_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 "Historyin Tools" with a reminder that the history of this subject "has yet tobe studied, " and lamented the survival of so few precisely datedspecimens. What Petrie found so discouraging in studying the implementsof the ancient world has consistently plagued those concerned with toolsof more recent vintage. Anonymity is the chief characteristic of handtools of the last three centuries. The reasons are many: first, the toolis an object of daily use, subjected while in service to hard wear and, in some cases, ultimate destruction; second, a tool's usefulness is aptto continue through many years and through the hands of severalgenerations of craftsmen, with the result that its origins become lost;third, the achievement of an implement of demonstrated proficiencydictated against radical, and therefore easily datable, changes in shapeor style; and fourth, dated survivals needed to establish a range offirm control specimens for the better identification of unknowns, particularly the wooden elements of tools--handles, moldings, and planebodies--are frustratingly few in non-arid archaeological sites. Whentracing the provenance of American tools there is the additional problemof heterogeneous origins and shapes--that is, what was the appearanceof a given tool prior to its standardization in England and the UnitedStates? The answer requires a brief summary of the origin of selectedtool shapes, particularly those whose form was common to both theBritish Isles and the Continent in the 17th century. Beyond this, whendid the shape of English tools begin to differ from the shape of toolsof the Continent? Finally, what tool forms predominated in Americanusage and when, if in fact ever, did any of these tools achieve adistinctly American character? In the process of framing answers tothese questions, one is confronted by a constantly diminishingliterature, coupled with a steadily increasing number of tool types. [1]

[Illustration: Figure 1. --1685: THE PRINCIPAL TOOLS that the carpenterneeded to frame a house, as listed by JOHANN AMOS COMENIUS in his _OrbisSensualium Pictus_ were the felling axe (4), wedge and beetle (7 and 8), chip axe (10), saw (12), trestle (14), and pulley (15). (Charles Hooletransl. , London, 1685. _Courtesy of the Folger Shakespeare Library_. )]

[Illustration: Figure 2. --1685: THE BOXMAKER AND TURNER as pictured byComenius 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, withinterest always centering upon the object shaped by the craftsman's toolrather than upon the tool itself. Henry Mercer's _Ancient Carpenters'Tools_, first published in 1929, is an exception. It remains a richsource of information based primarily on the marvelous collectionspreserved by the Bucks County Historical Society. Since 1933, the EarlyAmerican Industries Association, both through collecting and through its_Chronicle_, has called attention to the vanishing trades, their toolsand techniques; the magazine _Antiques_ has occasionally dealt with thissubject. Historians of economic and industrial development usuallyneglect the tools of the woodcrafts, and when considering thetoolmakers, they have reference only to the inventors and producers ofmachine tools. The dearth of written material is somewhat compensatedfor by the collections of hand tools in American museums andrestorations, notably those at Williamsburg, Cooperstown, Old SturbridgeVillage, Winterthur, the Henry Ford Museum, and Shelburne; at the latterin 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 EricSloane'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 delightfulcombination of appreciation of early design, nostalgia, and useful fact. 

[Illustration: Figure 3. --1703: THE TOOLS OF THE JOINER illustrated byMoxon 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, _MechanickExercises_ ... , 3rd ed. , London, 1703. Library of Congress. )]

[Illustration: Figure 4. --1703: ONLY THE PRINCIPAL TOOLS used incarpentry 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 Craftsmenof East Hampton_--to be published by the Yale University Press--will bea major contribution to the literature dealing with Anglo-Americanwoodworking tools. Hummel's book will place in perspective WinterthurMuseum's uniquely documented Dominy Woodshop Collection. This extensivecollection of tools--over a thousand in number--is rich in attributedand dated examples which range from the early 18th through the mid-19thcentury. The literature of the subject has been greatly enhanced by theEnglish writer, W. L. Goodman. Extending a series of articles that firstappeared in the _Journal of The Institute of Handicraft Teachers_, Goodman has put together a well-researched _History of WoodworkingTools_ (London, 1964), one particularly useful for its wealth ofillustration from antiquity and the Middle Ages. 

Specialization

Given the limitations of precise dating, uncertain provenance, and anuneven literature, what can be learned about woodworking tools after1600? In some instances, design change can be noted and documented toprovide at least a general criteria for dating. Frequently, the originalappearance of tools can be documented. For some hand tools, characteristics can be established that denote a national origin. Notinfrequently a tool's style, decorative motif, or similarity to otherobjects that coexisted at a given time can suggest, even in relativelymodern times, the values of the society that produced it. The source ofsuch information derived from the hand tool is generally visual, recorded in the tool itself or in pictures of it and supported bymanuscript and printed material. 

Survey the principal printed sources of the 17th, 18th, and 19thcenturies. The first thing that is apparent is a remarkableproliferation of tool types without any significant change in thedefinition and description of the carpenter's or joiner's task. Begin in1685 with Charles Hoole's translation of Johann Amos Comenius' _OrbisSensualium Pictus_ for use as a Latin grammar. Among the occupationschosen 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 ... Andsaweth it with a Saw" while the more specialized "Box-maker, smoothethhewen-Boards with a Plain upon a Work-board, he maketh them very smoothwith a little plain, he boarth them thorow with an Augre, carveth themwith a Knife, fasteneth them together with Glew, and Cramp-irons, andmaketh Tables, Boards, Chests &c. " Hoole repeated Comenius' plates withthe result that the craftsman's tools and his work have the samecharacteristic medieval flavor as the text. [2]

