Full text of "Journal of early southern decorative arts [serial]"

See other formats

JOURNAL OF EARLY
SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997 VOLUME XXIII, NUMBER 2

THE MUSEUM OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

EDITORIAL BOARD

Henry Parrott Bacot, Loiihiaua State University Museum of An, Baton Rouge

John A. Burrison, Georgia State University, Atlanta

Colleen Callahan, Valentine Museum, Richmond, Virginia

Barbara Carson, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

Bernard D. Cotton, Buckinghamshire College, United Kingdom

Donald L. Fennimore, Jr., Winterthur Museum. Winterthttr, Delaware

Leland Ferguson, University of South Carolina, Columbia

Edward G. Hill, M.D., Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Ronald L. Hurst, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Willamsburg, Virginia

Theodore Landsmark, Presidoit, Boston Architectural Center, Boston, Massachusetts

Carl R. Lounsbury, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, WilLimsburg, Virginia

Susan H. Myers, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C

J. Garrison Stradling, New York, New York

Carolyn J. Weekley, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Center Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,

Willamsburg, Virginia

GENERAL EDITOR: Bradford L. Rauschenberg

MANAGING EDITOR: Cornelia B. Wright

MEMBERSHIP IN MESDA

Members of MESDA receive the Journal oj Early Southern Decorative Arts, published in summer and win-
ter, and the MESDA newsletter. The Luminary, published in spring and fall. Other privileges include notifi-
cation ol the classes, programs, and lectures offered by the Museum; participation in Membets' Weekend,
with a symposium on collecting and decorative atts tesearch; a io»n discount on purchases from the MESDA
Bookstore and Old Salem stores; and free admission to general tours of MESDA and Old Salem.

Membership categories begin at $30.00. Library subscriptions are $2s.oo (overseas members please add
$10.00 for postage). For further information about joining Members of MESDA and benefits of membership,
please write the Coordinator of Membership Services, MESDA, P.O. Box 10310, Winston-Salem, NC 27108.

Cover illustration: Sugar i/vsl. Lincoln County. Tennmir. iSl'i-lSno. Cherry: tulip popLir secomLiry HOA (,? V", Vi'OA tt'i'. DOA i6',u~.
.MRF S-iiMS

THE JOURNAL

OF EARLY SOUTHERN

DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997
VOLUME XXIII, NUMBER 2

The luurruil of Early Southern Decorative Arts \s published twice

,1 ywr h\ the Museum of Early Southern Decorative .'Vrrs (MESDA).

Ii presents research on decorative arts made in the South prior to 1820,

with an emphasis on object studies in a material cuhure context.

Potential contributors are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor
for guidelines concerning subject matter and manuscript preparation.

All correspondence concerning k\m: Journal should be sent to the

Managing V.^aot. Journal of Early Southern Decorative Am, MESDA.

P.O. Box 10310, Winston-Salem. NC 27108. Correspondence concerning

membership in MESDA. including renewals and address changes.

should be directed to the Coordinator ot Membership Services.

MESDA. P.O. Box 10310. Winston-Salem. NC 2-10S.

Articles from ihe Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts jlk abstracted
in the Bthlwgraphy of the Htstoiy of An and Amema: Htstoty ami Life.

The paper used for this publication meets the minimum American

National Standard for information Sciences — Permanence ot Paper tor

Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39. 48-11584.00''"'^' and contains 20"o

post-consumer fiber.

Some back issues ot the Journal are available.

ISSN 001)8-9266

Designed and npeset in Adobe Garamond by Kachergis Book Design,

Pittsboro. North Carolina

Printed in the L'nited Stales of .America

Contents

ANNE s. Mcpherson

"That Article of Household Furniture Peculiar to Earlier Days in the

South": Sugar Chests in Middle Tennessee and Central Kentucky,

1800-1835

Book Reviews

JOHN A. BURRISON

May We All Remonber Well: A Journal of the History and

Culture of Western North Carolina, Robert S. Brunk, ed. 66

WILLIAM B. ADAIR

Jacob Simon, The Art of the Picture Frame: Artists, Patrons

and the Framing of Portraits in Britain 69

I. Sugar chest, Davidson Count}', Tennessee, 1790— 1810. Cherry
with wahiut cockbeading; tulip poplar secondary, hoa 37%",

WOA 27'/2", DOA iSys". MRF S-H656.

"That Article of Household Furniture
Peculiar to Earlier Days in the South"

Sugar Chests in Middle Tennessee and
Central Kentucky, 1800-1835

ANNE S. MCPHERSON

DURING THE FIRST THIRD of the nineteenth ccntury,
the sugar chest (fig. i) became a relatively common piece of
fiirniture in parts of Tennessee and Kentucky among peo-
ple of the upper and upper-middle class. While regional preferences
may have given way to a national aesthetic in urban and coastal areas
in the early nineteenth century, they were slower to be supplanted in
areas less accessible to the national market. This study examines the
regional development of sugar chests and related forms, along with
the factors that brought about this development and that ultimately
caused these forms to become outmoded.'

SUGAR USE AND STORAGE

Sugar as a commodit}' held great symbolic importance for eigh-
teenth- and nineteenth-century Americans. Its high cost, relative
scarcity, and importance in dietary and entertainment customs re-
sulted in a perceived need to safeguard it. Among the elite in Middle
Tennessee and Central Kentucky, inaccessibilit)' to the market.

2. Bottle case, Roanoke River Basin, North Carolina,
1790-1810. Walnut; yellow pine secondary, hoa 40%"

WOA is'/s", DOA is'/s". MRF S-4434.

household size, anci wealth created a
unique set oi circumstances that gener-
ated both the need and the abilit)' to
purchase and consequently to store
large quantities of sugar during this pe-
riod. During the late eighteenth centu-
ry, artisans responded to the needs of
their patrons by developing a type ot
furniture to store a households supply
of sugar, the sugar chest. The most
common form outwardly resembles a
botde case or cellaret (fig. 2). However,
a bottle case was partitioned to hold
twelve to sixteen bottles, and a sugar
chest typically was divided into two or
three compartments tor storing differ-
ent t}'pes of sugar and coffee. Many
variations of the basic form exist, in-
cluding sugar desks, sugar cases, sugar
stands, sugar bureaus, sugar presses,
and sideboard sugar chests.

As sugar became more affordable
and more available on a regular basis,
the need for safeguarding and storing
large quantities of it declined, at least
in urban areas. While sugar chests and
related forms continued to be made
and used in some households through-
out the 1840S, by that time they had
ceased to be used in elite urban households.' Moreover, as the urban
elite became more conscious of prevailing styles in other parts of the
country and as their dining rooms grew increasingly specialized, the
sugar chest became an outmoded article of furniture.

While the need for a discrete form of furniture in which to store

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

large quantities oi sugar is difficult to understand today when sugar
is relatively inexpensive, plentiful, and already included in many
foodstufFs, sugar historically had been kept under lock and key.
When Middle Tennesseans and Central Kentuckians elected to store
their sugar in a locked case, they were responding to a tradition that
dates back to the Middle Ages when sugar was extremely rare and
expensive/ Indeed, its relative scarcity and value transformed it into
a symbol of power and wealth. Once sugar was introduced to Eu-
rope around looo a.d., its use spread slowly and gradually through
societ}', from royalty through the ranks of the nobility and eventual-
ly to the middle classes. By the end of the eighteenth century, hot
sweetened tea formed an important part of the daily caloric intake of
the English working class. Sugar not only sweetened both tea and
coffee, but was a fundamental ingredient of many foods served with
tea. Consumption of pastries and puddings became widespread, and
dessert became an expected course at lunch and dinner in the period
from 1750 to 1850. Sugar also was increasingly used as a preservative
for fruits.' As sugar usage spread to all classes of society, sugar be-
came less a symbol of power, although the abiliu- to purchase quan-
tities of sugar, particularly white sugar, conveyed a message of wealth
and a sense of status.'

Both the seasonal availability of sugar and the high prices it com-
manded contributed to the value that was placed on sugar in this
area of the southern Backcountry in the early nineteenth century.
Loaf sugar and brown sugar were expensive items in Middle Ten-
nessee in the early years of the nineteenth century. In 1811, white or
loaf sugar cost between 42 and 50 cents per pound and brown sugar
around 20 cents per pound at the Winchester and Cage General
Merchandise Store in Sumner County, Tennessee." Molasses and
maple sugar were potential alternative sweeteners. However, mo-
lasses had a strong taste and did not substitute well for sugar in cer-
tain foods and beverages." Maple sugar, called homemade or "Ken-
tucky sugar," sold for i2'/2 cents per pound at the Winchester and
Cage Store in 1811, but as the Frenchman Francois Andre Michaux

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

noted, "Only the poorer class of inhabitants [used] maple sugar."**
By 1824, the prices had dropped so that white sugar could be pur-
chased for around 35 cents per pound and brown sugar (depending
upon its quality) for between 11V2 and i4'/2 cents per pound. ' More-
over, these commodities were not always available in the first two
decades of the century. Sugar was shipped to Middle Tennessee from
New Orleans up the Mississippi River to the mouth of the Ohio
River, and from the Ohio River to the Cumberland River, which ran
through northern Middle Tennessee. Until the advent oi steamships,
the amount of time required to ship goods from Louisville, Ken-
tucky— located on the Ohio River — to New Orleans was about
twenty-eight days, while the return trip upriver required ninety
days.'" Because of the long transport time, the barges and keelboats
that plied this route made only one round trip per year. Boats laden
with tobacco and cotton t\'pically departed from Nashville in De-
cember and returned in May with goods from New Orleans." Sup-
plies that reached stores in Middle Tennessee in the late spring were
not replenished until the following year; consequently, a store's sup-
ply of sugar frequently was depleted by late summer. Steamships be-
gan to operate along the Mississippi River during the late 1810s, but
it was not until 1819 that the first steamship, the General Jacksoh ar-
rived in Nashville.'^ Steamships considerably lessened the travel
time; the trip downriver from Louisville to New Orleans took only
twelve days, and the trip upriver from New Orleans to Louisville
only thirty-six days "when their machinery [did] not meet with an
accident."" The shorter transport time not only resulted in a de-
crease in the price of sugar, but also permitted more than one round
trip to be made per year. Thus, by 1819, sugar shipments began to ar-
rive in Nashville in the fall of the year as well as the spring.

The irregular availability of sugar before the advent of steamboats,
in conjunction with a tendency during this era to buy supplies in
bulk, resulted in large-voliune purchases of sugar when it was avail-
able.'" Widow's allotments of the period provide evidence not only
of the importance of sugar but also of the quantities of brown sugar

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

and loaf sugar needed on a yearly basis. In 1822, the yearly provisions
awarded by the Davidson County (Tennessee) Court to the widow
Sarah Owen included 125 pounds of brown sugar, 30 pounds of cof-
fee, and 10 pounds of loaf sugar.''' Large plantation households like
those found in Central Kentucky and Middle Tennessee clearly re-
quired more sugar than smaller households with fewer or no slaves.
While the procedure for doling out rations to slaves varied, one for-
mer slave from Campbell County, Tennessee, who was interviewed
in the 1930s recounted that she had received provisions, including
brown sugar, on a weekly basis.'" Even if sugar was only distributed
to slaves on special occasions such as Christmas, the number of
slaves in a household increased the amount of sugar required to op-
erate it. The combination of geographic isolation, wealth, and large
plantation households thus created an environment where sugar was
purchased in large quantities. Its symbolic and monetary value creat-
ed the need for safe storage of the commodity among those who
could afford to purchase it in large quantities.

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR CHESTS

A brief article in a 1929 issue of The Magazine ANTIQUES de-
scribed the sugar chest as "that article of household furniture pecu-
liar to earlier days in the South."'" While sugar chests are not com-
mon to the entire South, they are occasionally found throughout a
significant portion of the southern Backcountry. Parts of Tennessee
and Kentucky form the concentrated area in which sugar chests were
made and used (see figure 3). The authors of The Art and Mystery of
Tennessee Furniture suggest imagining a large topographical oval ex-
tending from the Appalachian Mountains in the east, the northern
border of the Tennessee River in Alabama to the south, the Missis-
sippi River to the west, and the Ohio River to the north. They argue
that the primary area of sugar chest production falls within this
oval."* Even within this oval, however, there are areas in which few
sugar chests can be documented.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

3. Map of Kentucky and Tennessee. Engraved by Fenner Sears & Co., Lon-
don, c. 1840. Private collection.

In addition to Kentucky and Tennessee, sugar chests iiave been
attributed to North CaroHna, South CaroHna, Virginia, Georgia, Al-
abama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana." Since
little scholarly research in material culture has been conducted in
some ot these states, most attributions have been based upon where
sugar chests have been found in the twentieth century. However, the
areas of these states in which sugar chests were produced appear to
be those that border Tennessee and Kentucky. The lorm appears
to have first occurred in Middle Tennessee and Central Kentuckv at

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

the end of the eighteenth century and to have spread outward from
those areas.

The daybook ot John C. Burgner ot Waynesville, North Carolina,
records that his cabinet shop made one sugar chest in 1829 and two
in 1830.-" A small number of sugar chests with local histories have
been found in western North Carolina and in western piedmont
Virginia along the North Carolina border.-' The sugar chest illustrat-
ed in figure 4 has a history of ownership in piedmont Virginia, while
the sugar chest or case in figure 5 was probably made in piedmont
South Carolina. A few sugar chests have also been located in north-
ern Georgia. Figure 6 is catalogued as a cellaret in Furniture of the
Georgia Piedmont Before 18^0, but its internal partitioning into one

4. Sugar chest, piedmont Virginia,
1810-1825. Walnut; tulip poplar
and yellow pine secondary, hoa

32'/4", WOA 28%", DOA I7'4". MRF
S-2I5O4.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

5- Sugar chest or case, piedmont South Carohna,
1800-1820. Walnut; yellow pine secondary, hoa 35'/8",
woA 19V8", DOA 14". Collection of the Charleston Muse-
um, Ace. HF jig.

large and two small compartments follows
the plan of a sugar chest rather than that of
a bottle case." Neat Pieces: The Plain Style
Furniture of Nineteenth Century Georgia
notes the relatively rare occurrence of sugar
chests in Georgia.-'

Sugar chests appear to have been rela-
tively common in northern Alabama. The
cabinetmaker James R. Patterson moved
from Nashville to Limestone County, Al-
abama, sometime after 1820. The invento-
ry taken of his estate in 1826 listed one fin-
ished and four unfinished sugar chests."' In
the course of fieldwork conducted by the
Birmingham Museum of Art, eleven sugar
chests were recorded, most with histories
in Lawrence, Limestone, and Madison
counties, all located along the Tennessee
River.-' At least two sugar chests have been
attributed to Natchez, Mississippi, based
upon local history of the pieces.-" The
presence of sugar chests in Alabama and
Mississippi may be explained in part by the
absentee ownership of plantations in
northern Alabama and Mississippi by Mid-
dle Tennesseans as well as out-migration
from Middle Tennessee to Alabama and
Mississippi.-" Indeed, northern Alabama
was settled principally by Tennesseans.'*
While sugar chests may be found today in Louisiana, both field and
probate research reveal a dearth of the form during the period.-' Pre-
sumably sugar production in Louisiana created a situation of ready
availability and relative affordabilit}' of the commodity, making sug-
ar chests unnecessary there.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

While the authors of Arkansas Made (discuss the existence of sugar
chests in Arkansas, they record no examples. They attribute the
scarcity of sugar chests, cellarets, and sideboards to the relatively im-
poverished population of the state." In the course of her work on
Ohio furniture makers, Jane Sikes Hageman did not attribute any
sugar chests to Ohio. However, she located at least two references to
sugar chests, one in a cabinetmakers account book and one in a
will." Betty Lawson Walters found one probate reference to a sugar
desk and none to sugar chests in her review of Indiana records.'-

6. Sugar chest or stand, pied-
mont Georgia, 1800-1815.
Walnut with light wood inlay;
yellow pine back and
partitions, oak bottom, hoa

23%", WOA 1<)W, DOA 145/8".
MRF S-64I5.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

SUGAR CHESTS IN TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY

The vast majority of sugar chests and related torms are from Ten-
nessee and Kentucky, the states forming the center of the large topo-
graphical oval envisioned above." Even within Tennessee and Ken-
tucky, however, there were areas in which the sugar chest was not a
prevalent form. A comparison ol the areas in which the form prolif--
erated with areas in which it did not reveals that variations in its fre-
quency of occurrence seem to relate to wealth, time of settlement,
market accessibility, existence oi a plantation economy, and the dis-
semination of style.

