A mysterious chip off the old block

In today’s post there is some fact, some conjecture, some plain old fanciful thinking, and we hope you will share your knowledge and opinions with us.

The item we present for your consideration is a small (5/8” h x 1 3/8” wide x 1 1/8” d) piece of worked white marble. It is smoothed but not highly polished and has been cut to a truncated pyramid atop a rectangle. On the underside of the stone is the pencil inscription, “Shirley Holy Hill rec’d 1844.”

The piece was catalogued as a gift from Eldress Emma B. King to the Shaker Museum through founder John S. Williams, Sr. in 1957. It appears to have been among a number of items acquired by the Museum that were in storage at Hancock following the closing of Mount Lebanon in 1947. At this time Mr. Williams was mostly purchasing items from the Shakers. It is not known whether or not this item was a gift from the Eldress because she felt it had some religious significance (as was the case with gifts of pieces of fabric associated with Mother Ann Lee and the fountain stone from Canterbury). Whatever the case – the real question is: “Just what is this thing?”

fig 4

Photograph of the Shirley Fountain Stone as It Stood on at the End of the Fountain, Shirley, Massachusetts, 1897. Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1971.17123.1, (copy received from Erhart Muller in 1971).

The clues are few, but clues nonetheless. The inscription places this piece of marble in the same year that a fountain stone was erected on the Holy Hill of Peace – Shirley’s designated feast ground, a plot of land used for outdoor worship between about 1842 and 1852. At this time there was a great outpouring of spiritual communications between those in the spirit world and those here on earth. The feast ground was usually established on a high point of community land. The land was cleared and fenced. A shelter house was built, a roughly hexagonal fountain was defined by a short fence, and the fountain stone erected at one end of the hexagon. From this “fountain,” waters flowed directly from heaven to earth and Shakers bathed in these spiritual waters to wash away sin. The date and inscription on the little piece of marble associate it with the Shirley feast ground.

The lettering and erection of the fountain stone at Shirley is described in a series of entries from various Shaker journals:

July 10, 1844: Elder Joseph Myrick was here also to give information that he had finished lettering the stone for the Holy Hill of Peace, when it was agreed to have it erected on Monday next 15 of July.

July 11, 1844: Jonas [Nutting] commences making the mortise for the Lords Stone on the Holy Hill of Peace. [There are several ways to “plant” a stone in the ground so it will stand straight. In the case of common slab-style grave stones, they are often left long enough to have nearly as much stone below the ground as above. In the case of gate posts they are often cut to leave a base on the stone much larger in mass than the post, thus securing it from movement. The option the Shakers seemed to use for their fountain stones was to set them in a bed-stone or socket stone. The socket stones at Enfield, New Hampshire, and Harvard, Massachusetts are still visible in their original locations. A mortise was cut into a heavy stone to receive the base of the fountain stone and the fountain stone was made tight with iron wedges between the sides of the mortise and the fountain stone – and/or molten lead is was poured into the void between mortise and fountain stone.]

July 12, 1844: John O[rsment] and James N[utting] finish the mortise in the bedstone at the Holy Hill of Peace.

July 13:, 1844: Bennet Bolton goes to Harvard after the Lords Stone which has been thee to be engraved. 

July 15, 1844: The Lords Stone is Erected this day on the Holy Hill of Peace – Elder Joseph Myrick comes to assist in the same – Lords Stone is erected by John Orsment Jr, Elder Br[other] Abr[aha]mWhitney, Elder Joseph Myrick, Elder Joseph Hammond, Samuel Barett & Jonas Nutting 

Elder Joseph Myrick, the Elder of the South Family at the Harvard Shaker Village, had previously lettered  the fountain stone erected at Harvard’s Holy Hill of Zion on November 23, 1843. In 1848, he visited the Canterbury Shakers where he both trained Elder Henry C. Blinn in the art of lettering stone and, while there, lettered some portion the Canterbury fountain stone. The surviving three-fifths of that stone is in the Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon collection.