Joseph Moxon in his well-quoted work on the mechanic arts definedjoinery as "an Art Manual, whereby several Pieces of Wood are so fittedand join'd together by Straight-line, Squares, Miters or any Bevel, thatthey shall seem one intire Piece. " Including the workbench, Moxondescribed and illustrated 30 tools (fig. 3) needed by the joiner. Thecarpenter's tools were less favored by illustration; only 13 werepictured (fig. 4). The tools that the carpenter used were the same asthose of the joiner except that the carpenter's tools were structurallystronger. The axe serves as a good example of the difference. Thejoiner's axe was light and short handled with the left side of thecutting edge bezeled to accommodate one-handed use. The carpenter's axe, on the other hand, was intended "to hew great Stuff" and was made deeperand heavier to facilitate the squaring and beveling of timbers. [3] Bymid-18th century the craft of joiner and carpenter had been completelyrationalized in Diderot's _Encyclopédie_ and by André Roubo in his_L'Art du menuisier_, a part of Duhamel's _Descriptions des arts etmétiers_. Diderot, for example, illustrates 14 bench planes alone, generally used by the joiner (fig. 5), while Roubo suggests the steadysophistication of the art in a plate showing the special planes andirons required for fine molding and paneling (fig. 6). 

[Illustration: Figure 5. --1769: THE BENCH PLANES OF THE JOINER increasedin number, but in appearance they remained much the same as thoseillustrated by Moxon. (Denis Diderot, _Recueil de planches sur lesscience et les arts libéraux_, Paris, 1769, vol. 7, "Menuiserie. "Smithsonian photo 56630. )]

Despite such thoroughness, without the addition of the several plates itwould be almost impossible to visualize, through the descriptive textalone, the work of the carpenter and joiner except, of course, in modernterms. This is particularly true of the numerous texts on building, suchas Batty Langley's _The Builder's Complete Assistant_ (1738) and FrancisPrice's _The British Carpenter_ (1765), where building techniques arewell described but illustration of tools is omitted. This inadequacygrows. In two 19th-century American editions of British works, _The Bookof Trades_, printed at Philadelphia in 1807, and Hazen's _Panorama ofthe Professions and Trades_ (1838), the descriptions of the carpenter'strade are extremely elementary. 

Thomas Martin's _Circle of the Mechanical Arts_ (1813), although farmore thorough than many texts, still defined carpentry "as the art ofcutting out, framing, and joining large pieces of wood, to be used inbuilding" and joinery as "small work" or what "is called by the French, _menuiserie_. " Martin enumerated 16 tools most useful to the carpenterand 21 commonly used by the joiner; in summary, he noted, as had Moxon, that "both these arts are subservient to architecture, being employed inraising, 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 employingtimber in the construction of buildings" suggests very little of thecarpenter's actual work or the improvement in tool design that hadoccurred since Moxon's _Exercises_. From Nicholson's list of the toolsrequired 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"--therewould seem at first glance slight advance since the 1600's. Theenumeration of the joiner's tools, however, indicates a considerableproliferation, particularly when compared to earlier writers. By theearly 19th century, the more refined work of joinery required over 50tools. 

 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 the18th century gave buyers a wide choice. The catalogue of Sheffield'sCastle 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 illustratedcatalogue that offered 34 distinct types that included everything fromhollows and rounds to double jointers and hand-rail planes (fig. 12). [6]

[Illustration: Figure 6. --1774: ANDRÉ ROUBO'S _L'Art du menuisier_contains detailed plates and descriptions of the most specialized ofwoodworking planes: those used to cut panel moldings. The conformationof these tools was still distinctly in keeping with the Moxon type andsuggests that, at least in Europe, no remarkable change had yet occurredin the shape of planes. (André-Jacob Roubo, _L'Art du menuisier_:Troisième partie, troisième section, l'art du menuisier ébéniste [Paris, 1774]. Smithsonian photo 49790-D. )]

[Illustration: Figure 7. --1813: THOMAS MARTIN ILLUSTRATED ON ONE PLATEthe tools of the carpenter and joiner dividing them as follows: thetools 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 oftenassociated 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 achange in form from those previously illustrated. (Thomas Martin, _TheCircle of the Mechanical Arts_, London, 1813. )]

[Illustration: Figure 8. --1832: PETER NICHOLSON ILLUSTRATED aninteresting 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'sCompanion_. 1st American ed. , Philadelphia, 1832. Smithsonian photo56633. )]

[Illustration: Figure 9. --1832: THE WORKBENCH DELINEATED BY NICHOLSONwas little improved over Moxon's, although the planes--jack (1), tryingplane (2), smoothing plane (3), sash fillister (7), and plow(8)--followed the form seen in Martin (fig. 7). The inception of thisshape occurred in the shops of Sheffield toolmakers in the last half ofthe 18th century, and it persisted until replaced by metallic versionspatented by American innovators during the last quarter of the 19thcentury. (Nicholson, _The Mechanic's Companion_. Smithsonian photo56631. )]

[Illustration: Figure 10. --1832: THE BRACE AND BIT, GIMLET, CHISELS, ANDSAWS, having achieved a standard form distinctly different than those ofMoxon's vintage, were, like the plane, slow to change. The metallicversion of the brace did not replace the standard Sheffield type (1) inthe United States until after 1850. For all intent and purpose the sawstill retains the characteristics illustrated in Nicholson. Of interestis Nicholson's comment regarding the saws; namely, that the doublehandle was peculiar to the hand (6) and tenon saws (7), while thecompass (9) and the sash saws (8) had the single handle. In addition thetenon 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 OFTOOLMAKERS indicated the diversity of production. The Castle Hill Worksat Sheffield offered to gentlemen 20 choices of tool chests designed toappeal to a wide variety of users and purses. The chest was available ineither oak or mahogany, depending on the gentleman's tastes (fig. 49). (Book 87, Cutler and Company, Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. _Courtesy ofthe Victoria and Albert Museum_. )]

