Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Greg Bergquist
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net
_Cover design after engraving from Diderot._
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 51
WOODWORKING TOOLS, 1600-1900
_Peter C. Welsh_
SPECIALIZATION 183
CONFIGURATION 194
CHANGE 214
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
_Peter C Welsh_
WOODWORKING TOOLS
1600-1900
_This history of woodworking hand tools from the 17th to the 20th
century is one of a very gradual evolution of tools through
generations of craftsmen. As a result, the sources of changes in
design are almost impossible to ascertain. Published sources,
moreover, have been concerned primarily with the object shaped by
the tool rather than the tool itself. The resulting scarcity of
information is somewhat compensated for by collections in museums
and restorations._
_In this paper, the author spans three centuries in discussing the
specialization, configuration, and change of woodworking tools in
the United States._
THE AUTHOR: _Peter C. Welsh is curator, Growth of the United
States, in the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and
Technology._
In 1918, PROFESSOR W.M.F. PETRIE concluded a brief article on "History
in Tools" with a reminder that the history of this subject "has yet to
be studied," and lamented the survival of so few precisely dated
specimens. What Petrie found so discouraging in studying the implements
of the ancient world has consistently plagued those concerned with tools
of more recent vintage. Anonymity is the chief characteristic of hand
tools of the last three centuries. The reasons are many: first, the tool
is an object of daily use, subjected while in service to hard wear and,
in some cases, ultimate destruction; second, a tool's usefulness is apt
to continue through many years and through the hands of several
generations of craftsmen, with the result that its origins become lost;
third, the achievement of an implement of demonstrated proficiency
dictated against radical, and therefore easily datable, changes in shape
or style; and fourth, dated survivals needed to establish a range of
firm control specimens for the better identification of unknowns,
particularly the wooden elements of tools--handles, moldings, and plane
bodies--are frustratingly few in non-arid archaeological sites. When
tracing the provenance of American tools there is the additional problem
of heterogeneous origins and shapes--that is, what was the appearance
of a given tool prior to its standardization in England and the United
States? The answer requires a brief summary of the origin of selected
tool shapes, particularly those whose form was common to both the
British Isles and the Continent in the 17th century. Beyond this, when
did the shape of English tools begin to differ from the shape of tools
of the Continent? Finally, what tool forms predominated in American
usage and when, if in fact ever, did any of these tools achieve a
distinctly American character? In the process of framing answers to
these questions, one is confronted by a constantly diminishing
literature, coupled with a steadily increasing number of tool types.[1]
[Illustration: Figure 1.--1685: THE PRINCIPAL TOOLS that the carpenter
needed to frame a house, as listed by JOHANN AMOS COMENIUS in his _Orbis
Sensualium Pictus_ were the felling axe (4), wedge and beetle (7 and 8),
chip axe (10), saw (12), trestle (14), and pulley (15). (Charles Hoole
transl., London, 1685. _Courtesy of the Folger Shakespeare Library_.)]
[Illustration: Figure 2.--1685: THE BOXMAKER AND TURNER as pictured by
Comenius required planes (3 and 5), workbench (4), auger (6), knife (7),
and lathe (14). (From Johann Amos Comenius, _Orbis Sensualium Pictus.
Courtesy of the Folger Shakespeare Library_.)]
The literature of the subject, both new and old, is sparse, with
interest always centering upon the object shaped by the craftsman's tool
rather than upon the tool itself. Henry Mercer's _Ancient Carpenters'
Tools_, first published in 1929, is an exception. It remains a rich
source of information based primarily on the marvelous collections
preserved by the Bucks County Historical Society. Since 1933, the Early
American Industries Association, both through collecting and through its
_Chronicle_, has called attention to the vanishing trades, their tools
and techniques; the magazine _Antiques_ has occasionally dealt with this
subject. Historians of economic and industrial development usually
neglect the tools of the woodcrafts, and when considering the
toolmakers, they have reference only to the inventors and producers of
machine tools. The dearth of written material is somewhat compensated
for by the collections of hand tools in American museums and
restorations, notably those at Williamsburg, Cooperstown, Old Sturbridge
Village, Winterthur, the Henry Ford Museum, and Shelburne; at the latter
in particular the extensive collection has been bolstered by Frank H.
Wildung's museum pamphlet, "Woodworking Tools at Shelburne Museum."
The most informative recent American work on the subject is Eric
Sloane's handsomely illustrated _A Museum of Early American Tools_,
published in 1964. Going beyond just the tools of the woodworker,
Sloane's book also includes agricultural implements. It is a delightful
combination of appreciation of early design, nostalgia, and useful fact.
[Illustration: Figure 3.--1703: THE TOOLS OF THE JOINER illustrated by
Moxon are the workbench (A), fore plane (B. 1), jointer (B. 2),
strike-block (B. 3), smoothing plane (B. 4 and B. 7), rabbet plane (B.
5), plow (B. 6), forming chisels (C. 1 and C. 3), paring chisel (C. 2),
skew former (C. 4), mortising chisel (sec. C. 5), gouge (C. 6), square
(D), bevel (F), gauge (G), brace and bit (H), gimlet (I), auger (K),
hatchet (L), pit saw (M), whipsaw (N), frame saw (O), saw set (Q),
handsaw (unmarked), and compass saw (E). (Joseph Moxon, _Mechanick
Exercises_ ..., 3rd ed., London, 1703. Library of Congress.)]