The settlement patterns and the geography easily divide Ten-
nessee into three Grand Divisions — East Tennessee, which reaches
to the Cumberland Mountains; Middle Tennessee, which reaches
westward to the Tennessee River; and West Tennessee, which is
bounded on the west by the Mississippi River. There is a general
dearth of sugar chests in East Tennessee, where a plantation econo-
my never developed as it did in Middle and later West Tennessee. A
review of estate records from four East Tennessee counties produced
many references to sugar boxes, but only one reference to a sugar
chest before 183s.'' Elihu Embree of Washington County did own a
sugar chest at the time of his death in 1820." Knox County was the
most populous county in East Tennessee during the nineteenth cen-
tury. The estate records of Knox County, however, list only one
sugar chest prior to 1840."' Greene County had a strong cabinetmak-
ing tradition, but neither sugar chests attributable to this county nor
inventory references to sugar chests have been found. Daniel and
Christian Burgner were cabinetmakers in Greene County, but unlike
their brother, John Burgner of Waynesville, North Carolina, they
apparently produced no sugar chests.'" While sugar chests were
almost nonexistent in East Tennessee, there were numerous refer-
ences to "sugar boxes." Figure 7 is a box from East Tennessee in the
MESDA collection. While the original use of this box is unknown,
given the other examples of sugar boxes, some of which even have

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

1. Sugar box, East Tennessee,
1810-1835. Walnut with an
unidentified tropical hard wood
and boxwood inlay; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa i6%",
woA 17V16", DOA iiVs". Ace.

2S00.

divided interiors like sugar chests, it is probable that it was used to
store sugar.

Settlement of West Tennessee did not commence until 1819 after a
treaty was reached with the Chickasaw Indians. By 1830, the popula-
tion of West Tennessee, including slaves, was around 99,000, about
half that of East Tennessee and about a quarter that of Middle Ten-
nessee.'" A traveler through West Tennessee in 1827 recorded in her
diary, "This section ot country has been so recently settled the town
itself [Jackson, Madison County] has not been located 5 yrs that the
buildings are of course plain and many is in the unfurnished state —
all articles of luxury or even what we consider necessaries are extrav-
agantly high, owing to the expense and difficulty of importation.""

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

Although the presence of cabinetmakers in certain counties was
recorded in 1834, due to its late settlement West Tennessee did not
have a strong cabinetmaking tradition in the first third of the nine-
teenth century."' For these reasons, the presence oi sugar chests in
West Tennessee was not examined in this study. However, sugar
chests were increasingly made and used in West Tennessee as the
population grew and the plantation economy became more estab-
lished."

The sugar chest appeared early in Middle Tennessee. The earliest
reference to a sugar chest found thus far occurs in the 1805 inventory
of the estate of the affluent farmer Thomas Bedford ot Rutherford
County.'- In 1806, references to a sugar chest and a sugar table ap-
peared in estate records of Davidson County."" By the mid-i8ios,
sugar chests and related designs appear with frequency in the inven-
tories of persons of relatively substantial means in some Middle Ten-
nessee counties."' Table i provides information on the years and the
counties in which references to sugar chests and related lorms were
located in Middle Tennessee probate records. More than twice as
many references are found in the records of Davidson and William-
son counties than in the others. Sugar chests were a frequent occur-
rence in the adjoining counties of Maury, Rutherford, and Sumner,
and to a lesser extent in Dickson, Robertson, and Wilson counties.
Their incidence appears to decrease according to their distance from
the relatively wealthy counties of Davidson and Williamson. The in-
frequent mention of sugar chests in the records of Lincoln County
probably relates to its later settlement and development. While the
higher incidence of sugar chests in Davidson and Williamson Coun-
ty may relate in part to the dissemination of styles from Nashville,
there also appears to be a correlation between wealth and the exis-
tence of a plantation economy on the one hand and sugar chests on
the other. The interconnection of wealth, slavery, and a plantation
economy in this area was evident early. After his travels through Ten-
nessee, Kentucky, and Ohio in 1802, Francois Andre Michaux noted
the fertile land of parts of Kentucky and Tennessee and commented

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I997

TABLE I

Distribution of sugar chests and related forms by county and by year

Davidson Dickson Liiicobi M,ni)y Robertson Rutherford Smith Sinnner W'i/liinnson W'ihnn

1805

1806

1807

1808

1809

1810

1811

1812

1813

1814

1813

1816

1817

1818

1819

1820

1821

1822

1823

1824

1823

1826

1827

1828

1829

1830

1831

1832

1833

1834

1835

Total

117

4
3

1
3

1
5

2
1

3
3

♦

7
5

1
4

10
10

1
1

124

NOTE: * Denotes years for which records were not reviewed due to lack ot availabilir}'.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

TABLE 2

Population in 1830 of certain Middle Tennessee Counties

Free
\Vh,te>

Free

People of

Color

Slaves

Toud
Popiildlion

Slave Population

as Percentage

of Total

Davidson

13.988

All

11,629

28,089

41%

Dickson

5,571

J>2

1,658

7,261

23%

Lincoln

17,934

4,088

22,086

19%

Maury

18,164

9,961

28,153

35%

Robertson

9,584

3,623

1 3,302

27%

Rutherford

17,321

155

8,654

26, 1 30

33%

Smith

17,114

4,294

21,492

20%

Sumner

13,179

133

7,247

20,559

35%

Williamson

16,006

129

10,473

26,608

39%

Wilson

19,252

302

5,923

25,477

23%

NOTE: Inlormation in this tahlc was compiled troni data in Eastin Morris, Tennessee Gazetteer
(Nashville, 1S34; reprint, Nashville, 19-1). pp. 61-61.

on the profitability of- cotton: "The poorest family may quickly ac-
quire a certain degree of affluence in West Tennessee, particularly, it
after being five or six years established, they are enabled to purchase
one or two negroes and to increase the number gradually."

The population statistics relating to slave ownership in table 1 can
be read as indicators both ot wealth and ot a plantation economy. A
comparison of the data in tables i and i provides the information
that the counties with higher percentages of slaves are also the coun-
ties in which more sugar chests are found. As discussed above, the
size of a household, including its slaves, has a direct bearing on sugar
requirements. Thus, in Tennessee, sugar chests are most commonly
found in areas characterized by wealth, the existence of a plantation
economy, an early date of settlement, and relative inaccessibility to
the market. The dissemination of style from Nashville to its sur-
rounding counties also appears to have influenced the development
of the form.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

While an in-depth analysis of probate records was not conducted
in Kentucky, geography, settlement patterns, and evidence provided
by Kentucky sugar chests themselves imply a similar pattern of distri-
bution of the form in that state. The mountains to the east provided
an initial barrier to settlement. This area, like mountainous East
Tennessee, remained relatively sparsely settled and poor. The ridges
and hills of the "Knobs" divide the rich Bluegrass of northern Cen-
tral Kentucky from the rest of the state. The Bluegrass was the earli-
est area of settlement in Kentucky. Harrodsburg was permanently
settled in 1775, and Lexington in 1779; a fort was established near
present-day Louisville in 1778.'" The primary area of early sugar chest
production in Kentucky was in the rich lands of the Bluegrass, in the
counties surrounding Lexington and reaching northeast to the Ohio
River. The style of sugar chests from the Lexington area suggests a
contemporaneous development of the form in Central Kentucky and
Middle Tennessee. The earliest sugar chests from this region appear
to have been made at the end of the eighteenth century or the begin-
ning of the nineteenth century. Separated from the Bluegrass region
by the "Knobs" as well as the sinkhole plain known as the "Barrens,"
Logan County initially comprised the portion of Kentucky bounded
by northern Middle Tennessee to the south and the Green and Ohio
rivers to the north. This area was first explored by hunters ranging
northward from Middle Tennessee. In the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, the geographic boundaries of this region result-
ed in closer cultural and social ties to northern Middle Tennessee
than to north Central Kentucky."" The sugar chests produced in this
area of Kentucky are for the most part later than those produced in
the area around Lexington and relate more closely to those made in
northern Middle Tennessee.

ECONOMIC PATTERNS OF SUGAR CHEST OWNERSHIP

Not only did the popularity of the sugar chest vary geographical-
ly, it also varied over time through different levels of society. The

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

first third oi the nineteenth century was a time of great change in
this area of the southern Backcountry. Michaux noted the existence
of many brick houses in Lexington in 1802, but was disappointed to
find only seven or eight brick houses in Nashville."" In the next two
decades, fashionable brick houses were built in Nashville as well as
in the surrounding countryside.'" Anne Newport Royall observed in
1817 that Nashville was "principally built of brick.""" As the popula-
tion and prosperity grew. Middle Tennesseans and Central Kentuck-
ians demanded fashionable furnishings tor their new houses. In 1818,
Henry Bradshaw Fearon wrote, "Spots in Tennessee, in Ohio and
Kentucky, that within the lite-time oi even young men, witnessed
only the arrow and the scalping-knite, now present to the traveller
articles of elegance and modes of luxury which might rival the dis-
plays of London and Paris.""

While travelers through Tennessee and Kentucky were unim-
pressed with the standard of living at the turn of the century, by the
1820s visitors to Nashville and Lexington commented tavorably.
These travelers' comments reflect the changing standard ot living as
earlier settlers developed wealth and became participants in the con-
sumer revolution whose impact had been felt in earlier settled areas
well before the American Revolution.

Capital goods rather than consumer goods represented the prima-
ry investment of aspiring landowners. In her study of consumption
in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Kentucky, Elizabeth
Perkins points out that early inventories are more likely to list hoes
and cows than "the genteel trappings of bed and board." By the first
years of the nineteenth century, however, she found that inventories
reflected the ownership of increasing numbers of consumer goods. "-
The probate records in Middle Tennessee likewise reveal an increas-
ing presence of consumer goods.

The 1806 inventory of Lewis Green of Davidson County reflected
a comfortable household, probably one of the most comfortable in
Middle Tennessee at that time, but did not reflect the proliferation
of material objects seen in later years. At the time of his death,

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

Green owned fifteen slaves, two head of horses, eighteen head of cat-
tle, twenty-four head of hogs, and twenty-four geese. His inventory
also listed, in part:

Five Beds and furnitLire, n lbs. of Feathers, one Desk, 3 Tables, o)U' Sugar
Chest, one Rum Case, two Looking Glasses, Eleven Chairs, 3 Trunks, one
Broken Set of Chania [china] . . . iVi Dozen Plates, 5 Tumblers . . . half
dozen Silver Table Spoons, one Dozen Tea Spoons, 2 Sugar Cannisters
. . . half Dozen Tin Cups."

Ten years later, the inventory of the estate of the wealthy merchant
William Tait contained even more consumer items. Tait, a Scots-
man, had moved to Nashville in 1786 from Philadelphia, served as
mayor of the town from 1811 to 1813, and was the largest landowner
in Davidson County at the time of his death.'" The inventory of his
estate not only listed the items he owned at the time of his death, but
also placed a value on them. Among these items were the following:

One secretary and bookcase valued at $70.00

Fifty-nine yards of Brussels carpeting valued at $177.00

One sideboard valued at $50.00

One sugar chest vahied at $}.so

One "sett Dining Northumberland Tables" valued at $25.00

Twelve red "guilt" chairs with two arm chairs valued at $50.00

Twelve yellow chairs valued at $20.00

One "sett Blue Table china ware" valued at $50.00

Two dozen table knives and forks with ivory handles valued at $14.00

Eight window curtains, "complete" valued at $50.00

One backgammon box valued at $6.00"

By the second decade of the nineteenth century, the wealth creat-
ed by the healthy plantation economy in backcountry towns like
Lexington and Nashville allowed men like William Tait to devote
their attention to mercantile activities in addition to farming. These
men built substantial houses in town and furnished them in a fash-
ionable manner.

Captain J. E. Alexander spent time in Nashville in 1833 during his
year of travels throughout North and South America. After dining at

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

the home of Thomas Yeatman, "a wealthy and most intelUgent gen-
tleman," Captain Alexander wrote: "And I beg to state tor the infor-
mation ot the silver-fork school, that in the houses of the gejis comme
il faut at Nashville, there was handsome furniture, a handsome
table-service, and above all, handsome ladies to preside. What more
need I say?"""

Yeatmans house was very finely furnished, according to the 1834
inventory of his estate. The inventory listed, among other items:
eight sofas, thirty-six rush-bottom chairs, twelve mahogany chairs,
nine portraits, three Brussels carpets, seven ingrain carpets, two pier
tables and glasses, three gilt-framed mantle glasses, two pairs of card
tables, a round marble-top center table, a nest of tea tables, a piano,
a sideboard, two breakfast tables, a dining table, and a wine cooler.
Yeatman also had owned an extensive wine cellar comprised of, in
part, one barrel ot Madeira, 'V'''^ doz. Champaigne Wine in Boxes",
two dozen barrels of wine, six dozen barrels of claret, and thirty-one
barrels of pale and red sherry.'

While the 1816 inventory of William Tait listed a sugar chest, the
1833 inventory of Thomas Yeatman did not. In the years which
elapsed between the deaths of these two men, the pattern of owner-
ship of sugar chests began to change. While the sugar-chest-owning
segment of the population initially comprised the upper crust of so-
ciety, over time sugar chests were increasingly owned by a wider seg-
ment of society. By the late i8ios in Davidson County and by the
early 1820s in the surrounding counties of Middle Tennessee, the
elite as well as comfortable farmers owned sugar chests. While sugar
chests continued to be made and used in some households in Ten-
nessee and Kentuck)' throughout the 1840s, they ceased to be found
in urban elite households by the 1820s. Perhaps the best illustration
of this changing pattern of ownership lies in the estate records per-
taining to John Childress ot Nashville. Childress built Rokeby, a
st\'lish five-bay brick house, shortly before he died."** The account of
his estate sale, recorded in November 1820, included the following
items and sale prices:

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

I set dining china, $25.00

I set tea china, $12.00

3 sets of knives and forks, $15.00

I set dining tables, $40.00

I set card tables, $20.00

I sideboard, $50.00

I desk and bookcase, $40.00

I piano forte, $100.00

I Brussels carpet, $100.00

/ sugar chest, $5.2 f''

Most of the household furnishings owned by Childress were pur-
chased by his wife Elizabeth at the sale of his estate. Indeed, the only
household furniture not purchased by Mrs. Childress were two bed-
steads, a flax wheel, and the sugar chest. When an extensive room-by
room inventory was taken after her death, the house was still expen-
sively and elegantly appointed, but did not contain a sugar chest.'"
Mrs. Childress must have decided that she no longer needed or
wanted one.