[Illustration: Figure 12. --1857: THE DIVERSITY OF TOOLS available tobuyers made necessary the illustrated trade catalogue. Although few innumber in the United States before 1850, tool catalogues becamevoluminous 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 earlytechnical writers and trade catalogues cited above. Compare the contentof two American carpenters' shops--one of 1709, in York County, Virginia, and the other of 1827, in Middleborough, Massachusetts. JohnCrost, a Virginian, owned, in addition to sundry shoemaking andagricultural implements, a dozen gimlets, chalklines, bung augers, adozen 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, abroad axe, and two adzes. Nearly 120 years later Amasa Thompson listedhis tools and their value. Thompson's list is a splendid comparison ofthe tools needed in actual practice, as opposed to the tools suggestedby Nicholson in his treatise on carpentry or those shown in thecatalogues 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 theirspecial function and importance as survivals documenting an outmodedtechnology, the hand tool often combines a gracefulness of line and asense of proportion that makes it an object of great decorative appeal. The dividers of the builder or shipwright illustrated here are of Frenchorigin and may be valued as much for their cultural significance as fortheir technical importance. (Smithsonian photo 49792-G. )]

By 1900, the carpenter's tool chest, fully stocked and fit for thefinest craftsman, contained 90 or more tools. Specialization is readilyapparent; the change in, and achievement of, the ultimate design of aspecific tool is not so easily pinpointed. Only by comparingillustrations and surviving examples can such an evolution beappreciated and in the process, whether pondering the metamorphosis of aplane, a brace and bit, or an auger, the various stages of changeencountered coincide with the rise of modern industrial society. 

[Illustration: Figure 14. --1688: FRONTISPIECE FROM JOHN BROWN, _TheDescription and Use of the Carpenter's Rule_, London, 1688. (Library ofCongress. )]

Configuration

Hand tools are often neglected in the search for the pleasing objects ofthe past. Considered too utilitarian, their decorative appeal--themellow patina of the wood plane or the delicately tapered legs of a pairof dividers--often goes unnoticed. Surprisingly modern in design, theancient carpenter's or cabinetmaker's tool has a vitality of line thatcan, without reference to technical significance, make it an object ofconsiderable grace and beauty. The hand tool is frequently a lively anddecorative 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 peoplewhence they come, of their social and industrial wants and aims, as wellas their natural or acquired advantages. "[8] The hand tool, therefore, should be considered both as an object of appealing shape and a documentillustrative of society and its progress. 

[Illustration: Figure 15. --18TH CENTURY: Cabinetmaker's dividers ofEnglish origin. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo 49789-B. )]

[Illustration: Figure 16. --1783: CABINETMAKER'S dividers of Englishmanufacture, dated, and marked T. Pearmain. See detail, figure 17. (Smithsonian photo 49792-C. )]

[Illustration: Figure 17. --1783: DETAIL OF CABINETMAKER'S DIVIDERSshowing name and date. ]

[Illustration: Figure 18. --18TH CENTURY: Carpenter's dividers of Englishorigin, undated. (Smithsonian photo 49792-B. )]

On first sight, it is the conformation rather than any facet of itstechnical or social significance that strikes the eye; perhaps the mostdecorative of tools are early dividers and calipers which, prior totheir standardization, existed in seemingly endless variety. The greatdividers used by the shipbuilder and architect for scribing andmeasuring timbers not only indicate building techniques (accession61. 548) but also document 17th-and early 18th-century decorativemetalwork, as seen in figure 13. Well before the 17th century, artistsand engravers recognized them as intriguing shapes to include in anypotpourri of instruments, either in cartouches or the frontispieces ofbooks (fig. 14). 

[Illustration: Figure 19. --1855: THE FRONTISPIECE FROM EDWARD SHAW, _TheModern Architect_ (Boston, 1855), shows the carpenter's dividers in theforeground unchanged in form from those illustrated in figure 18. Offurther interest in Shaw's plate is the dress of the workmen and theballoon frame of the house under construction. (Smithsonian photo49792-A. )]

The two pairs of cabinetmaker's dividers illustrated in figures 15 and16 suggest significant changes in the design of a basic tool. Thedividers shown in figure 15 are English and would seem to be of early18th-century origin, perhaps even earlier. They are Renaissance infeeling with decorated legs and a heart-shaped stop on the end of theslide-arm. In character, they are like the great dividers shown infigure 13: functional, but at the same time preserving in theirdecoration the features common to a wide variety of ironwork and waresbeyond the realm of tools alone. The dividers pictured in figure 16 area decided contrast. Dated 1783, they are strongly suggestive ofSheffield origin. Gone is the superfluous decoration; in its place isthe strong, crisp line of a tool that has reached nearly the ultimate offunction and manufacture, a device which both in general appearance andprecise design is very modern in execution. Equally intriguing are thesmaller, more slender dividers (accession 319557) of the 18th-centuryhouse-builder as seen in figure 18, a form that changed very little, ifat all, until after 1850--a fact confirmed by the frontispiece of EdwardShaw's _The Modern Architect_, published in Boston in 1855 (fig. 19). The double calipers of the woodturner (fig. 20) have by far the mostappealing and ingenious design of all such devices. Designed forconvenience, few tools illustrate better the aesthetic of the purelyfunctional than this pair of 19th-century American calipers. 

[Illustration: Figure 20. --EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE DOUBLE CALIPERS ofthe woodturner permitted double readings to be taken without changingthe set of the tool. Inherent in this practical design is a gracefulnessof line seldom surpassed. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo49793-C. )]

[Illustration: Figure 21. --1704: THE FLOOR PLANE OR LONG JOINER ofNorwegian origin exhibits the characteristic decoration of the stock andmouth, patterns common on tools of northern European and Scandinavianorigin. (_Courtesy of the Norsk Folkemuseum, Oslo, Norway. _)]

Intended to establish proportion and to insure precision, it seems anatural consequence that dividers and calipers should in themselvesreflect the same sense of balance and grace that they were designed togovern. Still, even the most prosaic examples of woodworking tools, completely divorced from the quasi-mathematical devices of measure andproportion, have this quality and can be admired solely as decorativeobjects. This is most evident in the three European bench planesillustrated in figures 21, 22, and 23: one Norwegian, dated 1704; oneDutch (accession 319562), dated 1756; and one German, dated 1809. TheNorwegian and German examples, with their elaborately carved bodies andheart-shaped mouths, are typical of the type that Swedish and Germancolonists in America might have used in the 17th and 18th centuries. They are important for that reason. Also, all three exhibit elaborationfound on other material survivals from these countries in theirrespective periods. For example, the incised rosette of the Dutch plane(fig. 22) is especially suggestive of the rosettes found on English andAmerican furniture of the 1750's and 1760's, specifically on highchests. 