[Illustration: Figure 4.--1703: ONLY THE PRINCIPAL TOOLS used in
carpentry are listed by Moxon: the axe (A), adz (B), socket chisel (C),
ripping chisel (D), drawknife (E), hookpin (F), bevel (G), plumb line
(H), hammer (I), commander (K), crow (L), and jack (M). (Moxon,
_Mechanick Exercises_ ..., 1703. Library of Congress.)]
Charles Hummel's forthcoming _With Hammer in Hand: The Dominy Craftsmen
of East Hampton_--to be published by the Yale University Press--will be
a major contribution to the literature dealing with Anglo-American
woodworking tools. Hummel's book will place in perspective Winterthur
Museum's uniquely documented Dominy Woodshop Collection. This extensive
collection of tools--over a thousand in number--is rich in attributed
and dated examples which range from the early 18th through the mid-19th
century. The literature of the subject has been greatly enhanced by the
English writer, W.L. Goodman. Extending a series of articles that first
appeared in the _Journal of The Institute of Handicraft Teachers_,
Goodman has put together a well-researched _History of Woodworking
Tools_ (London, 1964), one particularly useful for its wealth of
illustration from antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Specialization
Given the limitations of precise dating, uncertain provenance, and an
uneven literature, what can be learned about woodworking tools after
1600? In some instances, design change can be noted and documented to
provide at least a general criteria for dating. Frequently, the original
appearance of tools can be documented. For some hand tools,
characteristics can be established that denote a national origin. Not
infrequently a tool's style, decorative motif, or similarity to other
objects that coexisted at a given time can suggest, even in relatively
modern times, the values of the society that produced it. The source of
such information derived from the hand tool is generally visual,
recorded in the tool itself or in pictures of it and supported by
manuscript and printed material.
Survey the principal printed sources of the 17th, 18th, and 19th
centuries. The first thing that is apparent is a remarkable
proliferation of tool types without any significant change in the
definition and description of the carpenter's or joiner's task. Begin in
1685 with Charles Hoole's translation of Johann Amos Comenius' _Orbis
Sensualium Pictus_ for use as a Latin grammar. Among the occupations
chosen to illustrate vocabulary and usage were the carpenter (fig. 1),
the boxmaker (cabinetmaker), and the turner (fig. 2). "The Carpenter,"
according to Hoole's text, "squareth Timber with a Chip ax ... and
saweth it with a Saw" while the more specialized "Box-maker, smootheth
hewen-Boards with a Plain upon a Work-board, he maketh them very smooth
with a little plain, he boarth them thorow with an Augre, carveth them
with a Knife, fasteneth them together with Glew, and Cramp-irons, and
maketh Tables, Boards, Chests &c." Hoole repeated Comenius' plates with
the result that the craftsman's tools and his work have the same
characteristic medieval flavor as the text.[2]
Joseph Moxon in his well-quoted work on the mechanic arts defined
joinery as "an Art Manual, whereby several Pieces of Wood are so fitted
and join'd together by Straight-line, Squares, Miters or any Bevel, that
they shall seem one intire Piece." Including the workbench, Moxon
described and illustrated 30 tools (fig. 3) needed by the joiner. The
carpenter's tools were less favored by illustration; only 13 were
pictured (fig. 4). The tools that the carpenter used were the same as
those of the joiner except that the carpenter's tools were structurally
stronger. The axe serves as a good example of the difference. The
joiner's axe was light and short handled with the left side of the
cutting edge bezeled to accommodate one-handed use. The carpenter's axe,
on the other hand, was intended "to hew great Stuff" and was made deeper
and heavier to facilitate the squaring and beveling of timbers.[3] By
mid-18th century the craft of joiner and carpenter had been completely
rationalized in Diderot's _Encyclopedie_ and by Andre Roubo in his
_L'Art du menuisier_, a part of Duhamel's _Descriptions des arts et
metiers_. Diderot, for example, illustrates 14 bench planes alone,
generally used by the joiner (fig. 5), while Roubo suggests the steady
sophistication of the art in a plate showing the special planes and
irons required for fine molding and paneling (fig. 6).
[Illustration: Figure 5.--1769: THE BENCH PLANES OF THE JOINER increased
in number, but in appearance they remained much the same as those
illustrated by Moxon. (Denis Diderot, _Recueil de planches sur les
science et les arts liberaux_, Paris, 1769, vol. 7, "Menuiserie."
Smithsonian photo 56630.)]
Despite such thoroughness, without the addition of the several plates it
would be almost impossible to visualize, through the descriptive text
alone, the work of the carpenter and joiner except, of course, in modern
terms. This is particularly true of the numerous texts on building, such
as Batty Langley's _The Builder's Complete Assistant_ (1738) and Francis
Price's _The British Carpenter_ (1765), where building techniques are
well described but illustration of tools is omitted. This inadequacy
grows. In two 19th-century American editions of British works, _The Book
of Trades_, printed at Philadelphia in 1807, and Hazen's _Panorama of
the Professions and Trades_ (1838), the descriptions of the carpenter's
trade are extremely elementary.
Thomas Martin's _Circle of the Mechanical Arts_ (1813), although far
more thorough than many texts, still defined carpentry "as the art of
cutting out, framing, and joining large pieces of wood, to be used in
building" and joinery as "small work" or what "is called by the French,
_menuiserie_." Martin enumerated 16 tools most useful to the carpenter
and 21 commonly used by the joiner; in summary, he noted, as had Moxon,
that "both these arts are subservient to architecture, being employed in
raising, roofing, flooring and ornamenting buildings of all kinds" (fig.