The absence of sugar chests in some of the wealthiest and best-
furnished households in Davidson County was a pattern that con-
tinued through the 1820s and 1830s, particularly in the households of
men who derived their principal income from sources other than
farming."' The sugar chest retained its popularity for a longer period
of time in the rural areas of Davidson County and in the counties
surrounding Davidson. By the 1830s, however, some elite house-
holds, particularly of town residents, no longer owned sugar chests. "-
This change can be explained in terms of both practicalit)' and dis-
semination of style.

As discussed above, by the 1820s sugar had become less expensive
and more readily available in this area of the southern Backcountry.
The need for a town resident to purchase and store large quantities
of sugar had declined."' Moreover, as sugar became less expensive
and more readily available, perhaps some ot the status attached to
sugar and, by extension, sugar chests, began to diminish, at least at
the upper levels of societ}'. The sugar chest, an easily recognizable

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

form of furniture during the first third oi the nineteenth century in
Middle Tennessee and Central Kentucky, conveyed the same status
that owning and serving sugar and sweets did, for it represented the
ability to store large quantities of this expensive commodity. The
prominent display of sugar chests in the public rooms of houses in
these areas in the early nineteenth century indicates that they were
meant to be seen. As the elite became increasingly conscious of gen-
tility and codes of fashion during the 1820s, the sugar chest may
have ceased to function for them as a status symbol. The association
of sugar and sugar chests with status lasted longer in households
with less wealth or those situated in a more rural setting."^ The sugar
chest apparently became unfashionable among the elite of Nashville
and, presumably, of Lexington, but its popularity continued in less
wealthy households and in more rural areas.

A close examination of John Childress's probate inventory reveals
not only the presence of a wide variety of expensive consumer goods,
but also objects with specialized uses {dining china and tea china,
dining tables and card tables) and rooms with specified uses. This
room-by-room inventory indicates a fairly well articulated separa-
tion of functions between dining room, parlor, family room, cham-
bers, and kitchen.'^'" During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, Americans increasingly were concerned with "differentia-
tion, specialization, and individualization," not just of furniture and
other consumables, but also of household spaces."" By the late i8ios
and early 1820s, the elite of Middle Tennessee and Central Kentucky
were well enough established to respond to this trend as their coun-
terparts in earlier settled areas had a generation or two before. As
people began to delineate public and private spaces in their houses,
certain activities such as sleeping, cooking, and washing were dis-
placed from the front or public rooms to the upstairs or the back of
the house." At the same time as the sugar chest form was develop-
ing, its owners were attempting to define the functions of the public
rooms of their houses and to determine what furniture should be
contained in these rooms. Probate inventories indicate that sugar

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

chests and related forms were kept in
dining or other public rooms of houses
rather than in kitchens, where one
might expect to find foodstuflFs stored.""
The placement of sugar chests in the
dining room, however, seems more logi-
cal when viewed in the context of the
evolution of public rooms and the grad-
ual removal of such activities as cooking
from these rooms. The placement of
sugar chests in public rooms suggests
the symbolic value of sugar as well as an
incomplete process of room definition.
While ownership of sugar chests had be-
come common among the upper and
upper-middle class of Middle Tennessee
and Central Kentucky in the first twen-
ty years of the nineteenth century, sub-
sequent changes rendered the sugar
chest both less necessary and less fash-
ionable. The sugar chest, with its food-
storage function, was abandoned as rep-
resenting the old-fashioned organization
of rooms with mixed usages.

While sugar chests may have become unfashionable in certain sec-
tors of society by the 1820s, they continued to be made and used in
rural areas and in less wealthy households in town. Elmore W.
Williams, a farmer and part-time cabinetmaker in rural Davidson
County, Tennessee, made a sugar chest in 1840 a few months before
his second marriage.''' This piece, which is signed and dated by
Williams, is illustrated in figure 8. " The daybook of Levi Cochran of
Marshall County, Tennessee, records that his son John made a sugar
chest in 1849 that sold for $7.00.' References to sugar chests were
found in the probate records of Dickson County as late as 1850. '

8. Sugar chest, signed
and dated by Elmore W.
Williams, Davidson
County, Tennessee, 1840.
Fiddleback maple; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa
40%" (4'/2" of feet
replaced), woa lyVs",
DOA 17I/2". Private
collection.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

9- Sugar chest, Davidson or Sumner County. Tennessee
1790-1810. Walnut with hght wood inlay; tulip poplar
secondary, hoa 37%", WOA 25%", doa 19%". Collection
of The Hermitage: Home of President Andrew Jackion.
Nashville, Tennessee, Ace. 1942-2-1.

EVOLUTION OF SUGAR CHEST FORMS

While the style of the sugar chest evolved over time, the basic form
remained the same — a rectangular, boxlike storage bin with a hinged
lid set upon legs. Most sugar chests have a drawer, although examples
exist that do not. The earlier form consists of a dovetailed box at-
tached to a frame with tapered legs (fig. i). ' The bin of this David-
son County, Tennessee, sugar chest, like
most sugar chests, is divided into three
compartments, one large and two small-
er. The larger compartment provided
storage for the more commonly used and
less expensive brown sugar. ' The smaller
compartments housed white (loaf) sugar
and coffee. ' The drawer, like the bin, is
partitioned into three compartments,
perhaps to provide storage for sugar nip-
pers and a variety of spices. The overall
form of this sugar chest and the more ele-
gant one shown in figure 9, discussed be-
low, make it virtually indistinguishable
from a bottle case or cellaret with a draw-
er (see figure 2) until the bin lid is raised.
An elaborately inlaid sugar chest that
descended in the family ot Andrew Jack-
son similarly features tapered legs and a
tripartite storage bin (figure 9). The
drawer is divided into four compart-
ments (figure 9a). Like the chest illustrat-
ed as figure i, the case ot this sugar chest
is constructed with halt-blind dovetails,
visible only at the sides oi the case. The
construction of the lid is more sophisti-
cated, however, with vertically veneered

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

9a. Detail of figure 9.

facings applied to the edges of the lid at the sides and front. The
ogee molding of figure i and the cove and ovolo molding of figure 9
are classical features that continue to be seen on early neoclassical
furniture. The inlay decoration of figure 9 and the tapered legs and
moldings of both figures i and 9 place both these chests within the
prevailing early neoclassical style.

Although inlay is frequently found on East Tennessee furniture
and simple string inlay is found on some pieces of Middle Tennessee
furniture, the extensive and sophisticated inlay on the Jackson sugar
chest is rare in furniture made in Middle Tennessee. The only
known pieces of Middle Tennessee furniture having a comparable
amount of decoration are two desks attributed to the Quarles cabi-
net shop in Wilson County. '' However, it is apparent from an exam-
ination of the Jackson sugar chest and one of the Quarles desks that
they are not the products of the same shop.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

In contrast to the furniture of Middle Tennessee, some furniture
from Central Kentucky, particularly from the area surrounding Lex-
ington, does feature figural inlay. Figure lo, attributed to that area,
has the vine-and-flower commonly tound on Kentucky early neo-
classical furniture. Like figure lo, figure ii, also from Central Ken-
tucky, has inlaid decoration and tapered legs, but it has a more
elongated, rectilinear format typical of later sugar chests. A precise

ID. Sugar chest. Central
Kentucky, i8oo-i8zo.
Cherry with light wood
inlay; tulip poplar and
walnut (drawer guides)
secondary, hoa }SVi'\
WOA 265/8", DOA 19%".
MRF S-3159.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

II. Sugar chest. Central
Kentucky, 1790-1810.
Cherry with hght wood
inlav; tuHp poplar second-
ar\-. HOA }o^^", WOA
3S'4", DOA 17%". MRF s-
5540-

attribution of such inlaid pieces to specific counties or towns in
Kentucky awaits a thorough analysis ot cabinetmaking schools in the
state, which, owing to the complex nature of the known examples,
has yet to be undertaken.

A slightly later sugar chest that descended in a Lincoln County,
Tennessee, family (figure 12) combines elements of both the early
and late neoclassical periods. The shaped skirt, an unusual detail for
a sugar chest, is an early feature, while the turned legs, the wide fillet
of the molding on the edge of the lid, and the flattened ogee bed
molding represent later stylistic developments. While clearly the
product of a cabinetmaker, the exposed dovetailing oi the box is a
less sophisticated construction than the previous examples. The di-

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

12. Sugar chest, Lincoln
County, Tennessee, 1815-
1830. Cherry; tuhp poplar
secondary, hoa 38'!ib",
WOA 31V8", DOA l6'i6".
MRF S-II668.

^^y

mensions of this sugar chest also distinguish it from the earlier ex-
amples. Wliile of relatively the same height, it is wider and less deep
than most chests ot this period. Unlike most sugar chests, this exam-
ple does not have a partitioned interior.

The most common st}'le oi sugar chest is represented by the chest
illustrated in figure 13, which descended in the family oi Judge John
Overton ot Davidson County, Tennessee. ' This relatively unadorned

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

13- Sugar chest, Davidson
County, Tennessee,
1S15-1830. Cherrv", tulip
poplar secondary, hoa

;6''8", WOA 28'^", DOA

iSY-i". Priviite collection.

case joined with half-blind dovetails and set upon turned legs is dis-
tinguished by its proportions, the molded lid, and the delicate details
of its turnings. The lack of bed molding at the base of this case repre-
sents a later stylistic development seen on northern coastal furniture
by the early i8ios."'

The relatively short legs of the sugar chest illustrated in figure 14
distinguish it from the more typical forms with taller legs. Not only

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

14- Sugar chest, Davidson or Maury Coun-
ty, Tennessee, 1820-1830. Cherry; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa 29", woa i8%", doa
18 Vi". Private collection.

is this chest shorter than the other chests ilkistrated, its storage ca-
pacity is also smaller because its width is six to twelve inches less
than the other chests. Perhaps because of the small overall size, the
interior was not partitioned into separate storage compartments and
probably was used solely for the storage of brown sugar.

While retaining the same basic form of a partitioned storage bin
with legs, some later sugar chests feature joined, rather than dove-
tailed, construction. Figure 15, attributed to Central Kentucky, is an
unusual hybrid of early and late neoclassical characteristics. It retains

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

the basic form of earlier sugar chests consisting of a box attached to a
frame; however, in this instance, the box is not dovetailed but is
joined by a full-height shouldered tenon joint, the tenon being a
projection of the inside face of the front. It features inlay more typi-
cally found on earlier chests, but its short turned legs and lack of
moldings attest to its later manufacture.

Unlike figure 15, most earlier joined chests retain tall legs which
are turned integrally with the stiles, into which the front, back, and
sides are tenoned. Figure 16 is representative of this structural and

15. Sugar chest. Central
Kentucky, 1820-1835.
Cherry with light wood
inlay; tulip poplar
secondary, hoa 33", woa

30'/2", DOA lyVl". MRF S-

2764. Co/lection of Liberty
Hall, Frankfurt, Kentucky.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

i6. Sugar chest, labeled by Henry H. Webb, Central Kentucky, 1810-1830.
Cherry; tulip poplar secondar\'. hoa 287h", woa 35%", doa i6%". Private
collection.

stylistic development. This Kentucky sugar chest bears the printed
label "Henry H. Webb/Manufacturor.""' Williams and Harsh illus-
trate a similar sugar chest which they attribute to Sumner County,
Tennessee/'

Figure 17, from the collection of the Shaker Museum at South
Union, Kentucky, illustrates the last development in joined sugar
chests. This form, which resembles a chest more than a bottle case,
consists of an elongated rectilinear case with paneled front and ends;

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

it is set on sliort turned legs and has no drawer. Attributed to Logan
County, Kentucky, this example appears to be typical of late sugar
chests from southern Kentucky and northern Middle Tennessee."'

Virtually all documented furniture forms designed for the storage
of sugar are made oi local woods, utilizing cherry, walnut, or occa-
sionally maple or tulip poplar as primary materials and tulip poplar,
walnut, or infrequendy yellow pine, oak, and ash as secondary
woods." Fortescue Cuming, who traveled through Kentucky and
ventured briefly into Tennessee in 1808, commented on the beauty

17. Sugar chest, Logan
County. Kentucky,
1830-1840. Cherry; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa

33'/2", WOA 34", DOA

i8'/2". Collection of the
Shaker Museum at South
Union. Kentucky. Photo-
graph by Shutterbug.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

oi: the local woods. In his description oi Lexington, Kentucky, Cum-
ing wrote, "There are tour cabinetmaking shops where household
furniture is manufactured in as handsome a style as any part of
America, and where the high finish which is given to native walnut
and cherry timber, precludes the regret that mahogany is not to be
had but at an immense expense.""

While mahogany was available in Kentucky and Tennessee by the
early i8ios, most furniture was constructed of local woods.*''' The
1825 inventory and account of sales of the estate of James B. Hous-
ton of Nashville recorded only two pieces of furniture constructed of
mahogany. A mahogany sideboard valued at $181.00 was the most
expensive piece of furniture listed; also recorded was a mahogany
secretary valued at $61.00. His inventory most frequently mentioned
furniture of walnut, cherry, or tulip poplar.'"

Figure 18 (illustrated in its pre-restoration condition) from Maury
County, Tennessee, is a unique example of a mahogany-veneered
sugar chest. The pulvinated plinth which incorporates a drawer and
the Grecian scrolled feet of this dovetailed chest emulate urban late
neoclassical furniture. It was undoubtedly commissioned by a mem-
ber of the rural elite who was aware of the fashionability of ma-
hogany, but did not realize that sugar chests themselves were no
longer fashionable. Instead of having a partitioned case, this sugar
chest is fitted with a removable box which is partitioned." This fea-
ture is frequently seen on sugar chests from southern Middle Ten-
nessee made throughout the period under consideration.

Contrary to popular belief that most sugar chests were plantation-
made,"' extant records demonstrate that cabinetmakers commonly
made and sold sugar chests. The estate of the Nashville cabinet-
maker Daniel McBean included tour sugar chests, one of which had
been made to order for a customer, the other three were sold at his
estate sale." The daybook of Levi Cochran, a cabinetmaker in Bed-
ford (later Marshall) County, recorded the sale of five sugar chests
between the years 1828 and 1835. "" Samuel S. Holding of Fayetteville
(Lincoln County), Tennessee, advertised sugar chests to be sold at

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

i8. Sugar chest, Maury
County, Tennessee,
1835-1855. Mahogany ve-
neer and walnut (top);
tuHp poplar and yellow
pine (drawer bottom) sec-
ondary. HOA 28'/j" (with-
out feet), WOA 31", DOA
ii'/s". Private collection.

auction in 1828." While some may have been made by a less skilled
craftsman, virtually all extant sugar chests were the work ol^ a trained
cabinetmaker, whether made on or off the plantation. Sugar chests
sold at estate sales during the first third of the nineteenth century
ranged in price from 25 cents'- to $12.00," although the average price
was between $4.00 and $6.00."" The relative prices no doubt reflect-
ed the quality, the materials, and desirability of a particular piece.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

ALTERNATIVE FORMS

As indicated by table 3, other furniture forms were designed for
the storage of sugar. Inventory references to sugar desks — the second
most common form — and to sugar cases, sugar stands, sugar tables,
bureaus and sugar chests, and sugar presses or cupboards have been
found. There was a single listing ot a sideboard sugar chest.