The decorative motifs that characterized European tools of the 17th and18th centuries obscured technical improvement. By contrast, in Englandand America, tools gained distinction through the directness of theirdesign. Following English patterns, tools of American make werestraightforward. Only later, in new tool types, did they imitate therococo flourish of their European predecessors. In America, as inEngland, the baroque for things functional seemingly had little appeal. This is particularly true of woodworking planes on which, unlike theircontinental cousins, embellishment is rarely seen. Exemplifying thistradition are three early 19th-century American planes: a plow, forcutting channels of various widths on board edges, marked "G. White, Philda" (fig. 24); a rabbet, for notching the margin of boards; madeby E. W. Carpenter of Lancaster, Pennsylvania (fig. 25); and a jack orforeplane, for rough surfacing (accession 61. 547), made by A. Klock anddated 1818 as seen in figure 26. 

[Illustration: Figure 22. --1756: THE HIGHLY elaborated stock androsette-incised wedge of the smoothing plane recall the decoration onfurniture of the period. The plane is of Dutch origin. (Smithsonianphoto 49792-F. )]

[Illustration: Figure 23. --1809: THIS BENCH PLANE of German origin isdated 1809. It is of a traditional form that persists to the presentday. The planes pictured in figures 21, 22, and 23 are similar to thetype brought to North America by non-English colonists. (Privatecollection. Smithsonian photo 49793-F. )]

[Illustration: Figure 24. --ABOUT 1818: This plow plane, used to cutnarrow channels on the edges of boards, was made by G. White ofPhiladelphia in the early 19th century. It is essentially the same tooldepicted in the catalogues of Sheffield manufactures and in the platesfrom Martin and Nicholson. The pattern of the basic bench tools used inAmerica consistently followed British design, at least until the lastquarter of the 19th century. (Private collection. Smithsonian photo49794-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 onthis tool lessened only after the perfection of multipurpose metallicplanes that could be readily converted to cut a "rabbet. " (Privatecollection. Smithsonian photo 494789-H). ]

The question of dating arises, since only the Klock piece is firmlyfixed. How, for example, is the early 19th-century attribution arrivedat for the planes inscribed White and Carpenter? First, the nature ofthe 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 5Filbert Street and later at 34 Juliana Street. Third, internal evidenceon the plane itself gives a clue. In this case, the hardware--rivets andfurrels--is similar if not identical to that found on firearms of theperiod, weapons whose dates of manufacture are known. The decorativemolding on the fence of this plane is proper for the period; this is nota reliable guide, however, since similar moldings are retainedthroughout the century. Finally, the plane is equipped with a fencecontrolled by slide-arms, fixed with wedges and not by adjustable screwarms. After 1830, tools of high quality, such as White's, invariablyhave the screw arms. The rabbet plane, made by Carpenter, is traceablevia another route, the U. S. Patent Office records. Carpenter, self-designated "toolmaker of Lancaster, " submitted patents for theimprovement of wood planes between 1831 and 1849. Examples ofCarpenter's work, always stamped as shown in figure 27, survive, bothdated and undated. There are several of his planes in the collections ofthe Bucks County Historical Society, and dated pieces are known inprivate collections. 

Inherent in the bench planes is a feeling of motion, particularly in theplow and the rabbet where basic design alone conveys the idea that theywere meant to move over fixed surfaces. Of the three examples, only thebrass 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 moreexpensive factory models. Also unintentional, but pleasing, is thedistinctive throat of the rabbet plane--a design that developed topermit easy discharge of shavings, and one that mass manufacture didnot destroy. 

[Illustration: Figure 26. --1818: THE JACK PLANE, used first by thecarpenter for rapid surfacing, is distinguished primarily by the bezeledand slightly convex edge of its cutting iron. As with the plow and therabbet, its shape is ubiquitous. Dated and marked A. Klock, thisAmerican example follows precisely those detailed in Sheffield patternbooks. (Smithsonian photo 49794-C. )]

[Illustration: Figure 27. --1830-1840: DETAIL OF the rabbet plane (fig. 25) showing the characteristic stamp of E. W. Carpenter. (Smithsonianphoto 49794-D. )]

[Illustration: Figure 28. --ABOUT 1631: THE PRECEDING ILLUSTRATIONSemphasize the divergent appearance of European and Anglo-American tools. This, however, was not always the case. The woodworker's shop by theDutch engraver Jan Van Vliet suggests the similarity between English andEuropean 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 EliasPozelius, _Orbus Pictus nach Zeichnugen der Susanna Maria_ _Sandrart_, Nürnberg, 1690. (Library of Congress. )]

[Illustration: Figure 30. --1568: THE WOODWORKER'S SHOP from Hans Sachs, _Eygentliche Beschrerbung Aller Stande ... Mit Kunstreichen Figuren_ [byJost Amman], Frankfurt, 1568. (Library of Congress. )]

The divergence from European to an Anglo-American hand-tool design andthe approximate date that it occurred can be suggested by a comparisonof contemporary illustrations. The change in the wooden bench plane canbe followed from the early 17th century through its standardization atthe end of the 18th century. Examine first the planes as drawn in the1630's by the Dutchman Jan Van Vliet (fig. 28), an etcher of Rembrandt'sschool 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 splendiddrawing of the bench plane from André-Jacob Roubo's _L'Art dumenuisier_, published in 1769 (fig. 32). In all of them, the roundedhandle, or tote, and the fore-horn appear, characteristics of bothEuropean and English planes of the period before 1750. The similarityends with the mass production of hand tools from the shops of theEnglish toolmaking centers, principally Sheffield. An illustration froma pattern and design book of the Castle Hill Works, Sheffield, datingfrom 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 ofthis form in America is readily documented in Lewis Miller'sself-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 JohnBradford (fig. 35). In each example, the bench plane clearly follows theEnglish prototype. 