The piece of worked marble is unlikely to have originated around Shirley, for as Meredith Marcinkewicz of the Shirley Historical Society commented, “We did not grow our own marble in Shirley.” Most of the fountain stones in the eastern Shaker communities seem to have a Berkshire County, Massachusetts, origin. The stones for Canterbury and Enfield, New Hampshire were purchased for them by the Lebanon Shakers and sent by rail on December 21, 1843. In May, 1843 the Enfield, Connecticut Shakers came to Lanesboro, Massachusetts to purchase a new fountain stone blank, their first stone having failed because it was too “flinty.” The Groveland, New York fountain stone was lettered at New Lebanon and taken there in the spring of 1843 and on December 12, 1845, the Lebanon Shakers procured two stones at Stockbridge, Massachusetts “to go by Rail R. to Harvard, to be lettered there [probably by Elder Joseph Myrick] – one is for Alfred, sacred ground, & the other I think for Harvard.” More likely the second stone was for Sabbathday Lake, Maine, since the Harvard fountain stone had been erected two years earlier. Although no record has been yet unearthed, it seems more likely than not that the Harvard and Shirley fountain stones were also procured at the Stockbridge marble quarries and sent to them by the Lebanon Shakers.

fig 3

Photograph of the Shirley Fountain Stone as It Stood on at the End of the Fountain, Shirley, Massachusetts, 1897. Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1971.17123.1, (copy received from Fruitlands Museums, 1971).

When the stones were purchased they were probably quarried and sawn as rectangles. In preparation for lettering they were smoothed and polished on all sides and the top corners seem to have been rounded. The cutting of the rounded corners may have left some small pieces of marble that could have been worked into the truncated pyramid or the bottoms of the stones may have been cut to fit the socket stone with similar resulting “waste.” All of this is to suggest that it would be interesting to know whether it is possible to determine if the little piece of marble originated in the Stockbridge quarries.

We have shared what we know – probably infused with too much conjecture already – but we are stumped as to the why the piece was made, inscribed, and apparently taken from Shirley to Mount Lebanon (and then to Hancock) – where it either did or did not have some particular significance to the Shaker Eldress who gave it to the Museum.

As always – but with this more than ever – we welcome your thoughts. Please share them in the comments below.

Advertisements

A boring machine that isn’t boring

In the two previous articles, we discussed a shoemaker’s bench and a pair of worsted combs, all made by Brother Richard Woodrow. In this post we present a tool – a beam auger – that he made and used in his woodworking at the Center Family at Mount Lebanon.

fig 1

Beam Auger, Center Family, Mount Lebanon, NY, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 2009.1.1. Matthew Kroening, photographer

On April 13, 1850, a Shaker journalist noted in the Center Family journal: “R[ichard] B. W[oodrow] engaged something about building a boring machine &c.” Boring machines, or beam augers, were essential tools for framing heavy timber buildings. The various beams, posts, girts, rafter plates, sills, etc. in a building’s timber frame are connected using mortise and tenon joints – basically square (or most often rectangular) pegs fit into square (or rectangular) holes. Mortises – the holes – were made by drilling a series of one-and-one-half to two-inch round holes in a beam with a large auger. The holes were then fashioned into a rectangle with chisels to make them ready to receive the tenon. The tenon was made to fit in its corresponding mortise by shaping the end of a beam using saws and chisels. In a large building such as a Shaker barn, hundreds of such joints might be required. In the early 1850s, Brother Richard was faced with several timber framing projects – the largest of which was to be a huge new cow barn for the family’s herd. This project could have been the motivation for him to build a new beam auger.

Using the beam auger was pretty straightforward. Once the position for a mortise was marked on the beam, the tool was placed on the beam with the auger bit at one end of the marked out mortise. The timber-framer sat on the leather seat of the beam auger and turned the handles. On Brother Richard’s machine, the two-inch diameter twisted auger bit automatically dug into the beam – advancing deeper and deeper until it reached a pre-set depth at which time, without changing the direction the handles were being turned, the auger bit automatically reversed rotation and withdrew from the beam, returning to its original position. The operator then slid the machine to position the auger bit at the other end of the marked-out mortise and bored another hole. The auger was then positioned several more times to remove as much of wood between the first two holes as possible.  With some cleaning up with a chisel the mortise was ready for its tenon. To watch a short demonstration of a commercially made beam auger being used, try this one-minute YouTube demonstration made at a timber framing class at the Maplewood Center for Common Craft in Greenwich, New York.

Brother Richard’s beam auger is more mechanically complex than most commercially made examples. Whether Woodrow was copying some mechanism he had seen elsewhere or whether the reversing feature and pre-set depth adjustment were his own inventions has not been determined. (We welcome comments from any students of mid-19th century beam augers.) Brother Richard stamped the date “1851” and his initials “R. W.” on both metal handles. Unlike the dated worsted combs, which he had no intention of using himself, he may have added his initials to this tool in the tradesmen’s tradition of identifying the tool as the one he used.