Sugar Desks

The most common variation of the sugar chest was the sugar desk
which, when closed, resembles a small slant-front desk. In its sim-
plest form the slanted lid, which may be hinged at either the top or
the bottom, lifts to reveal a storage bin like that of a sugar chest. The
interior may also be fitted with drawers for the storage of spices.

The geographic distribution of the sugar desk is narrower than
that of the sugar chest. Traditionally believed to be most common in
Kentucky, the form was also known in Middle Tennessee. The prove-
nances of extant sugar desks attributable to Kentuckv' indicate that
sugar desks, like sugar chests, were produced in Central Kentucky in
the area extending southward from Maysville, through Paris, Lexing-
ton, and Danville, and into Green County (see figure 3). As shown in
table 3, in Tennessee, sugar desks most commonly were mentioned in
estate records in northern Middle Tennessee, particularly in Sumner
County. Given the geographic location of these counties adjacent to
Kentucky, one is tempted to circumscribe a geographic region for the
production of sugar chests reaching from Lexington, Kentucky, to
northern Middle Tennessee. However, an examination of the probate
records of Logan Count)', Kentucky, just north of the Tennessee bor-
der, reveals that although the sugar desk form was known in that
county, it was not a common form; only four sugar-desk references
were located in comparison to twenty-two references to sugar chests.
This suggests the existence of two separate areas of sugar desk pro-
duction. Given the experimentation with adaption of storage forms
indulged in by cabinetmakers and their clients, it is possible that the

34 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

TABLE 3

Distributit)!! of ditierent forms bv countv

Sugar

Chest

Dak

Case

Stand

Davidson

112

Dickson

Lincoln

Maury

Robertson

Rutherford

Smith

Sumner

Wilhamson

121

Wilson

Sideboard Sugar

Si/^ar Si/i^ar Su^ar Press/

Table Chest Bureau Cupbnard

NOTE: Objects that were listed in one document pertaining to an estate as a sugar chest, and in an-
other document as a sugar desk, stand, or bureau, have been included in this chart under the heading
for the less common form. For example, an object listed alternatively as a sugar chest and a sugar desk
has been included as a sugar desk in this chart.

sugar desk form was developed independendy in both these areas. It
seems more hkely that one area was influenced by the other either by
movement of cabinetmaker, patron, or even the object itself Howev-
er, to date no such connection has been found. While the basic form
is the same in both Kentucky and Tennessee, there appears to be lit-
tle stylistic correlation between the sugar desks produced in each re-
gion. The form also reached a fuller development in Kentucky as
shown by the illustrated examples as well as by the existence of at
least two sugar desk-and-bookcases, one sugar secretary-and-book-
case, and miniature sugar desks in Kentucky.

Figure 19, a sugar desk from Bourbon County, Kentucky, is fitted
with a fallboard, lopers (fallboard supports), and a fully detailed in-

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

19- Sugar desk, Central
Kentucky, 1790-1810.
Cherry with hght wood
inlay; tulip poplar
secondary, hoa 34%",
WOA 30' 2", DOA is'i".
Collection of The J. B.
Speed Art Museum,
Louisville, Kentucky. Ace.
94.1.

rerior, all of which cause it to resemble a small desk." The rear half
of the writing surface of this example is replaced; it was made as a
sliding cover which opened to reveal the sugar storage bin contained
in the lower portion of the case. While the blocked central drawers
and bed molding make this interior the most elaborate known to a
sugar desk, other features relate this object to furniture made in the
area. The narrow chamfered corners, the "barber pole" inlay, and the
use of geometric inlaid banding at the base of the case are features
commonly found on furniture from Central Kentucky.'"'

The lunetted corner stringing on the front of the case and the

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 199;

20. Sugar desk. Central
Kentucky, 1790-1810.
Cherry with walnut and
light wood inlay; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa

32", WOA 3l'4", DOA l^Vl"
MRF S-3147.

geometric inlay around the base are derails shared by the sugar desk
illustrated in figure 20. The simplified interior, shaped skirt, and rec-
tangular lopers of the latter example contrast with figure 19. It is ap-
parent that both oi these objects were intended to function as writ-
ing desks.

The elaborately veneered sham drawers of the sugar desk in figure
21 lend an even greater appearance ot a standard writing desk when
the fallboard is closed. When the fallboard is opened, two storage
bins are revealed. While this sugar desk presently does not have a fit-
ted intetior, given the facade of this piece, it seems likely that the in-

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

terior desk fittings have been removed. The lack ot lopers on this
sugar desk, however, does raise the question as to whether it was
meant to function as a desk or just as a decorative storage bin.' The
oval inlay on the fallboard, and the shape of the feet and their re-
turns, bear close relationship to a desk recorded by MESDA that in
turn has foot and skirt shaping related to the base of the example in
figure 20.™ Like figure 20, figure 21 has edge inlay running the full
height of the front corners of the case. The intertwined styles of
both form and decoration of these sugar desks reveal the interrela-

z\. Sugar desk. Central
Kentucky, 1790-1810.
Cherry with light wood
inlay and walnut cross-
banding; tulip poplar sec-
ondary. HOA nVi", WOA

30", DOA 14' 2". MRF S-
3205.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

tion of a number ot cabinetmaking shops in Central Kentucky dur-
ing this period and the difficult)' of distinguishing between the work
of- these shops until additional field research is conducted.

Further regionality oi form and decoration is apparent from the
sugar desk illustrated in figure 22. This sugar desk forms a part of a
group of furniture from Mason County, Kentucky, that frequently
has been attributed to Peter Turtle, based on an inscription carved
on an interior drawer fitting of a chest. "" While the pieces in this
group appear to be the work of more than one cabinetmaker, all are

22. Sugar desk. Mason
Count)', Kentucky,
1800-1825. Walnut with
light wood and cherry in-
lay; tulip poplar
secondary, hoa 3978",

WOA 35%", DOA 18". MRF

S-3I65.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

characterized by short cabriole legs and a two-part construction con-
sisting of a frame to which the case is attached by screws. Like fig-
ures 19 and 20, figure 22 is fitted with interior desk drawers and lop-
ers, and has a storage bin accessible below the rear halt oi the writing
surface. With a height of 3973 inches, this example is larger than the
other sugar desks illustrated but is still smaller than most southern
writing desks.

The stigar desk illustrated in figure 23 has been attributed to Ken-
tucky, but it was purchased in Sumner County, Tennessee in the

2?. Sugar desk, Sumner Count)',
Tennessee, 1800-1820. Walnut;
tulip poplar, hickory (back ol"
frame and frame of large drawers),
oak (small drawer frames), hoa

4l'/2", WOA 26'/4", DOA I7'/4".

Private collection.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

1940s. With its high tapered legs, this rare form resembles a desk-on-
frame.

The sugar desk in figure 24 descended in a Sumner County, Ten-
nessee, family and was acquired by the family of the current owners
in the 1930s. The interior is fitted with drawers and pigeonholes; the
drawer pulls on the exterior drawer are replacements. The lid is
hinged at the bottom and originally had lopers, providing this sugar
desk with a usable writing surface. The rear half of the writing sur-
face lifts to reveal a divided storage bin inside the lower portion of
the case (figure 24a). Sugar desks with extensive inlay and sham
drawers such as the Central Kentucky examples illustrated above ap-
parently were not produced in Tennessee. Figure 24 appears to repre-
sent the fullest development of the sugar desk form in Tennessee.

24. Sugar desk, Sumner Count}', Tennessee,
1800-1820. Cherry and walnut (base frame);
tulip poplar and walnut (bottom of storage
bin. HOA 33%", WOA 34'/2", doa 17". Private
collection.

24a. Detail of figure 24.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

25. Sugar desk, Marshall
County, Tennessee,
1830-1840. Cherry; tulip
poplar secondary, hoa
37", WOA 26", DOA 21".
Private collection. Photo-
g)-aph courtesy of Nathan
Harsh.

With its short turned legs and joined
case construction, the form of figure 25,
from Marshall County, Tennessee, is remi-
niscent ol late sugar chests. This sugar desk
has a lid hinged at the top so that when
opened, interior drawers and the storage
bin are visible. There is no writing surface
except for the exterior of the lid, which
would have been used much in the fashion
ot an accounting or "schoolmaster's" desk.
With this example, the sugar desk form has
deteriorated to the point that it resembles a
meal or flour bin. Similar examples may
have caused the confusion in terminology
evident in some estate records where an ob-
ject was described as a sugar desk in one
document but as a sugar chest in another.'""
Other records clearly differentiate the two
forms, however. The 1819 "Account of the
Sales of the Propert}' of Cornelius Herndon
of Sumner Count}', Tennessee" lists both a
sugar chest and a sugar desk.'"'

Evidence exists that sugar desks, like
sugar chests, also were produced by cabi-
netmakers. The estate of Mary Quarles of
Wilson County, Tennessee, the widow of
cabinetmaker Roger Quarles, included a
sugar desk.'"' While no Tennessee newspaper advertisements by cab-
inetmakers have been located that mention sugar desks, one such
advertisement did appear in an 1814 newspaper in Lexington, Ken-
tucky.'"' A loose page from an account book in the MESDA research
files reflects that in 1816 Joshua Nichols charged William Crutchfield
from an unknown location in Kentucky S12.00 for a sugar desk.'"'
Sugar desks itemized in Middle Tennessee probate records ranged in

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

price trom $i.oo to $6.12, with an average price of around $5.00.
These prices are comparable to those of sugar chests, but less than
the prices ot conventional desks. For example, at the 1816 estate sale
oi Joseph Motheral of Sumner County, Tennessee, a sugar desk was
sold for $3.00 and a desk for $17.25."" Likewise, at the estate sale of
the Davidson County, Tennessee, cabinetmaker Daniel McBean, a
cherry sugar chest was sold for $8.25 and a cherry desk for $30.00.'""
The prices commanded by these sugar desks in Middle Tennessee
suggest that they were of relatively simple form without an elaborate
fitted interior or sham drawers. While one sugar desk did sell for
$13.25 at an estate sale in Logan Count)', Kentucky (which borders
Tennessee), the other three sugar desks in the records of this county
sold for $5.00, $7.00, and 50 cents. '"^

Ostensibly, ownership of a sugar desk could have obviated the
need for a desk. However, of the twenty-three Middle Tennessee es-
tates that itemized a sugar desk, thirteen also included a desk or sec-
retary."" Ownership of both a sugar desk and a conventional desk al-
most certainly resulted from the fact that some sugar desks did not
have writing surfaces. Because of the different forms of sugar desks
and the lack of detailed descriptions in estate records, it is difficult to
draw conclusions regarding the use of sugar desks for more than
storage of sugar.

While it is possible to determine the areas where sugar chests and
desks were prevalent, other forms occur infrequently throughout the
area of sugar chest production in Tennessee and Kentucky. Because
these forms and the references to them are so rare, it is not possible
to circumscribe more precisely the areas in which they were made.

Sugar Cases
Some of the terms for alternative forms of sugar chests are more
difficult to interpret than others. Sugar case could refer to a piece of
furniture resembling a bottle case or a cellaret. While there were
some inventory references to a case and bottles, bottle case, or liquor
case in both East and Middle Tennessee, the furniture form was

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

widespread in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Caroh-
na (see figure 2), a center of considerable out-migration to Middle
Tennessee."" These bottle cases apparently also existed independent
of stands. The term sugar case therefore may have referred to a box
or case designed for the storage of sugar, perhaps with a stand from
which it may have been removable.

At the sale of the estate of William Dickson in 1816, a sugar case
sold for $6.25, a price comparable to sugar chests sold at other estate
sales in Davidson County, Tennessee that year."" However, in Maury
County, Tennessee, in 1817 a sugar case sold at an estate sale in for a
mere $1.20, suggesting that the sugar case sold the year before in
Davidson Count)' may have been a very difierent object. Instead,
this SLigar case may have consisted simply ot a large box without a
stand.'" In 1830, Thomas Cotter of Rutherford County purchased a
"Table and Sugar Case" for S2.43y4, a term that implies that the sug-
ar case rested upon or was fastened to the table."

While it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions regarding
the form of a sugar case from these reterences, it seems likely that it
resembled a bottle case of the period. These cases may have had a
stand to rest upon. The 1806 inventory of the estate of Lewis Green
of Davidson County listed both a sugar chest and a "rum case," im-
plying a distinction between the terms chest and case, as well as a
differentiation between forms designed to store sugar and those de-
signed to store liquor."* Figure 5, from piedmont South Carolina,
might have been called a sugar case in the early 1800s. It consists of a
removable box set on a stand and has one partition that divides the
storage bin into compartments approximately two-thirds and one-
third the size of the overall storage space. Unlike most sugar chests.
this sugar case does not have a drawer.

Sugar Stands
The term sugar stand is also problematical. During the period,
"stand" referred to either a small table or a smaller footed object of
wood, metal, or ceramic that was intended to rest on a piece of fur-

44 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99:

niture, such as an inkstand. The inventory references to sugar stands
also appear to carry both meanings. Table 3 includes sugar stands
only if the item listed in the inventory appeared to be a stand-alone
object. Thomas Kirkman of Nashville owned two cut-glass sugar
stands and two cut-glass butter stands at the time of his death.'"
Here, the term stand indicates a footed tray. However, Thomas
Hutchings owned an object that was described once as a sugar chest
and once as a sugar stand."" Hutchings' sugar stand therefore must
have been an item of furniture designed for the storage rather than
display or use ol sugar. Given the confusion ot even contemporary
terminology, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distinctions
between forms. However, the inventory of the property of Adnah
Donnell of Wilson County provides evidence that some people did
distinguish between the two terms. The entry for "one sugar chest"
is crossed out to read "one sugar stand."'" A sugar stand may have
been a form constructed with integral legs, rather than a separately
framed base. Perhaps "sugar stand" referred to a form of sugar chest
such as the one illustrated in figure 6.

Sugar Tables

Only two inventory references to a sugar table were found in the
records of the ten Middle Tennessee counties examined in the course
of this research. The form appears to have been more prevalent in
Kentucky. Since a normal table height is between 28 and 30 inches,
most of the objects illustrated thus far do not seem to fit the termi-
nology for a "sugar table." Moreover, the term sugar table apparently
was not an alternative name for a sugar chest; the account of the sale
of the property of Pumal Hearn of Wilson County itemizes both a
sugar table and a sugar chest."" While no "sugar tables" attributable
to Tennessee have been located, figure 26 probably would have been
called a sugar table in the early nineteenth century. With a height of
28% inches, a width of 38y2 inches, and a depth of 2o44 inches, it
could function as a table. The front, back, and sides of this example
are joined to the legs by shouldered tenons which are pinned. This

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY 45

type of construction is typical ot stands and side tables. Later cabi-
netmakers applied this same system of joined construction to fiiU-
height cases. (See discussion of construction ot figures 15 and 16).
Other sugar tables with a lift-top have been located in Kentucky."^
The sugar table illustrated in figure 27, with a Buncombe County,
North Carolina, provenance, may be a unique example. This table
does not have a hinged lid, but instead has a deep drawer fitted with
three compartments as in the typical sugar chest plan.

,. ^it^i^iii^MmiiSiiiC^'fMi.~. ,

iSS.