[Illustration: Figure 31. --1703: DETAIL OF THE BENCH PLANES from Moxon's_Mechanick Exercises_. ]

[Illustration: Figure 32. --1769: ANDRÉ-JACOB ROUBO'S PRECISE RENDERINGof the bench plane retains the essential features shown by Moxon--therounded tote or handle and the curved fore-horn. (André-Jacob Roubo, _L'Art du menuisier_, 1769. )]

[Illustration: Figure 33. --EARLY 19TH CENTURY: The bench planeillustrated in Roubo or Moxon is seldom seen in American toolcollections. The bench planes, smoothing planes, rabbets, and plowsuniversally resemble those shown in this illustration from the patternbook of the Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. (Book 87, Cutler and Company, Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. _Courtesy of the Victoria and AlbertMuseum. _)]

[Illustration: Figure 34. --ABOUT 1810: LEWIS MILLER WORKING AT HIS BENCHin York, Pa. In a predominantly Pennsylvania-German settlement, theplane used by Miller conforms to the Sheffield type illustrated in thecatalogue of the Castle Hill Works as shown in figure 33. (York CountyHistorical Society, York, Pa. )]

[Illustration: Figure 35. --1820: JOHN BRADFORD'S shop sign carved byIsaac Fowle is a unique documentary of early 19th-century tool shapesand is in the Bostonian Society, Boston, Mass. (Index of AmericanDesign, The National Gallery, Washington, D. C. )]

[Illustration: Figure 36. --1703: THE JOINER'S brace and bit--a detailfrom Moxon, _Mechanick Exercises_ ... , London, 1703. (Library ofCongress, Smithsonian photo 56635. )]

[Illustration: Figure 37. --1769: ROUBO'S ILLUSTRATION OF THE BRACE andbit differs from Moxon's only in the precision of the delineation. Contrast this form with that of the standard Sheffield version in figure38 and the metallic braces illustrated in figures 40 through 44. Fromthese plates can be seen the progression of the bitstock toward itsultimate perfection in the late 19th century. (André-Jacob Roubo, _L'Artdu menuisier_, 1769. )]

[Illustration: Figure 38. --EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE MASS-PRODUCED VERSIONof the wooden brace and bit took the form illustrated in Book 87 ofCutler's Castle Hill Works. (_Courtesy of the Victoria and AlbertMuseum. _)]

[Illustration: Figure 39. --18TH CENTURY: THE TRANSITIONAL FORM of thewooden brace and bit incorporated the overall shape of the mass-producedversion but retained the archaic method of fastening the bit to thechuck. The tool is of Dutch origin and suggests the influence ofSheffield design on European tools. (Smithsonian photo 49792-E. )]

[Illustration: Figure 40. --1769: ROUBO ILLUSTRATED THE METALLIC BRACEand, in addition, suggested its use as a screwdriver. (André-JacobRoubo, _L'Art du menuisier_, 1769. )]

[Illustration: Figure 41. --ABOUT 1775: FORD, WHITMORE AND BRUNTON madeand sold clockmaker's braces of metal with a sweep and shank that wasimitated by American patentees in the 19th century. (Catalogue of Ford, Whitmore and Brunton, Birmingham, England. _Courtesy of the BirminghamReference Library. _)]

[Illustration: Figure 42. --1852: NEARLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS after Roubo'splate appeared, Jacob Switzer applied for a patent for an "Improved SelfHolding Screw Driver. " The similarity of Switzer's drawing and Roubo'splate 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 thebrace proposed by J. Parker Gordon is in sharp contrast to the heavilysplinted sides of the wooden brace commonly used in mid-19th-centuryAmerica. (Original patent drawing 52, 042, U. S. Patent Office, RecordGroup 241, the National Archives. )]

[Illustration: Figure 44. --1865: MILTON NOBLES' PATENT perfecting thechuck which held the auger bit was an important step along the pathwhich led ultimately to the complete acceptance of the metallic brace. Barber's ratchet brace shown in figure 66 completes the metamorphosis ofthis 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 acommon origin. Refer again to Van Vliet's etching of the woodworker'sshop (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, ashape common to both delineators and craftsmen of the Continent and theBritish Isles. But, as the plane changed, so changed the brace. Thestandard form of this tool as it was used and produced in the UnitedStates in the 19th century can be seen in another plate from thecatalogue of the Castle Hill Works at Sheffield (fig. 38). This Englishinfluence on American tool design is no surprise, since as early as 1634William Wood in _New England's Prospect_ suggested that colonists taketo the New World "All manner of Ironwares, as all manner of nailes forhouses ... With Axes both broad and pitching ... All manners of Augers, piercing bits, Whip-saws, Two handed saws, Froes ... , rings for Bettleheads, and Iron-wedges. "

[Illustration: Figure 45. --19TH CENTURY: THE UPHOLSTERER'S HAMMER is anunknown; it is not dated, its maker is anonymous, as is its user. It isof American origin, yet of a style that might have been used in Englandor on the Continent. This lack of provenance need not detract from itssignificance as a material survival. This hammer, the brace (fig. 46), the bevel (fig. 47), and the compass saw (fig. 48) are sufficientlyprovocative in their design to conjure some image of a technologydependent upon the skilled hand of craftsmen working in wood and of therelationship between the hand, the tool, and the finished product. (Smithsonian photo 49793-A. )]