7).[4]
In Peter Nicholson's _The Mechanic's Companion_ (figs. 8, 9, and 10),
the all-too-familiar definition of carpentry as "the art of employing
timber in the construction of buildings" suggests very little of the
carpenter's actual work or the improvement in tool design that had
occurred since Moxon's _Exercises_. From Nicholson's list of the tools
required by the carpenter--"a ripping saw, a hand saw, an axe, an adze,
a socket chisel, a firmer chisel, a ripping chisel, an auguer, a gimlet,
a hammer, a mallet, a pair of pincers, and sometimes planes"--there
would seem at first glance slight advance since the 1600's. The
enumeration of the joiner's tools, however, indicates a considerable
proliferation, particularly when compared to earlier writers. By the
early 19th century, the more refined work of joinery required over 50
tools.
The bench planes [instructed Nicholson] are, the jack plane, the
fore plane, the trying plane, the long plane, the jointer, and the
smoothing plane; the cylindric plane, the compass and forkstaff
planes; the straight block, for straightening short edges. Rebating
planes are the moving fillister, the sash fillister, the common
rebating plane, the side rebating plane. Grooving planes are the
plough and dado grooving planes. Moulding planes are sinking
snipebills, side snipebills, beads, hollows and rounds, ovolos and
ogees. Boring tools are: gimlets, bradawls, stock, and bits.
Instruments for dividing the wood, are principally the ripping saw,
the half ripper, the hand saw, the panel saw, the tenon saw, the
carcase saw, the sash saw, the compass saw, the keyhole saw, and
turning saw. Tools used for forming the angles of two adjoining
surfaces, are squares and bevels. Tools used for drawing parallel
lines are gauges. Edge tools are the firmer chisel, the mortise
chisel, the socket chisel, the gouge, the hatchet, the adze, the
drawing knife. Tools for knocking upon wood and iron are, the
mallet and hammer. Implements for sharpening tools are the grinding
stone, the rub stone, and the oil or whet stone.[5]
Reflecting what the text writers listed, toolmakers by the end of the
18th century gave buyers a wide choice. The catalogue of Sheffield's
Castle Hill Works offered 20 combinations of ready-stocked tool chests;
the simplest contained 12 carpenter's tools and the most complex, 39,
plus, if desired, an additional assortment of gardening implements (fig.
11). In 1857, the Arrowmammett Works of Middletown, Connecticut,
producers of bench and molding planes, published an illustrated
catalogue that offered 34 distinct types that included everything from
hollows and rounds to double jointers and hand-rail planes (fig.
12).[6]
[Illustration: Figure 6.--1774: ANDRE ROUBO'S _L'Art du menuisier_
contains detailed plates and descriptions of the most specialized of
woodworking planes: those used to cut panel moldings. The conformation
of these tools was still distinctly in keeping with the Moxon type and
suggests that, at least in Europe, no remarkable change had yet occurred
in the shape of planes. (Andre-Jacob Roubo, _L'Art du menuisier_:
Troisieme partie, troisieme section, l'art du menuisier ebeniste [Paris,
1774]. Smithsonian photo 49790-D.)]
[Illustration: Figure 7.--1813: THOMAS MARTIN ILLUSTRATED ON ONE PLATE
the tools of the carpenter and joiner dividing them as follows: the
tools most useful to the carpenter, the axe (7), adz (6), saw (24),
socket chisel (13), firmer chisel (5), auger (1), gimlet (3), gauge
(16), square (9), compass (36), hammer (21), mallet (22), hookpin (11),
crow (12), plumb rule (18), and level (19); and the tools most often
associated with joinery, the jack plane (30), trying plane (31),
smoothing plane (34), tenon saw (25), compass saw (26), keyhole saw
(27), square (8), bevel (23), gauge (17), mortise chisel (4), gouge
(14), turnscrew (15), plow plane (29), molding plane (35), pincers (37),
bradawl (10), stock and bit (2), sidehook (20), workbench (28), and rule
(38). The planes are of particular interest since they show clearly a
change in form from those previously illustrated. (Thomas Martin, _The
Circle of the Mechanical Arts_, London, 1813.)]
[Illustration: Figure 8.--1832: PETER NICHOLSON ILLUSTRATED an
interesting mixture of old and new forms. An updating of Moxon,
Nicholson's carpenter required an axe (1), adz (2), socket chisel (3),
mortise and tenon gauge (4), square (5), plumb rule (6), level (7),
auger (8), hookpin (9), and crow (10). (Peter Nicholson, _The Mechanic's
Companion_. 1st American ed., Philadelphia, 1832. Smithsonian photo
56633.)]
[Illustration: Figure 9.--1832: THE WORKBENCH DELINEATED BY NICHOLSON
was little improved over Moxon's, although the planes--jack (1), trying
plane (2), smoothing plane (3), sash fillister (7), and plow
(8)--followed the form seen in Martin (fig. 7). The inception of this
shape occurred in the shops of Sheffield toolmakers in the last half of
the 18th century, and it persisted until replaced by metallic versions
patented by American innovators during the last quarter of the 19th
century. (Nicholson, _The Mechanic's Companion_. Smithsonian photo
56631.)]
[Illustration: Figure 10.--1832: THE BRACE AND BIT, GIMLET, CHISELS, AND
SAWS, having achieved a standard form distinctly different than those of
Moxon's vintage, were, like the plane, slow to change. The metallic
version of the brace did not replace the standard Sheffield type (1) in
the United States until after 1850. For all intent and purpose the saw
still retains the characteristics illustrated in Nicholson. Of interest
is Nicholson's comment regarding the saws; namely, that the double
handle was peculiar to the hand (6) and tenon saws (7), while the
compass (9) and the sash saws (8) had the single handle. In addition the
tenon saw was generally backed in iron and the sash saw in brass.