26. Sugar chest or table, Central Kentucky. 1800-1820. Cherry with walnut
and light wood inlay; tulip poplar secondary, hoa 28%", woa 38' 2", doa

2o44". Co/kctioi! of The J. B. Speed Art MiiseKm. Louisville, Kentucky, Ace.
4S.8I.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

27- Sugar table,
Buncombe
County, North
Carolina,
1800-1840. Wal-
nut; tulip poplar,
oak (partitions),
yellow pine
(drawer runner).

HOA 29", WOA
3l'/8", DOA 22'/2".

Private collection.

Sideboard Sugar Chests

The 1825 inventory and account of sales of the estate of cabinet-
maker James B. Houston contains the sole reference known to a
"Side Board Sugar Chest." Houston, who had been in business in
Nashville since 1814, operated a large cabinet shop with eleven work-
benches. Included among the items of cabinetware sold after his
death was the sideboard sugar chest for $90.00, as well as numerous
other sideboards ranging in price from $77.00 to S181.00 (a ma-
hogany sideboard).'" Williams and Harsh illustrate two examples of

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

28. Sideboard
sugar chest,
Robertson Coun-
ty, Tennessee,
1820-1840. Cher-
ry with maple es-
cutcheons; tuhp
poplar secondary.
HOA 37", WOA

61K", DOA l8'/2".

Private collection.

^:j^

sideboard sugar chests in which a portion oi the top is hinged and
hfts to reveal a storage bin.'^" The joined case oi the sideboard sugar
chest illustrated in figure 28 is divided into three large storage
spaces — a storage bin at either side with a hinged lid, and a central
section containing a single deep drawer. The lack of partitions in the
bins and the drawer leaves open the issue as to whether this side-
board was intended for the storage of bottles as well as sugar.

Sugar Presses and Sugar Bureaus

Like sugar desks and sideboard sugar chests, sugar presses and
sugar bureaus were designed to serve more than one Rinction. Only
four references to each of these forms in Tennessee probate records
are known. The term press was virtually interchangeable with the
term cupboard \n the nineteenth century. Inventory references were

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

found to china presses and linen presses as well as china cupboards
and linen cupboards. Given this interchangeability oi terminology,
four objects with different descriptions have been classified together
in table 3 as sugar presses/cupboards.'^' Williams and Harsh located
two objects that could be described as sugar presses, one of which is
illustrated in figure 29. The lid of this Sumner County sugar press
lifts to reveal a divided storage bin.'-- The research files at MESDA
contain a photograph of a sugar press attributed to Kentucky.'-'

29. Sugar press,
Sumner Count)',
Tennessee,
1820-1850. Cher-
ry; tulip poplar
secondary, hoa
40 Vs", wo A }6Vi",
DOA 2i'/i". Private
collection.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

The term bureau frequently appears in Tennessee and Kentucky
inventories and cabinetmakers advertisements of the first third of
the nineteenth century. In early nineteenth-century America, "bu-
reau" generally referred to a chest of four drawers the width of the
case, although the term could have other meanings as well.'-' A "bu-
reau sugar chest" or "bureau and sugar chest" therefore was another
furniture form that combined different functions, in this case, pre-
sumably a sugar storage bin and at least two drawers tor storage. J.
D. Goodall of Smith County, Tennessee, owned "One Bureau Sugar
Chest" at the time of his death according to his inventory of 1830.'-'
Like iiigar case, sugar stand, and sugar table, the term bureau sugar

30. Sugar bureau, David-
son County, Tennessee,
1830-1850. Cherry, tulip
poplar secondary, hoa

40 '/g", WOA 36' 2", DOA

21 '4". Private collection.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 199;

chest is difficult to pinpoint, but the object illustrated in Hgure 30
meets the description of the form. The large storage bin originally
was divided into two compartments, one large and one smaller, and
the upper drawer is partitioned into several sections. The lower
drawer conceivably could have provided storage for table linens. Its
resemblance to a small chest of drawers or bureau is heightened by
the scrolls on either side of the drawers, a feature commonly found
on bureaus of the period.'-"

INCREASING SPECIALIZATION
OF FURNITURE FORMS

The development of the wide variety of furniture forms used to
store sugar needs to be examined with regard to the development of
other furniture forms and an emerging distinction between private
and public spaces as well as from the aspect of design sources. As
Americans were defining specialized room uses, new furniture forms
and terminologies appeared. Desk-and-bookcases became increas-
ingly common, while references to chests of drawers were replaced
by references to bureaus. Sideboards evolved from sideboard tables.
Throughout the eighteenth century, existing forms were refined and
given specialized nomenclature such as card table, tea table, dining
table, and breakfast table.'-^ In southeastern Virginia and northeast-
ern North Carolina, the furniture form today most commonly called
a cellarer developed in the 1760s and was common by the 1780s."'

By the early nineteenth century, fashionable dining rooms con-
tained a sideboard on which silver and glassware were displayed.
During this same period, cupboards for storage of china were fre-
quently located in dining rooms.'"'

Based on the evidence of both existing objects as well as inventor)^
references, the sugar chest and related forms developed within a rela-
tively short period during this time of increasing specialization.
When the demand for sugar storage grew in the early nineteenth
century in Middle Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, the innate con-
servatism of most backcountry cabinetmakers led them to approach

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

the design of a new form cautiously by using existing forms as a ba-
sis for adaptation. A similar pattern occurred in other areas. Henry
Glassie, in discussing the development oi "architectural sequence" in
houses in Middle Virginia, wrote, "New structures are always trans-
formed out of old structures, and even if its design is very complex,
the new artifact is the result oi melding ideas from old artifacts. The
process of design upon which the artifact, whether archaic or novel,
depends is one of decomposition as well as composition. Simultane-
ously, the mind breaks down precepts and builds up concepts."""

The analysis of architectural development can also be applied to
the development of other artifacts such as furniture. The cabinet-
maker had many furniture forms to choose among for adaptation to
sugar storage. Most case furniture in Tennessee, like southern case
Rirniture in general, was fitted with locks in order to safeguard valu-
able objects. Storage forms familiar to the cabinetmaker and his
client included chests, bottle cases, desks, bureaus, presses, tables
with drawers, and sideboards.'" In the nineteenth century, sugar was
purchased in much larger quantities than previously and thus re-
quired more storage space. A bin with a divided interior seems to
have evolved from a simple box used to store sugar. Perhaps the idea
of a divided interior was the result of the need to be able to safe-
guard other valuable commodities such as coffee within the same
piece of furniture. A box-t)'pe storage bin with a divided interior in
the form of a case and bottles was already familiar to some Tennessee
cabinetmakers and their clients in the eady nineteenth century. Not
surprisingly, the exterior of the most commonly found form of sugar
chest resembles a bottle case.

Desks were also logical forms to adapt for different storage uses.
The drawers of a desk provided storage even as its interior served as
the "familv office.""^ In the eighteenth and early nineteenth cen-
turies, rooms designated as dining spaces frequently were used as
offices and contained desks. Placement of a sugar desk in a dining
room thus would seem to be a logical and practical combination of
uses. This same sort of reconfiguration of storage space is demon-

JOURNAL, OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

31. Linen desk, Central
Kentucky, 1790-1810.
Walnut and walnut
veneer, light wood,
walnut, and cherry inlay;
walnut (drawer supports
and interior drawer
frames), tulip poplar
(linen drawers), ash
(apron core), hoa 45",
WOA 42", DOA 195/8". On
loan to MESDA, Ace.
3480.

strated by a linen desk from Kentucky (fig. 31) in which the cabinet
doors conceal linen shelves. Figure 32 illustrates the reaches of the
cabinetmaker's and his patrons imagination. This unique form from
Kentucky combines elements oi a sugar desk on frame and a tall
chest.

Although tables, presses, bureaus, and sideboards were less fre-
quently used as design sources for sugar storage forms, their adapta-
tion represents a similar reconfiguration of space. While "bureau"
primarily represents a new name for an old form, the sideboard was

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

32. Sugar desk, Central
Kentucky, 1790-1830. Cherry
with hght wood inlay, walnut
(drawer sides and backs), cher-
ry (chest back), ash (upper case
back, bottom, drawer
bottoms). HOA 52%", woA
22%", DOA ly'/i". MRF s-2794.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

WINTER 1997

an invention of the eighteenth century. By the 1770s, some affluent
dining rooms in America featured sideboards which diflFered from
sideboard tables in their incorporation of deep drawers and cabinets
for storage. Sideboards frequendy had bottle drawers and occasional-
ly were fitted with secretary drawers. Presses too were multifunction-
al. A secretary-press from the Roanoke River basin of North Caroli-
na has shelves in its upper case for china, and a serving slide, a
secretary drawer, and linen drawers in its lower case.'"

Classic described the work of a vernacular architect as "continu-
ous in planes of place and time." He further stated, "His innovation
is inevitably a truce with time, a compromise in social assertion.""^
In like manner, the cabinetmakers in Middle Tennessee and Central
Kentucky were able to design new forms that in reality were adapta-
tions of existing forms already familiar to both cabinetmakers and
their clients with which both cabinetmakers and clients could feel
comfortable. In that sense, at least, neither sugar chests nor their re-
lated forms were "peculiar to the early days of the South." Instead,
this ingenuous and pragmatic adaptation represents a regional re-
sponse to a regional need.

NOTES

1. This article is in large part a distillation ot the author's master's thesis, "Sugar Chests in
Middle Tennessee. 1800-1835" CWilliamsburg, 'Va.: College of 'William and Mar;', 1996).
While extensive primarv' documentary research was conducted in Middle Tennessee, the con-
clusions reached regarding Kentucky are based on secondary documentary research and on
analogy to Tennessee. The author wishes to thank the following individuals for their encour-
agement and assistance with this article: Barbara Carson. Mary Jo Case. Sally Cant, Nathan
Harsh, Tommy Hines, Tracey Parks, Jonathan Prown, Brad Rauschenberg, Martha Rowe,
Derita Coleman Williams, and of course, John Bivins.

2. This statement is based upon a review of probate records from ten Middle Tennessee
counties. Given the similarities in economic and social development in Central Kentucky and
Middle Tennessee, it seems logical to assume that a similar pattern is evident in Kentucky.

3. By the thirteenth century in great houses in England, sugar and spices were kept under
lock and key in spice cabinets and were doled out in small quantities to the cook. Sara Paston-
Williams, The Art of Dining: A History of Cooking and Eating {honAon: National Trust, 1993),
37-

4. Sidney W. Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern Society [New York:
Viking Penguin, 1985), 23-14, 31. 108-10, 119-33.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

<,. Mincz stresses that sugar functioned "as a mark ot rank — ro validate one's social posi-
tion, to elevate others, or to define them as interior" (Ibid.. 159).

6. An examination of the account book tor Winchester and Cage for the year 1811 provides
a great deal of information regarding the t)'pes ot sugar available tor purchase and the prices for
different types ot sugar, coffee, tea, and spices. Brown sugar was commonly referred to as "Or-
leans sugar" or simply "sugar." Winchester and Cage Account Book, February to Novem-
ber 1811, private collection; Tennessee State Library and Archives microfilm (copy on file at
MESDA). The expensive prices of sugar, coffee, and spices were not unique to Sumner Coun-
ty, Tennessee, or the year 1811. The record ot the settlement ot accounts in 1818 of the
Williamson County estate of Hezekiah Puryear, a storekeeper, listed the price for loaf sugar at
40 cents per pound and of brown sugar at 22 cents pet pound. Settlement ot the Estate ot
Hezekiah Puryear, Williamson County (Tennessee), Wills and Inventories, April 1818, Book 2,
pp. 136-37. On 31 October 1820 The Clarion, and Tennessee Gazette, published in Nashville
(Davidson County). Tennessee, reported "wholesale cash prices current, at Nashville" for New
Orleans brown sugar as 17 cents per pound; no price was listed for white or loaf sugar.

7. The New Family Receipt Book (London: John Murray, 1824), 127.

8. Winchester and Cage Account Book. Fran(;ois Andre Michaux, Travels to the \i'estward
of the Allegheny Mountains m the States of Ohio. Kentucky and Tennessee (London, iSoO, 156.

9. Settlement ot the Estate of Joseph Coldwell, entry for 1824, recorded in June 1826,
Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, Book 8, p. 560.

10. Henry Bradshaw Fearon, Sketches of America: A Narrative of a Joume)' of Five Thousand
Miles Through the Eastern and Western States of America (London, 1818; reprint, Bronx, N. Y.:
Benjamin Bloom, 1969), 246.

11. Anita Shafer Goodstein, Nashville. 1-S0-1S60: From Frontier to Cit}' (Gainesville: Uni-
versity of Florida Press, 1989), 30. Walter T. Durham, Old Sumner: A Histoiy of Sumner Coun-
ty. Tennessee from iSo^ to 1S61 (Gallatin, Tenn.: Sumner Count)' Public Libran.- Board, 1972),
100.

12. Robert H. White, Tennessee: Its Growth and Progress (Nashville: Robert H. White,
1947), 174. Robert Emmett McDowell estimates that there were around sixty steamboats oper-
ating between New Orleans and Louisville by 1819. "Kentucky, A Briet History," The Maga-
zine ANTIQUES ',s (April I974):78o.

n. Fearon, 246.

14. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese discusses how supplies were n,pically bought in bulk because
ot the difficulties ot obtaining them on a daily basis and because ot the large size ot plantation
households. Within the Plantation HousehoUi: Black and White Women of the Old South
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 118. This phenomenon was not re-
stricted to the South, however. See, for example, Jane C. Nylander, Our Own Snug Fireside:
Images of the New England Home. 1760-1S60 (New York: Knopf, 1993), 195.

15. The entire allotment was as follows:

1200 pounds of bacon, 300 pounds of beet, 40 barrels ot corn, 12s pounds ot brown sugar. 30
pounds of cotfee, 10 pounds ot loaf sugar, and 2 pounds ot tea, 400 pounds ot flour, i pound of
pepper, i pound of allspice, i pound ot ginger, 100 pounds ginned cotton, 300 pounds ot salt, s
gallons of vinegar, 2 milch cows and calves, i stack ot blade fodder, i stack of oats, 6 pounds ot
clean flax, is pounds ot wool.

Widow's Support to Sarah Owen, D.ividson Counts' (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories,
June 1822, Book 8, p. no.

Not all widows received such handsome allotments ot sugar, however, and some did not
receive anv sugar at all. For a more complete discussion ot provisions tor widows, see McPher-
son, "Sugar Chests m Middle Tennessee, iSoo— iSis, " 36-3S.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

i6. Lowell H. Harrison. "Recollections ot Some Tennessee Slaves." /'t-ntifsset' Hulnncal
Quarterly }} (Summer 1974): 177-78.

17. "An Abode of Sweetness," The AUigiizine AN I'K^UHS ib (Atigust I929):i04.

t8. Derita Coleman Williams and Nathan Harsh, The Art and Mystery of Tennessee Furni-
ture and Its Makers Through iSso (Nashville: Tennessee Historical Society and Tennessee State
Miiseum Foundation. 1988). 51.

19. The inclusion of Missouri in this list is based solely on brief statements in .secondary
sources. See Lois L. Olcott. "Kentucky Federal Furniture," The Magazine ANTIQUES 105
(April 1974): 882, note 8, and Jessie Poesch, The An of the Old South: Painting. Sculpture. Ar-
chitecture, & the Products of Craftsmen, /ftfo-rfifo (New York: Harrison House, 1983), 199.

