprague, or Montville; conversely, a property located in today's Naugatuck could originally have been part of Bethany, Oxford, or Waterbury. Moreover, since many early towns encompassed very large areas, tracing works to the same town does not necessarily mean that makers lived close together.
Materials and techniques include stitching fibers and stitches as well as ground fabric fiber, color, and weave structure. Some pieces incorporate nontextile components, including ink outlines, applied paint (as on faces, hands, and skies), sequins (called "spangles" in the eighteenth century), and even flakes of glittering mica. Original mounts, glass, and frames are noted when they survive. Identification of fibers, weaves, and stitches has been made principally by eye, with the aid of low-power magnification. No attempt has been made to conduct systematic microscopic examination of fibers or ply directions or to analyze the composition of paints or other nontextile materials; thread counts are included only if they are germane to specific interpretive points.
The entries follow conventional practice in listing stitches found in each piece. Drawings and photographs of stitches are readily available on the Internet, as well as in a wide variety of published studies and embroidery how-to books. These stitch lists seem likely to be more useful for contemporary embroidery design than historical analysis. Over time, different names have been applied to the same stitches, so that examinations performed by different observers at different times frequently arrive at variant lists for the same pieces. It is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to be certain of the stitch used, especially if the back of the needlework is inaccessible due to linings, mounts, or framing. Many of the silk-embroidered pictures in the CHS collection appear to have extensive satin stitching, which results in the back being as solidly covered as the front. When these pieces were removed from their frames, examination of the backs revealed that the areas in question were actually worked with either whipstitches (outline stitches, stretched out on the right side and worked in close, parallel rows [cat. 10]) or flat stitches, which produce small parallel stitches at the edges of the filled area (cat. 53).
Names alone do not convey the myriad ways in which each stitch can be varied — by the fibers used; the proportions of different stitches; the ratio of thread on the front and reverse surfaces; the length, orientation, and density of stitches; the precision of stitching. More important than simply naming stitches in individual pieces is determining, through comparative examination of numerous pieces, which characteristics appear to have diagnostic value in relating pieces to each other. Significant index features are design or construction elements shared by a cluster of pieces, while singular features distinguish an individual object from others. The use of simple darning stitches to make decorative filling patterns, for example, appears to be a significant index feature linking a number of works from southeastern Connecticut — worked in small scale on crewel-embroidered bedcovers and curtains (cat. 13) and in larger scale in coarser wool yarns on bed rugs (cats. 27, 29).
Much has been written about New England embroiderers' thrifty use of a self-couching stitch to achieve the effect of a solidly worked satin stitch without "wasting" yarn on the reverse. (This stitch is more commonly known as Roumanian couching, oriental, economy, or New England laid stitch. It echoes the satin stitch on the front, but every other stitch crosses over the previous stitch, producing a ridged appearance on the front and leaving bands of small parallel stitches on the back.) CHS crewel embroideries echo previous findings on the rarity of satin stitch (see cat. 20 for an exception); however, the flat stitch is used much more frequently than self-couching. (The flat stitch looks similar to the self-couching stitch on the back, but the yarns on the front lie parallel to each other, without crossing over; it consequently has a smoother appearance on the front.)
Dimensions are given as height by width, in inches, of the finished area of the ground fabric, except as noted in parenthesis.
Signatures are transcribed verbatim from samplers and other signed pieces, on the theory that particular wordings or spellings (like idiosyncratic letter formations or stitching patterns) may aid in identifying clusters of related works. However, for ease of reading, verses and other text quoted in narratives and captions have been edited as necessary to conform to standard spellings and punctuation.
1. Elizabeth Gore's Cushion Cover
ca. 1637–1643
Probably made by Elizabeth Gore Gager (ca. 1627 to after 1704)
Probably made in London; maker's subsequent residences in Boston, Massachusetts, and New London and Norwich, Connecticut
Metallic and silk thread stitched on linen canvas; ink; stitches: tent, Gobelin, chain, ladder, woven circles
4 3/4 × 5 1/2 in. (inside frame)
Gift of Louise Harvey Guion and Elizabeth Kingsley Harvey, 2003.8.1–2
Boldly drawn flowers, grapes, peapods, and birds fill the space of this small panel, creating a delightful illusion of peeping in at a secret, walled garden, a miniature version of the floral bed hangings or large pastoral pictures worked by professional and amateur embroiderers in seventeenth-century England. Pictures this small are rarely seen so early, however, and the size and shape suggest that the panel likely began life as a cushion cover, a luxury gift used as decoration in well-to-do homes. The stitching is well executed on fine canvas (40 warp by 34 weft threads per inch), with tent stitches forming the flowers, leaves, and birds, against a background of solidly worked Gobelin stitches. These relatively simple slanted stitches contrast vividly with the thick flower stems, which were created with a complex raised ladder stitch that required considerable expertise (either advanced amateur or professional work).