(Nicholson, _The Mechanic's Companion_. Smithsonian photo 56632.)]
[Illustration: Figure 11.--EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE ADVERTISEMENTS OF
TOOLMAKERS indicated the diversity of production. The Castle Hill Works
at Sheffield offered to gentlemen 20 choices of tool chests designed to
appeal to a wide variety of users and purses. The chest was available in
either oak or mahogany, depending on the gentleman's tastes (fig. 49).
(Book 87, Cutler and Company, Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. _Courtesy of
the Victoria and Albert Museum_.)]
[Illustration: Figure 12.--1857: THE DIVERSITY OF TOOLS available to
buyers made necessary the illustrated trade catalogue. Although few in
number in the United States before 1850, tool catalogues became
voluminous in the last half of the century as printing costs dropped.
(Smithsonian Institution Library. Smithsonian photo 49790.)]
American inventories reflect the great increase suggested by the early
technical writers and trade catalogues cited above. Compare the content
of two American carpenters' shops--one of 1709, in York County,
Virginia, and the other of 1827, in Middleborough, Massachusetts. John
Crost, a Virginian, owned, in addition to sundry shoemaking and
agricultural implements, a dozen gimlets, chalklines, bung augers, a
dozen turning tools and mortising chisels, several dozen planes (ogees,
hollows and rounds, and plows), several augers, a pair of 2-foot rules,
a spoke shave, lathing hammers, a lock saw, three files, compasses,
paring chisels, a jointer's hammer, three handsaws, filling axes, a
broad axe, and two adzes. Nearly 120 years later Amasa Thompson listed
his tools and their value. Thompson's list is a splendid comparison of
the tools needed in actual practice, as opposed to the tools suggested
by Nicholson in his treatise on carpentry or those shown in the
catalogues of the toolmakers.[7] Thompson listed the following:
1 set bench planes $6.00
1 Broad Axe 3.00
1 Adze 2.25
1 Panel saw 1.50
1 Panel saw 1.58
1 fine do-- 1.58
1 Drawing knife .46
1 Trying square .93
1 Shingling hatchet .50
1 Hammer .50
1 Rabbit plane .83
1 Halving do .50
1 Backed fine saw 1.25
1 Inch augre .50
1 pr. dividers or compasses-- .71
1 Panel saw for splitting 2.75
1 Tennon gauge 1.42
1 Bevel .84
1 Bradd Hammer .50
1 _Architect Book_ 6.50
1 Case Mathematical Instruments 3.62-1/2
1 Panel saw 2.75
1 Grafting saw 1.00
1 Bench screw 1.00
1 Stamp 2.50
1 Double joint rule .62-1/2
1 Sash saw 1.12-1/2
1 Oil Can .17
1 Brace & 36 straw cold bits 9.00
1 Window Frame tool 4.00
1 Blind tool 1.33
1 Glue Kettle .62-1/2
1 Grindstone without crank 1.75
1 Machine for whetting saws .75
1 Tennoning machine 4.50
Drafting board and square Bevel-- 1.25
1 Noseing sash plane with templets & copes 4.50
1 pr. clamps for clamping doors 2.17
1 Set Bench Planes--double irons.-- 7.50
1 Grindstone 300 lbs @ 6.25
1 Stove for shop--$7.25, one elbow .37 & 40
lbs second hand pipe $4.00 11.62
1 Bed moulding 2.00
1 Pr. shears for cutting tin.-- .17
1 Morticing Machine 10.75
1 Grecian Ovilo 1.13
1-3/16 beed .67
1 Spirit level 2.25
1 Oil stone .42
1 Small trying square .48
1 pareing chisel .37
1 Screw driver .29
1 Bench screw .75
1 Box rule .50
1-3/4 Augre .41
11 Gouges 1.19
13 Chisels 1.17
1 small iron vice .52
1 pr. Hollow Rounds .86
4 Framing chisels 1.05
1 Grove plough & Irons--Sold at 4.50 5.00
1 Sash plane for 1-1/4 stuff 1.50
1 Copeing plane .67
1 Bead 1/4-- .75
1 Bead 3/4 1.00
1 Rabbit (Sold at .92) .92
1 Smooth plane 1.50
1 Strike Block .92
1 Compass saw .42
6 Gauges 1.83
1 Dust brush .25
1 Rasp, or wood file .25
1 Augre 2 in. .76
1 Augre 1 in. .40
1 Do 3/4 .30
1 Spoke shave .50
1 Bevel-- .25
1 Box rule .84
1 Iron square 1.42
1 Box rule 1.25
1 Spur Rabbit (Sold--1.17) 1.33
1 Pannel plane 1.25
1 Sash plane 1.25
1 pr. Match planes 2.25
1 Two inch chisel or firmer-- .42
1 Morticing chisel 3/8 .25
1 Large screw driver 1.00
1 Pr. small clamps .50
1 pr. Spring dividers .92
1 do-nippers .20
1 Morticing chisel 1/2 in. .28
1 Ovilo & Ostrigal 3/4-- 1.25
1 Scotia & Ostrigal 5/8-- 1.08
1 Noseing-- 1.08
1 Pr. Hollow & rounds 1.33
1 Ogee-- 1/2 inch 1.00
1 Ostrigal 7/8 inch 1.00
1 Bit-- .15
1 Beed 1/2 inch .83
1 Claw hammer .67
1 Fillister 2.50
2 Beeds at 5/8 1.83
1 Pair Quirk tools 1.50
1 Side Rabbit plane .83
1 Large steel tongued sq. 1.71
1 Saw & Pad .67
1 pr. fire stones .50
1 small trying sq. .50
1 Set Bench planes double ironed without
smooth plane 6.00
1 Bench screw .75
[Illustration: Figure 13.--EARLY 18TH CENTURY: In addition to their
special function and importance as survivals documenting an outmoded
technology, the hand tool often combines a gracefulness of line and a
sense of proportion that makes it an object of great decorative appeal.