20. Williams and Harsh, si. The daybook, which covers the years 1818 to 1842. is owned by
the Haywood County Historical Society. Waynesville. North Carolina.

21. Personal communication. Robert S. Brunk. Ashevilie. Norrh Carolina. 8 January 1996:
personal communication. J. Roderick Moore. Ferrum College. Ferrum. Virginia. 9 lanuarv
1996.

22. MRF S-6415. Henry D. Green. Furniture of the Georgia Piedmont Before iSfo (Atlanta:
High Museum of Art, 1976), 77.

23. Neat Pieces: The Plain Style Furniture of Nineteenth Century Georgia (Atlanta. Ga.: At-
lanta Historical Society, 1983), 6. 126. This catalogue implies that "sugar box" and "sugar
chest" were interchangeable terms and includes an object described as a "sugar box" which ap-
pears to be a full-size sugar chest with a divided interior. References also were (ound to "sugar
cellars" and "sugar stands."

24. Williams and Harsh, si.

25. E. Bryding Adams, "Mortised. Tenoned and Screwed Together: A Large Assortment of
Alabama Furniture." in Made in Alabama: A State Legacy, ed. E. Bryding Adams (Birmingham.
Ala.: Birmingham Museum of Art, 1995), p. 194. Personal communication, E. Bryding Adams,
Curator of Decorative Arts. Birmingham Museum of Art, Januar)' 17. 1996.

One of the sugar chests recorded was said to have been made in Huntsville, Alabama, for
use in a stagecoach stop in Lincoln County, Tennessee. This particular sugar chest (cat. no.
3699) has the same basic form as the Tennessee sugar chest illustrated in figure 13, but is larger
than most sugar chests. It has a height of 39V4 inches, a width of 38(4 inches, and a depth of
22'/2 inches. The large size lends credence to its oral history of use in an inn. Like most Ten-
nessee and Kentucky sugar chests, this example is made of cherry and tulip poplar. Other sugar
chests located by the Birmingham Museum follow this pattern as well, although two were
recorded which had tapered legs, and some featured walnut and yellow pine. Catalogue of Al-
abama Decotative Arts. Birmingham Museum of Art.

26. Personal communication. H. Parrott Bacot. Director and Curator. Louisiana State
University Museum of Art, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 29 February 1996.

27. John Childress of Davidson County, Tennessee, owned a farm in Alabama. (Inventory
of the Property of John Childress, Davidson County Wills and Inventories, June 1830, Book 8.
pp. 194-95.) In a letter dated 22 August 1833, Thomas Gale of Murfreesboro (Rutherford
County). Tennessee wrote to Josiah Gale in Clinton. Mississippi. "The farmers will he nearly
ruined and many are determined to remove to Mississippi next winter. Indeed the spirit ot em-
igration seems almost general." (Gale and Polk Family Papers, Southern Historical Collection,
Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.)
James Patrick discusses this phenomenon in terms of plantation architecture in Architecture in

Tennessee. j/(5if-/^s)7 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Ptess. 1981). 166-70).

28. Leah Rawls Atkins. "Introduction: Made in Alabama. 1819-1930." in Made m Alaha-

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

2q. Personal communication, Jessie Poesch, Professor of Art, Tulane Universiry, New Or-
leans, La., 29 Februar)- 1996; personal communication. H. Parrott Bacot, Director and Cura-
tor, Louisiana State University Museum of Art, Baton Rouge, La., 19 February 1996.

30. Swannee Bennett and William B. Worthen, Arkansas Made: A Survey of the Decorative.
Mechanical, and Fine Arts Produced in Arkansas, iSw-iS-o. vol. i (Fayetteville: University of
Arkansas Press, 1990), 14.

31. Jane Sikes Hageman. Ohio Furniture Makers: !~i)0 to 1S4S,. vol. I (Cincinnati: Jane Sikes
Hageman, 1984), 33.

32. Betty Lawson Walters, Furniture Makers of Induina. i-gi, to iSw (Indianapolis: Indiana
Historical Society, 1970), 33.

33. Unfortunately, field research undertaken to date in Kentucky is incomplete. MESDA
concentrated its efforts m north-central Kentucky, but did not apply its resources to the area
bordering Middle Tennessee. The Shaker Museum at South Union, Kentucky, has done re-
search regarding the furniture made by non-Shakers in the area surrounding South Union,
particularly in Logan. Warren, Butler, and Simpson counties. See Close Ties: The Relationship
Between Kentucky Shaker Furniture Makers and Their Worldly Contemporaries. An Exhibition of
Antebellum Kentucky and Tennessee Furniture (South Union, Ky.: Shaker Museum at South
Union, 1994). The tentative conclusions reached in this paper regarding sugar chests in Ken-
tucky are based on this limited field research.

34. The following estate records for East Tennessee were reviewed: Greene Count\- Wills
and Inventories, 1828-1854; Knox County Wills and Inventories, 1792-1824; Roane Counts-
Wills and Inventories, 1802-1836; Washington County Wills and Inventories, i-'79-i8'i7;
Jonesboro (Washington County) Inventories, 1822-1833.

35. Inventory of the Property of Elihu Embree, Washington County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, January 1824, Book i, pp. 36-37. Embree, publisher of the Manumission Intelli-
gencer, and his brother Elijah owned a substantial iron works in Washington County. Patrick.
33, 61. Eastin Morris, The Tennessee Gazetteer (1834; reprint, with a preface by Robert M.
McBride. Nashville: Williams Printing Company, 1971). isi.

36. Inventory of Malinda Williams, Knox Count)' (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, Feb-
ruary 1839, as cited in Williams and Harsh, 137.

37. Williams and Harsh, 51.

38. Morris, 62.

39. She aLso commented on the incongruity of dining in "a plain house with rough unfin-
ished walls yet furnished in neat and fashionable style — carpets &c &c a most elegant dinner
and desert seiyed up in the best style — a complete set of the richest cut glass, trench china,
handsome plate &c &c" (2 September 1827). Juliana Margaret Conner diary. 10 June to 1- Oc-
tober 1827, Southern Historical Collection, Manuscripts Department. Wilson Library. Llniver-
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

40. Morris recorded the presence of three cabinetmakers in Huntingdon, two in Paris, one
in Dresden, and three in Jackson (pp. 146, 176, 182, 232).

41. Williams and Harsh state that they found frequent inventor)- references to sugar chests
in West Tennessee and record several examples of sugar chests and related forms. Including
one sugar desk and one sugar press. With the possible exception of the sugar desk, these forms
appear to post-date 182s. The comment in Mrs. Conner's diary regarding importation of goods
raises the question as to whether the sugar desk attributed to Carroll Count)- w-as in fact
brought to Carroll Count)- from Middle Tennessee.

42. Inventory of the Property of Thornas Bedford, Rutherford County- (Tennessee) Wills
and Inventories, lanuary 1805, Book 2. p. 2. Bedford Count)-, formed in 1807. was named in
honor of Ihomas Bedford.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I997

43- Inventory' of the Property ot Ihomas Hiitchings, Davidson County Crcnncssee) Wills
and Inventories, October 1806 and January 1807, Book 3, pp. 135.146. Inventory ot the Proper-
ty o|- Lewis Cireen, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, October 1806, Book
t. p. 13S.

44. For a more in-depth county-by-county analysis of the frequency ot occurrence ot sugar
chests in Middle Tennessee, reference is made to McPherson, 10S-112.

45. Michaux. los. 294-95. By West Tennessee. Michaux meant that area west ot the Cum-
berland Mountains encompassing both Middle and West Tennessee.

46. McDowell. 778-80. Mills Lane, Arclnttciiirf of the Old Som/i. Kentucky ,i>itl /'eniiessee
(Savannah, Ga.: Beehive Press, 1993). 12-14.

47. Albert Smith, "History in Towns: Russellville, Kentucky," f/ie M.ig.iz: lie ANTIQUES
35 (April I974):894-93.

48. Michaux. 130, 243.

49. Patrick, 61-102.

50. Anne Newport Rovall, Letters from Aliihiima on Wirious Stihjeets (Washington. D.C.,
1830; reprint. Tuscaloo.sa: Universirv ot Alabama Press, 1969), 21. cited in Patrick. 60.

31. Fearon, 204.

52. Elizabeth A. Perkins. "The Consumer Frontier: Household Consumption in Early
Kentucky," Joiiniii/ of Ameriain History 7S (September I99i):492, 499.

33. Emphasis added. Inventory of the Estate ot Lewis Green, Davidson CAiunn.- (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories. October 1806. Book 3, p. 138.

34. Anita Shafer Goodstein. Nashville. 1-S0—1S60: From Frontier to City (Gaines\ille: L'ni-
versity of Florida Press, 1989), 27-29.

53. Emphasis added. Inventory ot the Estate ot William Tait, Davidson Count)' (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories. August 1816, Book 7, pp. 42-46.

36. Capt. J. E. Alexander, Transatlantic Sketches, Comprising Visits to the Most Interesting
Scenes in North and South America, and the West Indies (London, 1853: reproduced on micro-
card, Louisville, Ky.: Lost Cause Press, 1961), p. 106.

Goodstein described Yeatman and his business partners in the banking firm ot Yeatman
and Woods as "the most spectacularly successful of all Nashville businessmen" during the peri-
od and pointed out that Yeatman's estate was valued in excess of $300,000 (pp. 33-36).

57. Inventory of the Property of Thomas Yeatman. Davidson Count)' (Tennessee) Wills
and Inventories, March 1834, Book 10, pp. 277—78.

38. Patrick, 83, 92. Paul Clements, A Past Remembered: A Collection ofAntehelluin Houses in
Davidson County, vol. i (Nashville. Tenn.: Clearview Press, 1987), 70.

39. Emphasis added. Account of Sale of the Property of John Childress, Davidson County
(Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, November 1820, Book 7. p. 483.

60. Inventory of the Estate of John Childress, Davidson Count)' (Tennessee) Wills and In-
ventories, March 1823. Book 8, pp. 194-93.

61. See, for example, the inventories of the doctors John Ewing and James Roane, the mer-
chant Thomas Kirkman, and the merchant and banker Thomas Yeatman. Account ot the Sale
of the Estate of James Knox, September 1826, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inven-
tories. Book 9. p. 33. Account of the Sale of the Estate of May Knox. May 1829. Davidson
County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories. Book 9, p. 318. Inventory ot the Estate of John O.
Ewing, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, September 1826, Book 9, p. 49.
Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Kirkman. Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inven-
tories, September 1827, Book 9, pp. 128-29. Inventory of the Estate of Robert Buchanon,
Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, August 1829, Book 9, p. 332. Inventory
of the Estate of James Roane, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories. August

SUG.'VR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

1833. Book 10, p. 204. InventoPi' of the Estate ot Thomas Yeatman. Davidson County (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories, August 1834. Book 10. pp. 288-^S.

62. For a more complete analysis oi this changing pattern ot ownership, see McPherson,
119-46-

63. Presumably town residents also owned fewer slaves and had smaller households to sup-
port than planters and farmers and thus had need for smaller amounts of sugar.

64. As Barbara G. Carson wrote regarding inventories in Washington, D.C. during the
federal period, "Inventories reveal the persistence of traditional performance as well as the lure
ot gentility and new fashions, especially in urban areas." Amhitiom Appetites: Dining. Behavior,
and Patterns of Consumption in Federal W'aslnngtnn (Washington, D.C: The American Insti-
tute of Architects Press, 1990), 31.

65. Inventory ot the Property ot fhomas Yeatman, D.widson County (Tennessee) Wills
and Inventories, August 1834, Book to, pp. 277-78.

66. Edward S. Cooke, Jr., Fiddlebaeks and Crooked-hacks: Elijah Booth and Other Joiners in
Newtown and Woodbury, nso-iSio (Waterbury, Conn.; Mattatuck Historical Society, igSi), 24.

6~. Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons. Houses. Cities (New York:
Random House, 1993),. si. 95. 120-21.

68. While tew inventories were recorded specifically as being prepared room by room, in
some instances the wa)'s in which furniture was listed make apparent the room in which an ob-
ject was kept. The inventor)' of the property of Elizabeth Harding records, "four feather beds
and bedsteads, nine sheets, three yarn Cover lids, four yarn quilts, four Callico Do., five blan-
kets, four Cotton Counterpins, three pillows, tour straw beds, one walnut dining table, one
square do., one square ash do., one sugar chest, one beau fat. "(Davidson County [Tennessee]
Wills and Inventories, August 1816, Book 7, pp. 57-58.) The inventory ot the propert)' ot John
Ghotson lists "i folding table, i cupboard, i sugar chest, 7 chairs." (Williamson County [Ten-
nessee] Wills and Inventories, October 1817, Book 2, p. 334.)

69. Williams listed his primary occupation as farmer in both the 1850 and the 1870 U. S.
Census; however, the inventory of his estate contained the accoutrements of a cabinetmaker,
including a workbench, a turning larhe, and tools. Inventory and Account of the Sale of the
Property of E. W. Williams, Davidson Countv- (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, Februar\'
1872, Book 22, pp. 339-43.

70. This sugar chest is unusual in two respects. Its primary wood is tiddleback (curly)
maple, rather than the more common cherry or walnut. It also features an atypical drawer
arrangement of two-over-rwo. The lower section ot its feet are replaced, perhaps due to degra-
dation from having been set in tins of water or kerosene to repel insects.

71. Levi Cochran Daybook, Good Spring-Benton, Tennessee, 1825— 1S51. The original ot
this daybook is owned by descendants; a copy is in the MESDA librar)'.

72. See the Account of the Sale ot the Property of Caret Hall, Dickson Counrs' (Tennessee)
Administrators Settlements, March 1850, Book 2, pp. 424-25. The Dickson Counn.- records
covered a later period of time than any other probate records reviewed.

73. Some of the boxes of these earlier chests can be removed from their frames; others are
permanently affixed. Turned legs are a later stylistic development. The presence ot tapered legs
does not necessarily indicate earlier manufacture, however, but could indicate either a stylistic
preference or the lack of access to a turning lathe.

74. As discussed above, widows" allotments of the period reve.il a much higher use of
brown sugar than loaf sugar; this higher consumption of brown sugar was probablv due to the
expense ot lo;it sugar compared to brown sugar. An 1819 newspaper advertisement also reflects
the relative consumption of brown sugar compared to white sugar. Reuben Pavne, Drv Creek
Warehouse, Da\'idson Counr\' advertised that he had tor sale tor cash 2^,000 pounds ot brown

60 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

sugar and looo pounds ot loat sugar. Tlv Chmon, and lenneaee (nizette. 12 October 1819.

75. Middle Tennessee estate inventories of the period provide evidence that sugar was
stored in sugar chests. An inventor^' filed in Wilhamson Counry in 1818 hsted "one sugar chest
and sugar" among the items belonging to the deceased." Inventory of the Estate of Hinchen L.
Bass, Williamson Counry- (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, April 1X18, Book 2, p. 374. See
also. Inventory of the Property and Account of the Sale of the Property of Thomas Wisen,
Sumner County (Tennessee) Inventories and Settlements, May 1816, Book i, pp. isg-fio; and
Inventory of the Estate of Francis May, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories,
April 1818, Book 7, p. 295.