The beam auger was purchased locally in New Lebanon, New York, by Donald Carpentier, the founder of Eastfield Village, a private teaching museum in East Nassau, New York. Don consigned the auger to Northeast Auctions, Portsmouth, New Hampshire in 2008 and it was purchased at auction by the Shaker Museum.

Although this concludes our three-part discussion about Brother Richard Woodrow and three objects in the Museum’s collection made by him, it is likely he will reappear in a later posting since there are a few more items in the collection associated with his Shaker life and work.

Combing and carding wool: A most persnickety operation

fig 1

Pair of Worsted Combs, Center Family, Mount Lebanon, NY, 1851, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1950.28.1 and 1950.32.1.

This article continues our last posting on Brother Richard Bushnell Woodrow of the Center Family Shakers at Mount Lebanon, New York. Here we describe a pair of worsted combs he made for the sisters in his family.

The processing of wool for spinning is usually done in two ways – combing and carding. Combing wool is the earlier of the two methods and is done to removes short fibers while aligning the long fibers. The result of combing wool is similar to combing one’s hair when the goal is to have each hair parallel to the other. Combed wool, when spun, produces a yarn with fibers that lay close to each other. The yarn is therefore smoother, stronger, and harder and produces a fabric that is cooler to wear. This fabric is ideal for men’s or women’s pants and jackets. Carding wool, in contrast, does not remove the short fibers but rather, tangles them – sort of like teasing hair – to produce a softer fluffy yarn that traps some air between the fibers. This woolen yarn retains strength from the longer fibers being twisted together, but is also soft and warm. It is perfect for woven winter coats and knit sweaters, socks, and gloves.

fig 2

Pair of Worsted Combs (detail of date), Center Family, Mount Lebanon, NY, 1851, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1950.28.1 and 1950.32.1.

Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon has several pairs of Shaker worsted combs in its collection. The pair presented here is typical of worsted combs made for hundreds of years. This pair, and another nearly identical pair, appears to have been made by Brother Richard B. Woodrow in 1851. A Shaker journalist recorded this entry in the Center Family Journal on May 14, 1851: “Richard [Woodrow] engaged about making some new combs for the sisters to comb with this season &c.” Each of the pair of combs has the date “1851” stamped in the brass formed around the head of the combs. These combs can be described as “two pitch” combs – two pitch describing the number of rows of tines (historically called “broitches”) mounted in the head of the comb – with eleven inch tines. Combs vary from two to eight pitch with broitches as long as twelve inches. The number of rows of tines selected by a worsted comber depended on the type of wool that was being combed. These combs were acquired directly from the Church Family Shakers by Museum founder, John S. Williams, Sr., prior to 1950. At that point the remaining members of the Church Family were in residence in Ann Lee Cottage at the Center Family where Brother Richard had lived.

fig 3

Postcard (20th century re-enactment of hand wool combing in late 18th century Calder valley, at Bankfield Museum, Halifax), Bankfield Museum, Halifax, England, Document ID: 100095 Library ID: 34559582.

Wool combing has a fascinating history and language. Both men and women were employed as combers. First the tines were heated on a stove; the heat made it easier for the tines to move through oily wool without tearing or breaking the fibers. The comb was mounted on a “pad” by inserting the pad’s small iron pins in the comb’s two “pad points” – one on the side of the handle and one in its end. With its tines pointing up, its handle away from the comber, the comber “lashed” on the proper amount of wool. As much of the wool as possible was put on the side of the comb opposite the handle. Once the wool was lashed on, the comb was turned on the pad with its tines horizontal to the floor. The comber then used the second heated comb to “jig” or “fetch off” the wool on the mounted comb to the free comb by using a controlled circular chopping motion – the free comb’s tines pulling though the wool  perpendicular to the tines on the mounted comb. Once jigged, the combs were switched and the process repeated until the wool was sufficiently combed – each time removing the remaining short fibers (the “noils”) and saving them to be carded. The combs were re-heated as needed, even with the wool on. Once combed sufficiently, the wool was moved to the mid-point of the tines and the comber began “drawing off the sliver.” This process pulled the fibers off the tines in a prescribed way until all but the shortest fibers were left on the tines. The sliver, which should be four feet long, was laid out on a bench for evaluation and the removal of any “neps,” or foreign matter. A number of slivers were combined and rolled into a ball called a “top” and passed on to the spinners. This is the very short version of a most persnickety operation.  [Source: Enid Anderson’s The Spinner’s Encyclopedia (1987).]