The dividers of the builder or shipwright illustrated here are of French
origin and may be valued as much for their cultural significance as for
their technical importance. (Smithsonian photo 49792-G.)]
By 1900, the carpenter's tool chest, fully stocked and fit for the
finest craftsman, contained 90 or more tools. Specialization is readily
apparent; the change in, and achievement of, the ultimate design of a
specific tool is not so easily pinpointed. Only by comparing
illustrations and surviving examples can such an evolution be
appreciated and in the process, whether pondering the metamorphosis of a
plane, a brace and bit, or an auger, the various stages of change
encountered coincide with the rise of modern industrial society.
[Illustration: Figure 14.--1688: FRONTISPIECE FROM JOHN BROWN, _The
Description and Use of the Carpenter's Rule_, London, 1688. (Library of
Congress.)]
Configuration
Hand tools are often neglected in the search for the pleasing objects of
the past. Considered too utilitarian, their decorative appeal--the
mellow patina of the wood plane or the delicately tapered legs of a pair
of dividers--often goes unnoticed. Surprisingly modern in design, the
ancient carpenter's or cabinetmaker's tool has a vitality of line that
can, without reference to technical significance, make it an object of
considerable grace and beauty. The hand tool is frequently a lively and
decorative symbol of a society at a given time--a symbol, which,
according to the judges at London's Crystal Palace Exhibition in 1851,
gives "indications of the peculiar condition and habits of the people
whence they come, of their social and industrial wants and aims, as well
as their natural or acquired advantages."[8] The hand tool, therefore,
should be considered both as an object of appealing shape and a document
illustrative of society and its progress.
[Illustration: Figure 15.--18TH CENTURY: Cabinetmaker's dividers of
English origin. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo 49789-B.)]
[Illustration: Figure 16.--1783: CABINETMAKER'S dividers of English
manufacture, dated, and marked T. Pearmain. See detail, figure 17.
(Smithsonian photo 49792-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 17.--1783: DETAIL OF CABINETMAKER'S DIVIDERS
showing name and date.]
[Illustration: Figure 18.--18TH CENTURY: Carpenter's dividers of English
origin, undated. (Smithsonian photo 49792-B.)]
On first sight, it is the conformation rather than any facet of its
technical or social significance that strikes the eye; perhaps the most
decorative of tools are early dividers and calipers which, prior to
their standardization, existed in seemingly endless variety. The great
dividers used by the shipbuilder and architect for scribing and
measuring timbers not only indicate building techniques (accession
61.548) but also document 17th-and early 18th-century decorative
metalwork, as seen in figure 13. Well before the 17th century, artists
and engravers recognized them as intriguing shapes to include in any
potpourri of instruments, either in cartouches or the frontispieces of
books (fig. 14).
[Illustration: Figure 19.--1855: THE FRONTISPIECE FROM EDWARD SHAW, _The
Modern Architect_ (Boston, 1855), shows the carpenter's dividers in the
foreground unchanged in form from those illustrated in figure 18. Of
further interest in Shaw's plate is the dress of the workmen and the
balloon frame of the house under construction. (Smithsonian photo
49792-A.)]
The two pairs of cabinetmaker's dividers illustrated in figures 15 and
16 suggest significant changes in the design of a basic tool. The
dividers shown in figure 15 are English and would seem to be of early
18th-century origin, perhaps even earlier. They are Renaissance in
feeling with decorated legs and a heart-shaped stop on the end of the
slide-arm. In character, they are like the great dividers shown in
figure 13: functional, but at the same time preserving in their
decoration the features common to a wide variety of ironwork and wares
beyond the realm of tools alone. The dividers pictured in figure 16 are
a decided contrast. Dated 1783, they are strongly suggestive of
Sheffield origin. Gone is the superfluous decoration; in its place is
the strong, crisp line of a tool that has reached nearly the ultimate of
function and manufacture, a device which both in general appearance and
precise design is very modern in execution. Equally intriguing are the
smaller, more slender dividers (accession 319557) of the 18th-century
house-builder as seen in figure 18, a form that changed very little, if
at all, until after 1850--a fact confirmed by the frontispiece of Edward
Shaw's _The Modern Architect_, published in Boston in 1855 (fig. 19).
The double calipers of the woodturner (fig. 20) have by far the most
appealing and ingenious design of all such devices. Designed for
convenience, few tools illustrate better the aesthetic of the purely
functional than this pair of 19th-century American calipers.
[Illustration: Figure 20.--EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE DOUBLE CALIPERS of
the woodturner permitted double readings to be taken without changing
the set of the tool. Inherent in this practical design is a gracefulness
of line seldom surpassed. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo
49793-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 21.--1704: THE FLOOR PLANE OR LONG JOINER of
Norwegian origin exhibits the characteristic decoration of the stock and
mouth, patterns common on tools of northern European and Scandinavian
origin. (_Courtesy of the Norsk Folkemuseum, Oslo, Norway._)]
Intended to establish proportion and to insure precision, it seems a
natural consequence that dividers and calipers should in themselves
reflect the same sense of balance and grace that they were designed to
govern. Still, even the most prosaic examples of woodworking tools,
completely divorced from the quasi-mathematical devices of measure and
proportion, have this quality and can be admired solely as decorative
objects. This is most evident in the three European bench planes
illustrated in figures 21, 22, and 23: one Norwegian, dated 1704; one
Dutch (accession 319562), dated 1756; and one German, dated 1809. The
Norwegian and German examples, with their elaborately carved bodies and
heart-shaped mouths, are typical of the type that Swedish and German
colonists in America might have used in the 17th and 18th centuries.