In a lawsuit involving a will contest in Grundy County in 1850, one witness testified that
sugar and coffee as well as money and papers were kept in the sugar chest, for it was one of only
two pieces of furniture in the house which were kept locked. Testimony of Elizabeth Walker,
Robert Tate v Heirs of James Tate, Box 91, p. 29, Middle Tennessee Supreme Court Case Files,
Tennessee State Museum and Archives, Nashville. Grundy County, located in southeastern
Middle Tennessee, was formed from lands in Franklin and Warren counties in 1844.

76. James and Roger Quarles (who were brothers). Captain John B. Quarles (the son of
James), and Daniel Trigg (brother-in-law of Roger) were all cabinetmakers in Wilson County
in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Andrew Jackson was acquainted with the Quarles
family since John B. Quarles served under him in the army and Roger Quarles sen'ed on the
Cotton Gin Committee of which Jackson was chairman in 1802. MESDA research files.
Williams and Harsh, 104-5, 310, 319. Review of files of the Ladies Hermitage Association relat-
ed to the sugar chest.

77. The inlay on the Jackson sugar chest is more academically inspired and more finely de-
tailed than that on the Quarles desk. The banded inlay at the bottom edge of the case of the
sugar chest is the work of a skilled inlay maker. Moreover, the construction of the two pieces is
vastly different. The angles of the drawer dovetails on the sugar chest are much steeper, the fit
of the joints is tighter, and the pins of the dovetail joints extend further into the drawer front
than on the desk. The drawer frames of the desk are substantially thicker than the drawer
frame on the sugar chest. Additionally, the drawer bottoms of the desk have a sharp and deep
bevel creating the look ot a raised panel. The desk examined is illustrated in Williams and
Harsh as fig. 63, p. 104.

78. The inventory taken in 1833 after Judge John Overton's death did not list a sugar chest.
However, his wife had inherited a sugar chest upon the death of her first husband, Francis
May. Figure 13 may be the sugar chest listed in the 1818 inventory of Francis May. After marrj'-
ing the widow Mary May in 1820, Overton launched a major renovation of his simple two-sto-
ry, four-room Federal house which he had built in 1799 by adding a rwo-story, eight-room
Greek-Revival ell. Overton purchased some new furnishings during the course of this renova-
tion. While some of the items were locally made, he also obtained glassware, china, and furni-
ture imported to Nashville by his stepson-in-law. Richard Barry. Among these imported items
were two dozen wine glasses, one dozen gilt cups and saucers, a mahogany dressing table, and
one dozen fancy chairs from Philadelphia. A sugar chest may not have been considered appro-
priately stylish for these new rooms.

Inventory of John Overton, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, August
1833, Book 10, pp. 192-96. Will of Francis May, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and In-
ventories, February 1818, Book 7, p. 220. Inventory of Francis May, Davidson County (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories, April 1818, Book 7, p. 295. Paul Clements, A Past Remembered: A
Collection of Antebellum Houses in Davidson County, vol. i (Nashville, Tenn.: Clearview Press,
1987), 110—13. Thomas B. Brumbaugh, Martha I. Strayhorn, and Gar)' G. Gore, eds.. Architec-
ture of Middle Tennessee. The Historic American BuiUings Sun<e)' (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

University Press, 1974). '06. Fietch Coke, "Profiles oi John Overton; Judge, Friend, Family
Man, and Master of Travellers' Rest," Teiinessfe Historical Qiianerly 37 (Winter i97S):4oS.
Williams and Harsh, 29, 47.

79. John Bivins, Jr., The Furniture of Co,iitiil North Caroliihi. !'00-i82g (Winston-Salem,
N.C.: Museum ot Early Southern Decorative Arts, 1988), 413-14.

So. WTiile more research is needed to identify this cabinetmaker and the specific area in
which he worked, the 1810 United States Census for Kentucky lists a Henry Webb in Clark
Counry, Kentucky (located southeast of Lexington). Edna Talbott Whitley records a cabinet-
maker by the name ot H. H. Webb in Simpsonville (Shelby Coimry), Kentucky in 1859. A
Checklist of Kentucky Cabinemiakers from /-^f to iS^i). With Addendum (Paris, K\-., 1981), 113.

81. Williams and Harsh, fig. 149, p. 140.

Si. Personal communication. Tommy Mines, Executive Director, Shaker Museum at
South Union, 2 November 199s and 8 January 1996. Williams and Harsh illustrate a sugar
chest of this same form, which they attribute to Montgomery County, Tennessee, located
across the state line and immediately southeast of Logan County (Williams and Harsh, fig. 150,
p. 141). Sugar chests from West Tennessee follow this pattern as well.

83. Williams and Harsh (p. 13^) report the occurrence of sugar chests constructed of maple
and birch.

84. F[ortescue| Cuming, Sketches of a Tour to the Western Country through the States of Ohio
and Kentucky: A Voyage down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers: and A Trip through the Mississippi
Territoiy and Part of West Florida (Pittsburgh, iSio), 164.

Michaux noted the abundance of both walnut and cherry in Tennessee and Kentucky. He
stated that the wood of the black walnut tree had a grain "sufficiendy fine and compact to ad-
mit of a beautiful polish", but went on to say "as its color soon changes to a dusky hue, the
Wild Cherry is frequendy preferred" for cabinetmaking. Francois Andre Michaux. The North
American Sylva. or a Description of the Forest Trees of the United States. Canada and Nova Scotia.
(Paris, 1819). vol. I, 156-57. He also commented regarding the expense of transporting wood.
(/W. vol. II, 20-.)

83. In 1810, a cabinetmaker in Harrodshurg, Kentucky advertised that he had mahogany
available in his shop, and a Nashville artisan made that same claim in 1814. Olcott, "Kentucky
Federal Furniture," 878; Williams and Harsh, 35.

86. Inventory and Account of the Sale of the Estate of James B. Houston, Davidson Coun-
ty (Tennesseei Wills and Inventories. January 1823. Book 8. pp. 436-41.

87. The removable box of this chest is nailed, a further indication ot its late manufacture.
Others are known which are dovetailed.

88. While acknowledging the variation in the qualm' ot the workmanship ("Some chests
show excellent dovetail construction . . . while others are but crudely made boxes set upon
unlovely legs."), Dockscader states that most sugar chests were made by "the plantation car-
penter or joiner" (141-42). This belief continues to the present day. as expressed to me by the
owner of rwo ot the sugar chests illustrated here.

89. Inventory of the Estate of Daniel McBean. Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, November iSis, Book 4, pp. 383-8S. Inventoi^- of the Sale of the Property of
Daniel McBean, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, January 1816, Book 4,
pp. 413-20.

90. Cochran Daybook.

91. Ellen Beasley. "Tennessee Cabinetmakers and Chairmakers Through 1840." The Maga-
zine ANTIQUES \oo (Ocrober I97i):6i6.

92. Account of rhe Sale of the Property ot Robert Carruthers, Maurv Countv- (Tennessee)
Wills and Inventories. 1829, Book D. pp. 455-40.

62 JOURN.'kL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECOR.\TIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

93- Account ot the Sale ot the Propcrr\- of John Motheral. Williamson (."ounty (Tennessee)
Wills and Inventories, October 1S24. Book 3, pp. 743-45.

94. See. tor example. Inventory and Account of Sales of the Estate of William Hanna,
Sumner County (Tennessee) Inventories and Settlements, Februar\' 1830, Book 1. pp. 372-75;
Inventory and Account of Sale of the Property of Lewis Barton, Rutherford County (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories, April 1824, Book 6, pp. 30-35; Account of the Sale of the Prop-
erty of William Adams, Robertson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories. Mav 1S2S, Book
6, pp. 505-11.

95. According to Edna Talbott Whidey, this sugar desk has a history of ownership on Clin-
tonville Road in Bourbon County and was bequeathed by the original owner to his grand-
daughter in 1828. Checklist of Kentucky Cabinetmakers. Addendum, p. 3.

96. See the examples illustrated in Olcott, 870-82, and in Keith N. Morgan, "Josiah Re-
considered: A Green County School of Inlay Cabinetmaking," T/:e Magazine ANTIQUES 10s
(April 19-4): 883-93.

9^. MESDA has recorded two other desks with combined uses that do not have fallboard
supports, a sugar desk (MRF S-2805) and a linen desk (Ace. 3480, fig. 32 here).

98. MRF S-3709. While the feet on Figure 19 also appear to be related, they are apparently
a later replacement.

99. This group includes twelve chests of drawers recorded by MESDA. the sugar desk illus-
trated in figure 22, and one other sugar desk (MRF S-2804). Recent research by Marianne
Ramsey and Diane Wachs has revealed the existence of more than ninety objects from this
school. The exhibition "The Tutde Muddle: An Investigation of a Kentucky Case-on-Frame
Furniture Group" (Headley- Whitney Museum, Lexington, Kentucky, 30 October to 31 De-
cember 1997) highlighted this research. A catalogue of the exhibition is forthcoming.

too. See, tor example, the Inventory ot the Property of James Akins which lists a sugar desk
and the Account ot Sales which lists a sugar chest. Robertson County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, February 1825, Book 4, pp. 28-32, 286-87.

One known sugar desk constructed primarily of tulip poplar has dovetails joining the front
and back to the sides. This joinery method is typical of chests, not of desks which customarily
have dovetails joining the top and bottom to the sides. Illustrating this confusion of terminolo-
gy regarding these forms, this sugar desk recently was described as a "Slant Front Desk, con-
vened from a meal chest." Ken Farmer Auctions & Estates, catalog for the auction held 28 Oc-
tober 1995.

loi. Account of the Sales of the Property of Cornelius Herndon, Sumner County (Ten-
nessee) Inventories and Setdements, February 1819, Book i, p. 397.

102. Inventory of the Estate of Mary Quarles, Wilson County (Tennessee) Wills and In-
ventories, June 1823, Book 3, p. 476. However, at the sale of the property of Mrs. Quarles, an
entry reflects the sale of a "Shugar Chest", the "C" of chest being overwritten over a "d," for
$3. 00 (May 1825, Book 3, pp. 521-22). See discussion below regarding confusion of terminolo-
gy for certain forms.

103. Williams and Harsh, 51.

104. Josiah Nichols file, MESDA Study Collection, MRF S-3201. Joshua Nichols may be
the "Josiah Nichols" listed by Edna Whitley as a cabinetmaker in Mercer (later Boyle) Counrv,
Kentucky in 1811 (Whidey, 79).

105. Account of the Sale of the Property' of Joseph Motheral, Sumner Count\' (Tennessee)
Inventories and Settlements, August 1816, Book i, pp. 295-96.

106. The higher prices commanded at the McBean sale no doubt reflect that the furni-
ture sold was part of the cabinetmaker's inventory and thus new as compared to the used
furniture sold at most estate sales. Account of the Sale of the Properrv of Daniel McBean,

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

Davidson Counrv' (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, Fehruan- 1816, Book 4, pp. 413-20.

107. Even the sugar desk which sold tor $13.25 must have been less significant than a desk,
as a "large writing desk" sold at the same sale for $50.00. List of Sales of the Estate of Robert
[M or W] Reynolds. Logan County (Kentucky) Wills and Inventories, January 1805, Book i.
PP- 44-4";.

loS. See, tor example, the inventory ot the property ot William McGrady which listed both
a sugar desk and a desk and bookcase. Sumner Count}' (Tennessee) Inventories and Settle-
ments, February 1816. Book i. p. 248.

109. John Bivins and Forsyth Alexander, The Regwih/I Arts of the Eiirly South (Winston-
Salem, N.C.: Museum of Early Decorative Arts, 1991), 41.

no. Account of the Sale of the Property of William Dickson, Davidson County ( Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories, November 1816, Book 7, pp. 87—88. Sugar chests sold for $6.i2V2
and $6.75 at the estate sales of Elizabeth Harding and Robert Edmondson, respectively. Ac-
count of the Sale of the Estate of Elizabeth Harding, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, November 1816, Book 7, p. 106. Account of the Sale of the Estate ot Robert Ed-
mondson, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, August 1816, Book ^, pp.
64-65.

in. Account of the Sale of the Property of Mary Green. Maury County (Tennessee) Wills
and Inventories, May 1817, Book iC. pp. 456-57.

112. Inventory of the Estate ot Catherine Cotter, Rutherford Count)' (Tennessee) General
Records, November 1830, Book 8, pp. 232-33.

113. Inventory of the Estate of Lewis Green, Da\'idson Counr\' (Tennessee) Wills and In-
ventories, October 1806, Book 3, p. 138.

114. Inventorv ot the Estate of Thomas Kirkman. Davidson Count)' (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, September 1827, Book 9, pp. 128-29.

115. Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Hatchings, Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills
and Inventories, October 1806, Book 3, p. 135. Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Hutchings,
Davidson County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories. January 180-, Book 3, p. 146.

n6. Inventory of the Property of Adnah Donnell, Wilson County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, February 1832. Book 6. pp. 315-16.

117. Account of the Sale of the Property ot Pumal Hcarn. Wilson County (Tennessee)
Wills and Inventories, December 1831, Book 6, pp. 330-54.

118. Personal communication. Michael Sisk. Shaker Museum at South L'nion, South
LInion. Kentucky, 2 November 1995, and Tommy Hines, Executive Director, Shaker Museum
at South LJnion, 2 November 1995 and 8 January 1996.

119. The account of sale also listed two sugar chests which sold tor $8.00 and sg.oo. Inven-
tory and Account ot the Sale ot the Estate of James B. Houston, Davidson Counry (Ten-
nessee) Wills and Inventories, January 1S25, Book 8, pp. 436-41.

120. Williams and Harsh, figs. 160 and 161. pp. 145-46.

121. Thomas Washington of Rutherford Counrv owned "a cupboard and sugar chest" at
the time of his death in 1818. The manner in which this cupboard and sugar chest was listed in
the inventorv identifies it as a single piece of furniture, rather than two objects listed together.
(Inventory ot the Properry of Thomas Washington, Rutherford County (Tennessee) Wills and
Inventories, December 181S, Book 4, pp. 189-92.) The 1826 inventory of the estate of Henry
Windrow, also of Rutherford County, listed "One sugar chest and cubboard" although the ac-
count of his estate sale recorded that a sugar chest sold tor $7.00. A comparison ot the itemiza-
tion of property in the inventory and account of sale indicates that the cupboard and sugar
chest were, in tact, one object. (Inventor)' ot the Estate ot Henry Windrow. Rutherford Coun-
ty (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, November 1826, Book 6, pp. 234-35. Account of the Sale

64 JOURNAL OF E.\RLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 199;

oi the Estate ot Henr)' Windrow, Ruthertord County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, July
1827, Book 7, pp. 74-77.) A "Sugar Press" was sold tor $6.00 at the sale ot the property of
Robert Crawson of Maury County in 1832. (Account of the Sale ot the Property ot Robert
Crawson, Maury County (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, May 1832, Book E, pp. 514-16.)
The 1834 inventory of the property of Jeremiah Baxter listed "1 Dish Cupboard & Sugar
Chest. " The manner in which the dish cupboard and sugar chest was itemized indicates that
this was a single piece ot turniture. (Inventor,' ot the Property of Jeremiah Baxter, Maury
County [Tennessee] Wills and Inventories, 1834, BookX, pp. 151-52.)

122. Williams and Harsh, 138, 144-45.

123. MESDA research tiles. IC^' 2-8.

124. Brock Jobe and Myrna Kaye, Nav England Furniture: The Colonial Era (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1984), p. 144. In his Cabinet Dictionary published in 1803, Thomas Shera-
ton noted that in Ftance a bureau was a small chest of drawers, while in England the term typ-
ically referred to a desk with drawers. Thomas Sheraton, Cabinet Dictionary, vol. I (London,
1803; reprint. New York: Praeger, 1970), no.