Apostasy and carpentry: The tale of a shoemaker’s bench

fig 1 (1)

Shoemaker’s Bench, Center Family, Mount Lebanon, NY, ca. 1845, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1961.12839.1.

As shoemakers’ benches go, this Shaker example is a luxury version of a basic workbench. It has ample drawers for tools and a back rest and padded leather seat. Many of these benches only have trays fastened to the bench top to hold tacks, nails, and shoe pegs, with maybe a single drawer slung underneath for tools. The seat is usually carved into the top of the bench without much or any padding. Shoemakers sat low on their benches as they used their laps for much of their work – the knees being a suitable vise for holding something as irregularly shaped as a shoe or boot.

The quality of this bench speaks to why its proper name is a shoemaker’s bench rather than a “cobbler’s bench.” Although the terms shoemaker and cobbler are now used interchangeably, historically a shoemaker refered to the trained tradesperson who made shoes and boots, whereas a cobbler, as Webster informed people in his dictionary (1900 edition), was “A mender of shoes … a clumsy workman.”  This is much like what has happened to the differentiation between a tinsmith and a tinker – the tinsmith being the maker of tin ware and the tinker “the itinerant mender of domestic tin utensils … a clumsy workman; a botcher.” That being cleared up, this shoemaker’s bench has more to tell us about the Shakers than that they were well-shod by trained artisans.

On the bottom of one of the small drawers is a faint and partly obliterated inscription that appears once to have clearly read, “Dec. 1st 18__ Made by Richard B. Woodrow.” Richard Bushnell Woodrow was a member of the Second Order of Mount Lebanon’s Church Family (now referred to as the Center Family). He was born March 5, 1828 in Philadelphia. His mother Sarah Woodrow was a member of an experimental community in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. That community was founded in 1826 as the “Friendly Association of Mutual Interest” by as many as 300 followers of the English social reformer, Robert Owen. The community’s first members settled in the house that had been George Washington’s headquarters at Valley Forge. They wrote a constitution that committed members to industrious work and to share equally in the profits of that work. They had a commitment to equality between men and women. The experiment did not make it through the first year as a result of conflict between the Association members and the surrounding communities. As members looked for another opportunity to live in, some found their way to the Shakers at Mount Lebanon. Eventually as many as 30 of them came to live at Mount Lebanon’s North Family. Shakers such as John and Levi Shaw; John, Deborah, and Anna Dodgson; Abel, Israel, Sarah, and Jane Knight; Tabitha and Maria Lapsley; George Wickersham; Clawson Middleton; and Sarah Woodrow, satisfied with their new home, lived out their lives as Shakers, most of them as stalwarts of the North Family.

Three-year-old Richard came with his then twenty-four-old mother and was eventually placed in the children’s order at the Center Family as soon as he could be separated from his mother. At age 11, in an accounting of membership in the Church and Center families, he is listed among the boys at the Center Family. At age 21 he is listed among the brothers as a 5 foot 10 inch tall carpenter and mill-wright.  Brother Richard’s work was varied but generally of a mechanical nature.  In 1848 and 1849, he set up a foot-powered lathe, repaired the family’s waterwheel, built a wash-mill, put up eave troughs, made a “great cask,” framed the dairy house, laid floors; made portable bedsteads, a yarn stretcher, and a seeder for beet seeds; tore down the family’s old mill and framed a new one “pretty much alone.” In October, 1849 the Lebanon Shakers were confronted with a lack of space in their main graveyard. They decided to use an earlier graveyard to compensate. In doing so they dug up the bones of Father Joseph Meacham to reposition his grave. Brother Richard made the coffin to receive his bones for the re-interment.  This kind of work continued steadily until February 2, 1853 when “Warren Chase, Richard Woodrow, Louisa S[ears] and Fanny Crocker conclude[d] to forsake their Father’s house & seek asylum in some other region.” This was not Richard’s first decision to leave Shaker life. At age eighteen he had been one of eight young brothers and sisters who departed the Center Family in one of the most devastating rebellions the Shakers ever experienced. Unlike the other seven who left, Richard returned less than a month later, begging a new privilege, “after having humbly acknowledged his mistake in having left.”