They are important for that reason. Also, all three exhibit elaboration
found on other material survivals from these countries in their
respective periods. For example, the incised rosette of the Dutch plane
(fig. 22) is especially suggestive of the rosettes found on English and
American furniture of the 1750's and 1760's, specifically on high
chests.
The decorative motifs that characterized European tools of the 17th and
18th centuries obscured technical improvement. By contrast, in England
and America, tools gained distinction through the directness of their
design. Following English patterns, tools of American make were
straightforward. Only later, in new tool types, did they imitate the
rococo flourish of their European predecessors. In America, as in
England, the baroque for things functional seemingly had little appeal.
This is particularly true of woodworking planes on which, unlike their
continental cousins, embellishment is rarely seen. Exemplifying this
tradition are three early 19th-century American planes: a plow, for
cutting channels of various widths on board edges, marked "G. White,
Philda" (fig. 24); a rabbet, for notching the margin of boards; made
by E.W. Carpenter of Lancaster, Pennsylvania (fig. 25); and a jack or
foreplane, for rough surfacing (accession 61.547), made by A. Klock and
dated 1818 as seen in figure 26.
[Illustration: Figure 22.--1756: THE HIGHLY elaborated stock and
rosette-incised wedge of the smoothing plane recall the decoration on
furniture of the period. The plane is of Dutch origin. (Smithsonian
photo 49792-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 23.--1809: THIS BENCH PLANE of German origin is
dated 1809. It is of a traditional form that persists to the present
day. The planes pictured in figures 21, 22, and 23 are similar to the
type brought to North America by non-English colonists. (Private
collection. Smithsonian photo 49793-F.)]
[Illustration: Figure 24.--ABOUT 1818: This plow plane, used to cut
narrow channels on the edges of boards, was made by G. White of
Philadelphia in the early 19th century. It is essentially the same tool
depicted in the catalogues of Sheffield manufactures and in the plates
from Martin and Nicholson. The pattern of the basic bench tools used in
America consistently followed British design, at least until the last
quarter of the 19th century. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo
49794-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 25. 1830-1840: THE DESIGN OF the rabbet plane,
used to cut a groove of fixed width and depth on the edge of a board,
was not improved upon in the 19th century. The carpenter's dependence on
this tool lessened only after the perfection of multipurpose metallic
planes that could be readily converted to cut a "rabbet." (Private
collection. Smithsonian photo 494789-H).]
The question of dating arises, since only the Klock piece is firmly
fixed. How, for example, is the early 19th-century attribution arrived
at for the planes inscribed White and Carpenter? First, the nature of
the stamped name "G. White" is of proper character for the period.
Second, G. White is listed in the Philadelphia city directories as a
"plane-maker" between the years 1818 and 1820, working at the back of 5
Filbert Street and later at 34 Juliana Street. Third, internal evidence
on the plane itself gives a clue. In this case, the hardware--rivets and
furrels--is similar if not identical to that found on firearms of the
period, weapons whose dates of manufacture are known. The decorative
molding on the fence of this plane is proper for the period; this is not
a reliable guide, however, since similar moldings are retained
throughout the century. Finally, the plane is equipped with a fence
controlled by slide-arms, fixed with wedges and not by adjustable screw
arms. After 1830, tools of high quality, such as White's, invariably
have the screw arms. The rabbet plane, made by Carpenter, is traceable
via another route, the U.S. Patent Office records. Carpenter,
self-designated "toolmaker of Lancaster," submitted patents for the
improvement of wood planes between 1831 and 1849. Examples of
Carpenter's work, always stamped as shown in figure 27, survive, both
dated and undated. There are several of his planes in the collections of
the Bucks County Historical Society, and dated pieces are known in
private collections.
Inherent in the bench planes is a feeling of motion, particularly in the
plow and the rabbet where basic design alone conveys the idea that they
were meant to move over fixed surfaces. Of the three examples, only the
brass tippings and setscrew of the plow plane suggest any enrichment,
and of course these were not intended for decoration; in later years,
however, boxwood, fruitwood, and even ivory tips were added to the more
expensive factory models. Also unintentional, but pleasing, is the
distinctive throat of the rabbet plane--a design that developed to
permit easy discharge of shavings, and one that mass manufacture did
not destroy.
[Illustration: Figure 26.--1818: THE JACK PLANE, used first by the
carpenter for rapid surfacing, is distinguished primarily by the bezeled
and slightly convex edge of its cutting iron. As with the plow and the
rabbet, its shape is ubiquitous. Dated and marked A. Klock, this
American example follows precisely those detailed in Sheffield pattern
books. (Smithsonian photo 49794-C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 27.--1830-1840: DETAIL OF the rabbet plane (fig.
25) showing the characteristic stamp of E.W. Carpenter. (Smithsonian
photo 49794-D.)]
[Illustration: Figure 28.--ABOUT 1631: THE PRECEDING ILLUSTRATIONS
emphasize the divergent appearance of European and Anglo-American tools.
This, however, was not always the case. The woodworker's shop by the
Dutch engraver Jan Van Vliet suggests the similarity between English and
European tool types in the 17th century. Note in particular the planes,
axe, brace, and auger as compared to Moxon. (Library of Congress,
Division of Prints and Photographs.)]