[Illustration: Figure 46. --18TH CENTURY: THE BRACE AND BIT in itsnonfactory form conforms to a general design pattern in which none ofthe components are ever precisely alike. This aspect of variety ofdetail--sophistication, crudeness, decorative qualities or thelike--reflects something of the individuality of the toolmaker, aquality completely lost in the standardization of the carpenter's brace. (Smithsonian photo 49794-A. )]

English tool design in the 18th century also influenced the continentaltoolmakers. This can be seen in figure 39 in a transitional-typebitstock (accession 319556) from the Low Countries. Adopting an Englishshape, but still preserving the ancient lever device for holding the bitin place, the piece with its grapevine embellishment is a markedcontrast to the severely functional brass chucks on braces of Englishmanufacture. No less a contrast are metallic versions of the brace. These begin to appear with some regularity in the U. S. Patentspecifications of the 1840's; their design is apparently derived from18th-century precedents. Roubo (fig. 40) illustrated a metal bitstock in1769, as did Ford, Whitmore & Brunton, makers of jewelers' andwatchmakers' tools, of Birmingham, England, in their trade catalogue of1775 (fig. 41). Each suggests a prototype of the patented forms of the1840's. For example, in 1852, Jacob Switzer of Basil, Ohio, suggested, as had Roubo a hundred years earlier, that the bitstock be used as ascrewdriver (fig. 42); but far more interesting than Switzer's idea washis delineation of the brace itself, which he described as "an ordinarybrace and bit stock" (U. S. Pat. 9, 457). The inference is that such atool form was already a familiar one among the woodworking trades in theUnited States. Disregarding the screwdriver attachment, which is notwithout merit, Switzer's stock represents an accurate rendering of whatwas then a well-known form if not as yet a rival of the older woodenbrace. Likewise, J. Parker Gordon's patent 52, 042 of 1866 exemplifiesthe strengthening of a basic tool by the use of iron (fig. 43) and, as aresult, the achievement of an even greater functionalism in design. Thecomplete break with the medieval, however, is seen in a drawingsubmitted to the Commissioner of Patents in 1865 (pat. 51, 660) by MiltonV. Nobles of Rochester, New York. [9] Nobles' creation was of thoroughlymodern design and appearance in which, unlike earlier types, the bit washeld in place by a solid socket, split sleeve, and a tightening ring(fig. 44). In three centuries, three distinct design changes occurred inthe carpenter's brace. First, about 1750, the so-called English orSheffield bitstock appeared. This was followed in the very early 19thcentury by the reinforced English type whose sides were splinted bybrass strips. Not only had the medieval form largely disappeared by theend of the 18th century, but so had the ancient lever-wedge method offastening the bit in the stock, a device replaced by the pressure-springbutton on the side of the chuck. Finally, in this evolution, came themetallic stock, not widely used in America until after the Civil War, that embodied in its design the influence of mass manufacture and in itsseveral early versions all of the features of the modern brace and bit. 

[Illustration: Figure 47. --18TH CENTURY: The visually pleasing qualitiesof walnut and brass provide a level of response to this joiner's bevelquite 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 arecurring functional design, one which varied according to the hand ofthe sawer. (Smithsonian photo 49789-C. )]

Henry Ward Beecher, impressed by the growing sophistication of thetoolmakers, described the hand tool in a most realistic and objectivemanner as an "extension of a man's hand. " The antiquarian, attuned tomore subjective and romantic appraisals, will find this hardlysufficient. Look at the upholsterer's hammer (accession 61. 35) seen infigure 45: there is no question that it is a response to a demandingtask that required an efficient and not too forceful extension of theworkman's hand. But there is another response to this implement: namely, the admiration for an unknown toolmaker who combined in an elementarystriking tool a hammerhead of well-weighted proportion to be wieldedgently through the medium of an extremely delicate handle. In short, here is an object about whose provenance one need know very little inorder to enjoy it aesthetically. In a like manner, the 18th-centurybitstock of Flemish origin (fig. 46), the English cabinetmaker's bevelof the same century (fig. 47), and the compass saw (accession 61. 52, fig. 48) capture in their basic design something beyond the functionalextension of the craftsman's hand. The slow curve of the bitstock, neveridentical from one early example to another, is lost in laterfactory-made versions; so too, with the coming of cheap steel, does thecombination of wood (walnut) and brass used in the cabinetmaker's bevelslowly disappear; and, finally, in the custom-fitted pistol-like grip ofthe saw, there is an identity, in feeling at least, between craftsmanand tool never quite achieved in later mass-produced versions. 

[Illustration: Figure 49. --EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE DESIGNATION"GENTLEMAN'S TOOL CHEST" required a chest of "high-style" butnecessitated no change in the tools it held. (Book 87, Cutler andCompany, Castle Hill Works, Sheffield. _Courtesy of the Victoria andAlbert Museum_. )]

[Illustration: Figure 50. --19TH CENTURY: THE SCREWDRIVER, which began toappear regularly on the woodworker's bench after 1800, did not share thelong evolution and tradition of other Anglo-American tool designs. Thescrewdriver in its early versions frequently had a scalloped blade forno other purpose than decoration. (Smithsonian photo 49794. )]

[Illustration: Figure 51. --1870: THE USE of a new material prompted adeparture from the traditional in shape and encouraged surfaceelaboration. The tendency, however, was short lived and themass-produced metallic plane rapidly achieved a purity of design aspleasing as its wooden predecessors. (Private collection. Smithsonianphoto 49789. )]

Occasionally, ruling taste is reflected in the design of the carpenter'sequipment. Notable is the "gentleman's tool chest" (fig. 49) advertisedin the pattern book of the Castle Hill Works. The bracket feet, brasspulls, and inlaid keyholes imitate the style of the domestic chest ofdrawers of the period 1790 to 1810--undoubtedly, features included bythe manufacturer to appeal to a gentleman of refined taste. In contrastto this Sheffield product is the plate from Shaw's _The ModernArchitect_. The concept of the builder-carpenter as a gentleman stillprevails, although the idea in this American scene is conveyed in themid-19th century through fashionable dress. The tools and in particularthe tool chest reflect only the severest of functional lines (fig. 19, p. 196). 