125. Inventory of the Property of J. D. Goodall. Smith County (Tennessee) Wills and In-
ventories, April 1830, Book 1827-1832, p. 234.

The 1822 Davidson County inventory of the property of William Perkins listed "one Bu-
reau and Sugar Chest. " However, the account of the sale of his property recorded the sale of a
"sugar chest" for $7.6212, indicating once again the overlapping and confusing terminology of
furniture forms. (Inventor\' of the Property ot William Perkins, Davidson County [Tennessee]
Wills and Inventories, October 1822, Book 8, pp. 147-48. Account of the Sale of the Property
ot William Perkins, Davidson Count)' (Tennessee) Wills and Inventories, January 1823, Book
8, pp. 181-83.) .Another bureau and sugar chest was inventoried in Davidson County in 1831,
and still another in Williamson County in 1833. (Inventory of the Property of John Cumin,
Davidson County [Tennessee Wills and Inventories, February 1831, Book 9, p. 477. Inventory
of the Property of Balaam Ezell, Williamson Count}' [Tennessee] Wills and Inventories, Octo-
ber 1833, Book 5. p. 334)

126. The MESDA research tiles contain an old photograph of an object catalogued as a
"cellaret or sugar chest." Attributed to piedmont North Carolina, it consists of a lift-top stor-
age bin over a sliding shelf and two drawers (MRF S-1116). The present location of this object
is unknown; the author would like to locate it for further examination and photography.

127. Bushman, pp. 51, 95. 120-21. Elizabeth Donaghy Garrett, At Home: The American
Family, i~;o—iS70 (New York: Abrams, 1990), 64-67, 84—87; Cooke, 25.

128. Bivins, 226—380, passim.

129. B. Carson, 42; Garrett, 78-91.

130. Henry Glassie, Folk Housing in Middle Virginia (Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press, 1975), 73.

131. These furniture torms were also forms commonlv tound in dining or other public
rooms.

132. Cooke, 25.

133. MRF S-1924.

134. Glassie. 112.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

Book Reviews

May We All Remember Well: A Journal of the History and Cultures
of Western North Carolina. Vol. i. Robert S. Brunk, Ed. Asheville: Robert S.
Brunk Auction Services, 1997. Pp. 287; 91 color, 260 black-and-white illustra-
tions, <, maps, 5 tables. Paper, $40.00. isbn 0-9656461-0-6.

Am ambitious new journal, in the form of a large-format (9" x
12 ") paperbound book, has appeared on the southern decorative arts
scene. As the title (derived from John Lelands 1835 hymn, "Evening
Shade") suggests, its purpose is to contribute "to the general need tor
documentation ot the material and non-material cultures ot Western
North Carolina" (p. 7), to quote editor and publishes Robert S.
Brunk, an Asheville auctioneer with previous careers as a sociologist
and woodworker. While this mountainous section of the state is reg-
ularly included in Appalachian Studies periodicals, the emphasis of
this new publication on western North Carolina's material culture is
a welcome contribution.

Especially noteworthy are the book's elegant design, which under-
scores the merit of the subject matter and generally high level of re-
search, and the diversity of approaches taken to the nineteen-county
focus area. The authors oi the eighteen essays range from folklorists,
art and local historians, a genealogist, and an archaeologist to tree-
lance writers, collectors, and dealers. Each adds a piece to the com-
plex cultural patchwork that constitutes western North Carolina. A
number ot the more substantial articles concern folk or traditional
craftspeople who learned their skills informally within their commu-
nities. Kathleen Curtis Wilson begins her study of weaver Allie
Josephine ("Josie") Mast ot Valle Crucis, Watauga County, with a

surviving homespun suit woven by (osies grandmother in the 1820s,
then uncovers the truth in the stories of josie's 1913 furnishing oi
President Woodrow Wilson's White House bedroom as part of her
involvement in the Handcraft Revival. The impact of this revival
movement on native arts is also explored by Pauline Binkley Cheek
in her study of the hooked-rug cottage industry of Madison County,
and by Terry B. Taylor in his piece on the Sunset Mountain Pottery,
whose wares were promoted in Asheville but made in the Piedmont
by the Cole family of Seagrove.

Jerry Israel traces four generations of Mace family chairmakers in
Madison County and convincingly links the first to a neighbor who
in turn inherited a furniture-making tradition brought from London
in the 1750s. Ample illustration is provided for the work of the last
two Maces, Copenny and his son Shadrick ("Birdie"), who special-
ized in mountain "mule-ear" chairs until the Handcraft Revival en-
couraged them to makes ladderback dining chairs, a nonlocal form,
in the 1930s. These ladderbacks became Birdies meal ticket, but that
didn't keep him from commenting on the relative comfort of the
two types: "Now, if company comes, and you don't want them to
stay long, well, you bring out one of them ladderbacks for them to
sit on. But if you want em to set a spell and visit, well offer em a
settin' cheer" (p. 192). Israel states that "there seems to be no design
precedent for the bent back" of the mountain "settin " chair (p. 176),
but in fact a likely precedent is the northern Hitchcock-style side
chair, factory-made in the early nineteenth century and reinterpret-
ed by country chairmakers.

Artists working in a more academic vein in western North Caroli-
na are also documented in May We A// Remember Well. Peter Austin
examines the career of Rafael Guastavino, a Spanish-born builder
who refined the Catalan vaulting (layered-tile) technique and ap-
plied it to the arches and domes of Biltmore House and Saint
Lawrence Catholic Church in Asheville, where he settled. William
A. Hart, Jr., writes a biography for another adopted Ashevillean,
Japanese-born George Masa, a scenic photographer who helped to

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY 67

map the Great Smokey Mountains National Park and the Ap-
palachian Trail before his death in 1933. And Andrew James Brunk
looks at an 1850 view of Asheville by Robert Dimcanson of Cincin-
nati, a member ot the Hudson River School oi landscape painters,
and ponders on how this nationally recognized African-American
artist might have been received while visiting North Carolina, with
its laws hostile to free Blacks.

Three artists in wood featured in this journal were largely self-
taught, drawing on their own inner visions tor inspiration. As Mag-
gie Palmer Lauterer describes, Wade Martin of Swannanoa, Bun-
combe County, learned basic woodworking and instrument-making
skills from his father, noted fiddler Marcus Martin, but went on to
develop a distinctive line of carved mountain figures sold through
Asheville's Allanstand Craft Shop. Charles G. Zug III reports that
Edgar McKillop of Balfour, Henderson County, began carving his
blocky animal and human figures about 1926 when he lost his mill
job and a neighbor gave him some walnut trees. The inspiration be-
hind the elaborately inlaid woodwork of Ashevillean Samuel Wilson
Jacobs is not known, but his 1920s creations seem related to a larger
African-American aesthetic, according to Jack L. Lindsey.

Not all the journals articles concern the visual arts. Rob Amberg,
Barbara R. Duncan, and Blanche R. Robertson explore three under-
pinnings of the Appalachian economy: tobacco, ginseng, and
milling. Brett Riggs combines archaeology with archival data to re-
veal some of the cultural choices of John Christie's mixed-blood
Cherokee family prior to their removal from Cherokee County to
Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears.

With no apparent limits but those of geography. May We All Re-
member Well offers a refreshingly multifaceted look at the past and
present cultures of western North Carolina. Given the book's high
production values, its price tag is not unwarranted. Rumor has it
that a second volume is in the works.

JOHN A. BURRISON

Georgia State University

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99;

Jacob Simon, Tl)e Art of the Picture Frame: Artists. Patrons and the
Framing of Portraits in Britain. London: National I'ortrait Ciaiicrv, 1996.
Pp. 224, 89 color, 10 black-and-whice illustrations; bibliography, glossary, index.
ISBN 1-8SS14-171-X (cloth, £40), 1-8SS14-172-8 (paper, £25).

From the earliest times to the present, picture Frames have been
an important part ot every household's belongings. However, the
frame as an element of the painting it encases has been overlooked
in the traditional study of art, at least until recently, with the publi-
cation of Jacob Simons groundbreaking work on British frames.

In art historical circles, the picture frame has retained the status of
a stepchild or even worse, an illegitimate offspring, with no one
claiming responsibility for its care, study, or connoisseurship. Few
people have ever collected frames, studied them closely, or consid-
ered them remotely important to the study of art. Up to this point,
there has been only brief research, contained in a bibliography in the
front of the book, regarding the stylistic development of the frame
and its important symbiotic relationship to the paintings they sur-
round. It is not surprising that as a result of this shortage of infor-
mation, collectors and curators find selecting appropriate frames a
troublesome and frustrating task; they tend to rely on a handful of
decorators with no historical perspective.

In this reviewer's experience, the prevailing attitude at world-class
museums in this country in the 1970s reflected the status quo: Dump
the original frame and put on something that looks good. Paintings
were typically re-framed based on aesthetic considerations rather
than art historical precedent. There was no history of frames to draw
from. Simon's book contributes gready to the general understanding
of a frame as integral to the work of art it surrounds. It will be an in-
valuable reference for every serious collector for years to come.

The first chapter of the book addresses the important function of
the frame as a barometer of taste for each era. For example, early six-
teenth-century frames were made with relatively simple profiles and,
in comparison with frames made later in the century, were austerely
painted with minimal amounts of gold leaf applied as an accent.

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY 69

They were surmounted with a curtain rod upon which an expensive
and rare silk, such as tafteta or sarcenet, was hung and then pulled
across the painting as a protective and theatrical device. However, in
the latter part oi the century, the curtain was eliminated and the for-
mer austere approach was gradually replaced with an elaborately
carved and gilded frame. This shift reflects the broad pendulum oi
changing taste over the next four hundred years. The chapter ends
with a discussion of prevailing attitudes in museums today; it also
mentions the demise of the trame in the modern era, suggesting that
this is a reaction to the traditional frame calling undue attention to
itself For example, when placed next to an abstract painting like a
Piet Mondrian, which is characterized by flat and linear qualities, a
traditional three-dimensional frame becomes self-insistent. In order
to be successl^ul, the frame must mimic the aesthetics ot the painting
and become, by default, a silent partner.

The second chapter describes in exquisite detail the techniques ot
frame making; it provides a cogent basis for looking at and under-
standing the frames in the subsequent chapters. The methodology of
frame making is as varied as the nationalities that practice it, yet
there is a common thread that all practitioners ot the craft share: the
use of gold leaf or another metal as a surface finish, providing a neu-
tral transition between canvas and wall. The many ways of its appli-
cation are explained as well as the subtle differences that distinguish
carved wood, composition ornament, papier-mache, and other exot-
ic treatments of materials, such as silver leaf covered with a yellow
varnish to give the appearance of gold leaf but with a distinctive cool
color. The various techniques of gesso work and other surface effects
are also described. With a litde bit of practice, and using this book
as a guide, readers will be able to look at a picture frame and under-
stand what they are seeing.

Classif\'ing frames is a difficult task for any scholar. There are just
too many categories of frames, and they rarely fall into neat and tidy
slots as art historians want them to do. The frame defies categoriza-
tion: it is not furniture, sculpture, or architecture, but rather an

70 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

amalgam oi all three. In spite of this daunting challenge, the author
has given tis some basic guidelines that can be used until more infor-
mation is gathered. One shortcoming of the book is that there are
not more profile drawings of the frames, as it is difficult to see the
shapes of the moldings from photographs alone. Other chapters de-
scribe the evolution of various styles of frames that are particular to
London and that echo trends in architecture and other decorative
arts: Tudor, Charles I, Sunderland, and cushion frames; Baroque,
William Kent, Rococo, Carlo Marrata, Neoclassical, and Revival
styles. In addition, artist's frames are given a thorough analysis of
their own. There is also a chapter on the role of an artist's patrons in
selecting frames for their own portraits. Historically, great effort was
directed toward presentation by selecting a frame appropriate for the
environment for which the work of art was intended and, more im-
portantly, by considering the painting's color, texture, composition,
and scale.

The last chapter includes information about the business of frame
making, followed by a brief guide to the more significant frames in
the collection of the National Portrait Gallery in London. The ex-
pense of making a frame or finding and old one that is appropriate is
considerable. Today, one can expect to pay many thousands of dol-
lars for a frame that is hand-carved, gessoed with delicate recutting,
punchwork or stamping, and finally, gilded and toned to a brilliant
yet subtle light refraction and surface depth. Simon calculates the
cost of frames in proportion to cost of the paintings and rightly con-
cludes that patrons will always carefully consider the value of a
painting before investing a lot of money in a frame. In the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries a frame could cost half as much as
the painting of a minor artist. Although unique or elaborately carved
frames were priced according to the job, most frames were generally
priced by the running foot. Our own clear-headed George Washing-
ton ordered a frame molding from Clement Biddle in 1797, writing,
"Let it cost a dollar a foot. I do not want high price frames. "

At present, the art history communities are coming to the realiza-

SUGAR CHESTS IN MIDDLE TENNESSEE AND CENTRAL KENTUCKY

tion that picture frames are an important interpretive tool. Ohen
the style and origin oi a frame can provide valuable clues to the
provenance of a painting that lacks an artist's signature or firm attri-
bution. Not only are frames complementary to and derivative of ar-
chitectural forms, as mentioned above, but they are often excellent
examples ot design in their own right. Simon's book not only con-
tains many anecdotal stories and contemporary source material, but
also contains an excellent glossary of terms and a series of cross-sec-
tion drawings outlining major trends in English frame design over
the last five hundred years.

We are approaching a time when the proper frame may perhaps
once again be considered an object worthy of attention for the aver-
age collector. There does exist a small international underground of
individuals who realize that a goocH painting deserves a good frame
and a bad painting can be improved with a great frame, but they
represent just a fraction of the people that should be aware of this as-
pect of visual perception. With the new awareness that this long-
awaited book brings us comes the need for more information. What
are the origins of frame design? How do frames differ between coun-
tries, and within different areas of a particular country? These and
other questions will one day be answered as the tide of interest ad-
vances. While frames are now considered by some as magnificent
borders, for others they are still rotten bits of wood surrounding a
painting that have to be "dealt with." However, the fact still remains
that a frame can have a tremendous impact, either positive or nega-
tive, on a painting. The American artist William Glackens once re-
marked, "Every artist suffers from a chronic lack of suitable frames."
With the publication of this book, we suffer one bit less from a
chronic lack of information about these magnificent borders.

WILLIAM B. ADAIR

I}itcriiatio>ial Institute for Fmi)ie Study,
Washiiigto)!, D. C.

JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1997

THE MUSEUM OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS

Hobart G. Cawood, President, Old Salem, Inc.

Frank L. Horton, Director Emeritus

Sally Gant, Director of Education and Special Events
Ruth Brooks, Associate in Education

Paula Hooper, Coordinator of Membership Services

Paula W. Locklair, Director, Department of Collections, and Curator

Johanna M. Brown, Assistant Curator and Registrar

Michelle Fulp, Collections Assistant

Bradford L. Rauschenberg, Director, Department of Research

Nancy Bean, Office Manager

Jennifer Bean-Bowen, Prints and Slides Assistant

Martha Rowe, Research Associate

Virginia S. Hunt, Librarian

Wesley Stewart, Photographer

Cornelia B. Wright, Editor of Publications

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Journal of early southern decorative arts [serial]"

See other formats