[Illustration: Figure 29.--1690: THE CABINETMAKER'S SHOP from Elias
Pozelius, _Orbus Pictus nach Zeichnugen der Susanna Maria_ _Sandrart_,
Nuernberg, 1690. (Library of Congress.)]
[Illustration: Figure 30.--1568: THE WOODWORKER'S SHOP from Hans Sachs,
_Eygentliche Beschrerbung Aller Stande ... mit Kunstreichen Figuren_ [by
Jost Amman], Frankfurt, 1568. (Library of Congress.)]
The divergence from European to an Anglo-American hand-tool design and
the approximate date that it occurred can be suggested by a comparison
of contemporary illustrations. The change in the wooden bench plane can
be followed from the early 17th century through its standardization at
the end of the 18th century. Examine first the planes as drawn in the
1630's by the Dutchman Jan Van Vliet (fig. 28), an etcher of Rembrandt's
school at Leiden, and also the examples illustrated by Porzelius (fig.
29) and by Jost Amman (fig. 30). Compare them to Moxon's plate (fig. 31)
from the _Mechanick Exercises_ (3rd ed., 1703) and to the splendid
drawing of the bench plane from Andre-Jacob Roubo's _L'Art du
menuisier_, published in 1769 (fig. 32). In all of them, the rounded
handle, or tote, and the fore-horn appear, characteristics of both
European and English planes of the period before 1750. The similarity
ends with the mass production of hand tools from the shops of the
English toolmaking centers, principally Sheffield. An illustration from
a pattern and design book of the Castle Hill Works, Sheffield, dating
from the last quarter of the 18th century (fig. 33), shows the achieved,
familiar form of the bench planes, as well as other tools. The use of
this form in America is readily documented in Lewis Miller's
self-portrait while working at his trade in York, Pennsylvania, in 1810
(fig. 34) and by the shop sign carved by Isaac Fowle in 1820 for John
Bradford (fig. 35). In each example, the bench plane clearly follows the
English prototype.
[Illustration: Figure 31.--1703: DETAIL OF THE BENCH PLANES from Moxon's
_Mechanick Exercises_.]
[Illustration: Figure 32.--1769: ANDRE-JACOB ROUBO'S PRECISE RENDERING
of the bench plane retains the essential features shown by Moxon--the
rounded tote or handle and the curved fore-horn. (Andre-Jacob Roubo,
_L'Art du menuisier_, 1769.)]
[Illustration: Figure 33.--EARLY 19TH CENTURY: The bench plane
illustrated in Roubo or Moxon is seldom seen in American tool
collections. The bench planes, smoothing planes, rabbets, and plows
universally resemble those shown in this illustration from the pattern
book of the Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. (Book 87, Cutler and Company,
Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. _Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert
Museum._)]
[Illustration: Figure 34.--ABOUT 1810: LEWIS MILLER WORKING AT HIS BENCH
in York, Pa. In a predominantly Pennsylvania-German settlement, the
plane used by Miller conforms to the Sheffield type illustrated in the
catalogue of the Castle Hill Works as shown in figure 33. (York County
Historical Society, York, Pa.)]
[Illustration: Figure 35.--1820: JOHN BRADFORD'S shop sign carved by
Isaac Fowle is a unique documentary of early 19th-century tool shapes
and is in the Bostonian Society, Boston, Mass. (Index of American
Design, The National Gallery, Washington, D.C.)]
[Illustration: Figure 36.--1703: THE JOINER'S brace and bit--a detail
from Moxon, _Mechanick Exercises_ ..., London, 1703. (Library of
Congress, Smithsonian photo 56635.)]
[Illustration: Figure 37.--1769: ROUBO'S ILLUSTRATION OF THE BRACE and
bit differs from Moxon's only in the precision of the delineation.
Contrast this form with that of the standard Sheffield version in figure
38 and the metallic braces illustrated in figures 40 through 44. From
these plates can be seen the progression of the bitstock toward its
ultimate perfection in the late 19th century. (Andre-Jacob Roubo, _L'Art
du menuisier_, 1769.)]
[Illustration: Figure 38.--EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE MASS-PRODUCED VERSION
of the wooden brace and bit took the form illustrated in Book 87 of
Cutler's Castle Hill Works. (_Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert
Museum._)]
[Illustration: Figure 39.--18TH CENTURY: THE TRANSITIONAL FORM of the
wooden brace and bit incorporated the overall shape of the mass-produced
version but retained the archaic method of fastening the bit to the
chuck. The tool is of Dutch origin and suggests the influence of
Sheffield design on European tools. (Smithsonian photo 49792-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 40.--1769: ROUBO ILLUSTRATED THE METALLIC BRACE
and, in addition, suggested its use as a screwdriver. (Andre-Jacob
Roubo, _L'Art du menuisier_,1769.)]
[Illustration: Figure 41.--ABOUT 1775: FORD, WHITMORE AND BRUNTON made
and sold clockmaker's braces of metal with a sweep and shank that was
imitated by American patentees in the 19th century. (Catalogue of Ford,
Whitmore and Brunton, Birmingham, England. _Courtesy of the Birmingham
Reference Library._)]
[Illustration: Figure 42.--1852: NEARLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS after Roubo's
plate appeared, Jacob Switzer applied for a patent for an "Improved Self
Holding Screw Driver." The similarity of Switzer's drawing and Roubo's
plate is striking. (Original patent drawing 9,457, U.S. Patent Office,
Record Group 241, the National Archives.)]