In deference to ruling taste, some tools lost for a time the clean linesthat had long distinguished them. The screwdriver, simple in shape(accession 61. 46) but in little demand until the 1840's, occasionallybecame most elaborate in its factory-made form (fig. 50) and departednoticeably from the unadorned style of traditional English and Americantools. The scalloped blade, influenced by the rival styles rather than atechnical need, seemed little related to the purpose of the tool. [10]No less archaic in decoration was the iron-bodied version of the plowplane (fig. 51). The Anglo-American tradition seems completely putaside. In its place is a most functional object, but one elaboratelycovered with a shell and vine motif! Patented in 1870 by Charles Millerand manufactured by the Stanley Rule and Level Company, this tool in itsunadorned version is of a type that was much admired by the Britishexperts at Philadelphia's Centennial Exhibition in 1876. What promptedsuch superfluous decoration on the plow plane? Perhaps it was to appealto the flood of newly arrived American craftsmen who might find in therococo something reminiscent of the older tools they had known inEurope. Perhaps it was simply the transference to the tool itself of thedecorative work then demanded of the wood craftsmen. Or was it mainly acompulsion to dress, with little effort, a lackluster material thatseemed stark and cold to Victorians accustomed to the ornateness beingachieved elsewhere with the jigsaw and wood? Whatever the cause, theresult did not persist long as a guide to hand-tool design. Instead, thestrong, plain lines that had evolved over two centuries won universalendorsement at the Centennial Exhibition. The prize tools reflectedlittle of the ornateness apparent in the wares of most of the otherexhibitors. American makers of edge tools exhibiting at the Centennialshowed the world not only examples of quality but of attractiveness aswell. 

[Illustration: Figure 52. --19TH CENTURY: THE AMERICAN AXE WAS UNEXCELLEDin design and ease of use. European observers praised it as distinctlyAmerican. At the Centennial Exhibition in 1876 Collins and Company ofNew York City was singled out as one of the outstanding manufacturersexhibiting these axes, a reputation that persisted. (_Tools for allTrades_, Hammacher, Schlemmer and Company, New York, 1896. Smithsonianphoto 56625. )]

[Illustration: Figure 53. --1876: DISSTON AND SONS LONG CONTINUED toremind prospective buyers of the company's success at the PhiladelphiaCentennial Exhibition by retaining the "Centennial Saw, No. 76" as abrand name. (_Illustrated Catalogue_, Baldwin, Robbins and Company, Boston, 1894. Smithsonian photo 56627. )]

Change

American hand tools in 1876 did not achieve the popular acclaim accordedthe Corliss engine, yet few products shown by American exhibitors weremore highly praised by foreign experts. It seems justified to suggestthat American edge tools displayed at the Centennial had reached theirhigh point of development--a metamorphosis that began with the medievalEuropean tool forms, moved through a period of reliance on Englishprecedents, and ended, in the last quarter of the 19th century, with theproduction of American hand tools "occupying an enviable position beforethe world. "[11]

[Illustration: Figure 54. --1809: THE INTRODUCTION of the gimlet-pointedauger followed Ezra L'Hommedieu's patent of 1809. From this date untilits general disuse in the early 20th century, the conformation of thetool remained unchanged, although the quality of steel and the precisionof the twist steadily improved. (Wash drawing from the restored patentdrawings awarded July 31, 1809, U. S. Patent Office, Record Group 241, the National Archives. Smithsonian photo 49790-A. )]

[Illustration: Figure 55. --1855: RUSSELL JENNINGS' improved auger bits, first patented in 1855, received superior citation at the PhiladelphiaCentennial; in the years following, the trade name "Jennings" was seldomomitted from trade catalogues. (Original wash drawing, patent drawingsubmitted by R. Jennings, U. S. Patent Office, Record Group 241, theNational Archives. )]

The tool most highly praised at Philadelphia was the American fellingaxe (fig. 52) "made out of a solid piece of cast steel" with the eye"punched out of the solid. " When compared to other forms, the Americanaxe was "more easily worked, " and its shape permitted an easierwithdrawal after striking. [12]

Sawmakers, too, were singled out for praise--in particular Disston &Sons (fig. 53) for "improvements in the form of the handles, and in themode of fixing them to the saw. " The Disston saw also embodied animproved blade shape which made it "lighter and more convenient bygiving it a greater taper to the point. " Sheffield saws, once suppliedto most of the world, were not exhibited at Philadelphia, and theBritish expert lamented that our "monopoly remains with us nolonger. "[13]

[Illustration: Figure 56. --1894: THE PERSISTENCE OF "JENNINGS" AS ATRADE NAME is suggested by the vignette from the "Illustrated Catalogue"of Baldwin, Robbins and Company, published in 1894. (Smithsonian photo56628. )]