Richard’s loss was devastating to the family. It was noted in a journalist’s commentary: “Richard was their principal carpenter & Joiner there, and left a heavy & important job, a large barn, partly framed, & has left no regular draft of it; and someone will have a hard task to get a clear idea of it, and doubtless the Chh will be obliged to hire it done.” Just prior to leaving Richard had completed making the 300 diagonal braces that were to be used in the new dairy barn. Louisa Sears and Fanny Crocker were caretakers of the young girls – another difficult job to fill. Warren, Richard, and Fanny had all lived together since childhood.

fig 2

Photograph (cropped), Center Family Barn (1853), Center Family, Mount Lebanon, NY, ca. 1910, James Irving, Photographer, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 2000.21522.1. This is the barn that Richard Woodrow was in charge of framing when he left the Shakers.

Richard’s life in the world is sketchily documented. It appears that he and Louisa (or Loiza) Sears married in Burlington Township, New Jersey two days after leaving the Shakers. [Burlington County, NJ, Marriage Records]  Although  the particular circumstances and not, at present, known, Louisa Woodrow died on July 2, 1857 in Gloucester, New Jersey – according to recorded “New Jersey, Deaths, 1670-1988.” Two years after Louisa’s death, Richard married Elizabeth M. Paul in Clarksboro, New Jersey. They had two children, Mary L. Woodrow, born in 1863, and Howard H. Woodrow, born in 1868. Around this time Richard moved to Philadelphia where he worked as a carpenter and eventually managed a hardware store – jobs fitting of his Shaker training. Richard Woodrow died in the city of his birth on March 6, 1909 having lost Elizabeth five years earlier. They are both buried in the Mickleton Friend’s Burial Bround, Upper Greenwich, New Jersey, suggesting that he and Elizabeth were Quakers.

Although Richard’s post-Shaker life is certainly not completely documented, it is rare that it is possible to trace the lives of those leaving the Shakers to see how their Shaker life may have informed the remainder of their lives.

The shoemaker’s  bench was purchased August 5, 1961 at an auction of Shaker items collected from the Church and Center families at Mount Lebanon and owned by Darrow School. The auction provided funds to aid in the conversion of the Shakers’ 1824 Meetinghouse into the school’s library.

There is more to this story. The shoemaker’s bench is only one a half-dozen objects in the collection of the Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon that appears to be connected to the life and work of Richard Bushnell Woodrow. The rest of these objects will be discussed is subsequent articles in this blog.

We all know the oval boxes, but an oval pail?

At first glance this simple Shaker pail, or bucket if you prefer, seems straightforward in its intended use – it’s a pail – it holds water, or whatever else is put in it. Upon careful examination, however, a story emerges.

fig 1

Pail, Church Family, Canterbury, NH, ca. 1850, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1956.8084.

Made by the Shakers at Canterbury, New Hampshire, it bears characteristics of pails made in that community. Canterbury coopers used a V-shaped tongue-and-groove to join the staves of their pails together – a feature not seen in pails made elsewhere, but present in this pail. The iron hoops terminate in a typical Canterbury V-shape. The bail plates that hold the wire handle are of an uncommon, but not unknown, shape for Canterbury pails and the pail has the initials “F.W.” stamped into its bottom. These initials, the initials of Francis Winkley, were used to mark Shaker products offered for sale such as spinning wheels, cooper-ware, and garden seeds. Winkley was a deacon at the Church Family at Canterbury and, as such, was responsible for the sale of Shaker products.

fig 2

Pail, Church Family, Canterbury, NH, ca. 1850, Shaker Museum | Mount Lebanon, 1956.8084.

The uniqueness of this pail begins to show itself when measured. The pail is only 6 inches high to the rim and is 12 3/4 inches in diameter in the direction the handle is mounted and 11 5/8 inches in the other direction, measured at the top of the rim. This mere 1 1/8 inch difference makes the pail oval rather than round. All other known Shaker pails are round. The answer to why this pail was constructed in an oval shape lies buried beneath a thick layer of old gray-green paint. Using a raking light with the bottom of the pail held at just the right angle, the word “Foot” can be read beneath the  paint and just above that, the letters “SY.” At the Canterbury Church Family, the abbreviation “SY” was used to identify objects that belonged in the Infirmary. So, at one time this pail was likely used in the Infirmary for foot baths. With 10 1/2 inches at the bottom of the pail, a man with a size 10 shoe could fit his foot into the pail comfortably – a woman with a size 11 shoe could do the same. For Shaker brothers or sisters with larger feet, there were always wash tubs.

One curious thing about this pail is why it was stamped with Francis Winkley’s initials at all. Usually, products that were intended for sale were marked – not objects intended for home use. Winkley was not the make – only the purveyor. Perhaps someday the explanation will come to light.