[Illustration: Figure 43.--1866: THE SIMPLICITY AND STRENGTH of the
brace proposed by J. Parker Gordon is in sharp contrast to the heavily
splinted sides of the wooden brace commonly used in mid-19th-century
America. (Original patent drawing 52,042, U.S. Patent Office, Record
Group 241, the National Archives.)]
[Illustration: Figure 44.--1865: MILTON NOBLES' PATENT perfecting the
chuck which held the auger bit was an important step along the path
which led ultimately to the complete acceptance of the metallic brace.
Barber's ratchet brace shown in figure 66 completes the metamorphosis of
this tool form in the United States. (Original patent drawing 51,660,
U.S. Patent Office, Record Group 241, the National Archives.)]
The carpenter's brace is another instance of divergent design after a
common origin. Refer again to Van Vliet's etching of the woodworker's
shop (fig. 28), to the detail from Moxon (fig. 36), and from Roubo (fig.
37). All show the brace in a form familiar since the Middle Ages, a
shape common to both delineators and craftsmen of the Continent and the
British Isles. But, as the plane changed, so changed the brace. The
standard form of this tool as it was used and produced in the United
States in the 19th century can be seen in another plate from the
catalogue of the Castle Hill Works at Sheffield (fig. 38). This English
influence on American tool design is no surprise, since as early as 1634
William Wood in _New England's Prospect_ suggested that colonists take
to the New World "All manner of Ironwares, as all manner of nailes for
houses ... with Axes both broad and pitching ... All manners of Augers,
piercing bits, Whip-saws, Two handed saws, Froes ..., rings for Bettle
heads, and Iron-wedges."
[Illustration: Figure 45.--19TH CENTURY: THE UPHOLSTERER'S HAMMER is an
unknown; it is not dated, its maker is anonymous, as is its user. It is
of American origin, yet of a style that might have been used in England
or on the Continent. This lack of provenance need not detract from its
significance as a material survival. This hammer, the brace (fig. 46),
the bevel (fig. 47), and the compass saw (fig. 48) are sufficiently
provocative in their design to conjure some image of a technology
dependent upon the skilled hand of craftsmen working in wood and of the
relationship between the hand, the tool, and the finished product.
(Smithsonian photo 49793-A.)]
[Illustration: Figure 46.--18TH CENTURY: THE BRACE AND BIT in its
nonfactory form conforms to a general design pattern in which none of
the components are ever precisely alike. This aspect of variety of
detail--sophistication, crudeness, decorative qualities or the
like--reflects something of the individuality of the toolmaker, a
quality completely lost in the standardization of the carpenter's brace.
(Smithsonian photo 49794-A.)]
English tool design in the 18th century also influenced the continental
toolmakers. This can be seen in figure 39 in a transitional-type
bitstock (accession 319556) from the Low Countries. Adopting an English
shape, but still preserving the ancient lever device for holding the bit
in place, the piece with its grapevine embellishment is a marked
contrast to the severely functional brass chucks on braces of English
manufacture. No less a contrast are metallic versions of the brace.
These begin to appear with some regularity in the U.S. patent
specifications of the 1840's; their design is apparently derived from
18th-century precedents. Roubo (fig. 40) illustrated a metal bitstock in
1769, as did Ford, Whitmore & Brunton, makers of jewelers' and
watchmakers' tools, of Birmingham, England, in their trade catalogue of
1775 (fig. 41). Each suggests a prototype of the patented forms of the
1840's. For example, in 1852, Jacob Switzer of Basil, Ohio, suggested,
as had Roubo a hundred years earlier, that the bitstock be used as a
screwdriver (fig. 42); but far more interesting than Switzer's idea was
his delineation of the brace itself, which he described as "an ordinary
brace and bit stock" (U.S. pat. 9,457). The inference is that such a
tool form was already a familiar one among the woodworking trades in the
United States. Disregarding the screwdriver attachment, which is not
without merit, Switzer's stock represents an accurate rendering of what
was then a well-known form if not as yet a rival of the older wooden
brace. Likewise, J. Parker Gordon's patent 52,042 of 1866 exemplifies
the strengthening of a basic tool by the use of iron (fig. 43) and, as a
result, the achievement of an even greater functionalism in design. The
complete break with the medieval, however, is seen in a drawing
submitted to the Commissioner of Patents in 1865 (pat. 51,660) by Milton
V. Nobles of Rochester, New York.[9] Nobles' creation was of thoroughly
modern design and appearance in which, unlike earlier types, the bit was
held in place by a solid socket, split sleeve, and a tightening ring
(fig. 44). In three centuries, three distinct design changes occurred in
the carpenter's brace. First, about 1750, the so-called English or
Sheffield bitstock appeared. This was followed in the very early 19th
century by the reinforced English type whose sides were splinted by
brass strips. Not only had the medieval form largely disappeared by the
end of the 18th century, but so had the ancient lever-wedge method of
fastening the bit in the stock, a device replaced by the pressure-spring
button on the side of the chuck. Finally, in this evolution, came the
metallic stock, not widely used in America until after the Civil War,
that embodied in its design the influence of mass manufacture and in its
several early versions all of the features of the modern brace and bit.
[Illustration: Figure 47.--18TH CENTURY: The visually pleasing qualities
of walnut and brass provide a level of response to this joiner's bevel
quite apart from its technical significance. (Private collection.
Smithsonian photo 49793-B.)]
[Illustration: Figure 48.--18TH CENTURY: THE HANDLE OF THE COMPASS SAW,
characteristically Dutch in shape, is an outstanding example of a
recurring functional design, one which varied according to the hand of
the sawer. (Smithsonian photo 49789-C.)]