For seventeenth-century viewers, images of nature offered not only visual delight but also rich symbolic associations and concrete testimony to the goodness of God's creation. Designs for similar flowers, fruits, and birds appear in London pattern books, such as Richard Shorleyker's A Schole-house for the Needle (1624) or James Boler's The Needle's Excellency (1631). Amateur needleworkers could use these patterns to create their own designs, or they could purchase fabric with designs outlined in ink by professional pattern drawers, who were often print sellers or members of the all-male Embroiderers' Guild. The overall composition and individual motifs on this piece (especially the stiff-tailed bird at center left) closely resemble those on a small purse at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 1.1), suggesting a common source, either a pattern book, professional pattern drawer, or possibly a schoolteacher.
According to an eighteenth-century inscription on the backboard, the panel was "wrought by Elizabeth Gore in England." The daughter of a London grocer, Elizabeth could have attended one of several girls' schools popular with London's merchant classes. Both she and her husband, John Gager (1625–1704), were members of Massachusetts Governor John Winthrop's extended family, placing them in the inner circle of New England's founders. The Gagers' migration to New London, prior to 1649, makes this panel the earliest piece of needlework that can be firmly placed in Connecticut. Its glittering gold and silver threads belie the somber austerity popularly associated with New England's early Puritans, as well as the harsh conditions in frontier settlements at the very fringe of the English realm.
Ownership of Elizabeth's cushion cover can be traced through nine generations of descendants, from her eldest daughter Bethial Gager Abell (1657–1723) to her seven-times-great-granddaughters. Some time before 1744, the panel was framed so that it could be hung on a wall. In the early twentieth century, a second frame was added, with glass on the back to reveal the inscriptions recording its status as a founding relic. One inscription documents an intriguing interruption in the family ownership: in the early 1740s it was sent to Martha Coit Hubbard (1706–1784), a New London lawyer's widow who had taken up shopkeeping to support her family (fig. 1.2). If Martha, like others in her situation, kept a school as well, then it is possible she borrowed the panel as a model for lessons. It returned to family hands after Martha's 1744 remarriage to Thomas Greene, a wealthy Boston merchant who had been one of her suppliers. This complex history testifies to the largely undocumented role of family lineages and kinship networks in the transfer and preservation of English needlework styles through several generations of colonial needleworkers, and also to one item's transformation from household decoration to family relic.
2. Lord-Pitkin-Wells Family Stomacher
ca. 1720–1740
Possibly made by Mary Lord Pitkin (1702–1740)
Hartford, Connecticut (now East Hartford)
Silk and metallic thread stitched on ribbed cream silk; metallic braid trim; undyed silk lining; stitches: satin, encroaching satin, outline, split, couching, straight, French knots 14 × 8 3/4 in.
1950.20.0
A continuous vine branches and swirls delicately to fill the triangular space of this stomacher, an essential women's accessory of the early to mid-eighteenth century. Stomachers filled the center space between the front bodice edges of stylish open robe gowns. They were held in place by tabs pinned to the bodice edges — one period straight pin remains in the lining of this example, a sharp reminder of the perils of fashion! The stomacher's pointed V-shape gave the illusion of a long torso and narrow waist; its stiffness (created by reeds or similar inserts) encouraged a genteel, upright posture, making it necessary for the wearer to bend at the hips, rather than the waist. Because stomachers were small and often highly decorative, they survive in much greater numbers than the dresses they originally accompanied.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Connecticut Needlework"
by .
Copyright © 2010 The Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut.
Excerpted by permission of Wesleyan University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
<P>Director's Foreword<BR>Acknowledgments<BR>Introduction: The Needle Arts in Connecticut<BR>Appendix: The Stoddard-Williams-Edwards Tradition<BR>Selections from the Connecticut Historical Society Collection<BR>Explanation of Cataloging Terms<BR>Notes<BR>Select Sources<BR>Illustration Credits<BR>Index</P>What People are Saying About This
"Connecticut Needlework is Susan Schoelwer's third remarkable book in scarcely a decade and a comprehensive catalog of inestimable value to collectors and curators. It is a seminal work of incredible depth that projects women's domestic art into the pantheon of invaluable cultural documents."
— Sumpter Priddy, author of American Fancy: Exuberance in the Arts 1790-1840
“This selection of needlework from the Connecticut Historical Society, enhanced by Susan Schoelwer's thorough scholarly analysis of materials, designs, imagery, and use, establishes needlework as an important part of the visual culture of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America. Whether worn, framed on the wall, or used as bed covers, needlework was seen by generations of families and friends. This is a model for further needlework studies.”