Augers, essential to "the heavier branches of the building trade ... [and] in the workshops of joiners, carpenters, cabinetmakers, turners, carvers, and by amateurs and others, " were considered a "most importantexhibit" at the Centennial. The auger had attained a perfection in "theaccuracy of the twist, the various forms of the cutters, the quality ofthe steel, and fine finish of the twist and polish. " The ancient pod orshell auger had nearly disappeared from use, to be replaced by "thescrewed form of the tool" considerably refined by comparison toL'Hommedieu's prototype, patented in 1809 (fig. 54). Russell Jennings'patented auger bits (figs. 55-56) were cited for their "workmanship andquality, " and, collectively, the Exhibition "fully established thereputation of American augers. "[14] Likewise, makers of braces and bitswere commended for the number of excellent examples shown. Some were adeparture from the familiar design with "an expansive chuck for thebit, " but others were simply elegant examples of the traditional brace, in wood, japanned and heavily reinforced with highly polished brasssidings. An example exhibited by E. Mills and Company, of Philadelphia, received a certification from the judges as being "of the best qualityand finish" (fig. 57). The Mills brace, together with otheraward-winning tools of the company--drawknives, screwdrivers, andspokeshaves--is preserved in the collections of the SmithsonianInstitution (accession 319326). Today as a group they confirm "theremarkably fine quality of ... Both iron and steel" that characterizedthe manufacture of American edge tools in the second half of the 19thcentury. [15]

[Illustration: Figure 57. --1876: JAPANNED AND SPLINTED WITH HEAVY BRASS, this brace was among the award-winning tools exhibited at the Centennialby E. Mills and Company of Philadelphia. (Smithsonian photo 49792-D. )]

[Illustration: Figure 58. --1827: THE BENCH PLANES exhibited atPhiladelphia in 1876 were a radical departure from the traditional. In1827 H. Knowles patented an iron-bodied bench plane that portended achange in form that would witness a substitution of steel for wood inall critical areas of the tool's construction, and easy adjustment ofthe cutting edge by a setscrew, and an increased flexibility thatallowed one plane to be used for several purposes. (Wash drawing fromthe restored patent drawings, August 24, 1827, U. S. Patent Office, Record Group 241, the National Archives. )]

[Illustration: Figure 59. --1857: THE ADDITION OF METALLIC PARTS tocritical areas of wear as suggested by M. B. Tidey did not at firstradically alter the design of the bench plane. (Wash drawing from U. S. Patent Office, March 24, 1857, Record Group 241, the NationalArchives. )]

It is the plane, however, that best exemplifies the progress of tooldesign. In 1876, American planemakers were enthusiastically creditedwith having achieved "an important change in the structure of thetool. "[16] Although change had been suggested by American patentees asearly as the 1820's, mass production lagged until after the Civil War, and the use of this new tool form was not widespread outside of theUnited States. Hazard Knowles of Colchester, Connecticut, in 1827, patented a plane stock of cast iron which in many respects was aprototype of later Centennial models (fig. 58). [17] It is evident, evenin its earliest manifestation, that the quest for improvement of thebench plane did not alter its sound design. In 1857, M. B. Tidey (fig. 59) listed several of the goals that motivated planemakers:

 First to simplify the manufacturing of planes; second to render them more durable; third to retain a uniform mouth; fourth to obviate their clogging; and fifth the retention of the essential part of the plane when the stock is worn out. [18]

By far the greatest number of patents was concerned with perfecting anadjustable plane iron and methods of constructing the sole of a plane sothat it would always be "true. " Obviously the use of metal rather thanthe older medium, wood, was a natural step, but in the process ofchanging from the wood to the iron-bodied bench plane there were manytransitional suggestions that combined both materials. Seth Howes ofSouth Chatham, Massachusetts, in U. S. Patent 37, 694, specified:

 This invention relates to an improvement in that class of planes which are commonly termed "bench-planes, " comprising the foreplane, smoothing plane, jack plane, jointer, &c. 

 The invention consists in a novel and improved mode of adjusting the plane-iron to regulate the depth of the cut of the same, in connection with an adjustable cap, all being constructed and arranged in such a manner that the plane-iron may be "set" with the greatest facility and firmly retained in position by the adjustment simply of the cap to the plane-iron, after the latter is set, and the cap also rendered capable of being adjusted to compensate for the wear of the "sole" or face of the plane stock. 

The stock of Howes' plane was wood combined with metal plates, caps, andscrews. Thomas Worrall of Lowell was issued patent 17, 657 for a planebased on the same general principle (fig. 60). Worrall claimed in hisspecifications of June 23, 1857:

 the improved manufacture of [the] carpenter's bench plane or jointer as made with its handle, its wooden stock to which said handle is affixed, and a separate metallic cutter holder, and cutter clamping devices arranged together substantially as specified. 

Finally patentees throughout the 19th century, faced with an increasingproliferation of tool types, frequently sought to perfect multipurposeimplements of a type best represented later by the ubiquitous Stanleyplane. The evolution of the all-purpose idea, which is incidentally notpeculiar to hand tools alone, can be seen from random statementsselected from U. S. Patents for the improvement of bench planes. In 1864Stephen Williams in the specifications of his patent 43, 360 stated:

 I denominate my improvement the "universal smoothing plane, " because it belongs to that variety of planes in which the face is made changeable, so that it may be conveniently adapted to the planing of curved as well as straight surfaces. By the use of my improvement surfaces that are convex, concave, or straight may be easily worked, the face of the tool being readily changed from one form to another to suit the surface to which it is to be applied. 

The announced object of Theodore Duval's improved grooving plane (pat. 97, 177) was "to produce in one tool all that is required to form groovesof several different widths. " None was more appealing than Daniel D. Whitker's saw-rabbet plane (pat. 52, 478) which combined "an adjustablesaw with an adjustable fence or gage, both being attached to a stockwith handle similar to a plane, forming together a tool combining theproperties of the joiner's plow and fillister" (fig. 61). Nor wasWhitker's idea simply a drawing-board exercise. It was producedcommercially and was well advertised, as seen in the circular reproducedin figure 62. 

[Illustration: Figure 60. --1857: IN A VARIETY OF ARRANGEMENTS, theaddition of metal plates, caps, and screws at the mouth of the plane, asshown in Thomas Worrall's drawing, proved a transitional device thatpreserved the ancient shape of the tool and slowed the introduction ofbench planes made entirely of iron. (Wash drawing from U. S. PatentOffice, June 23, 1857, Record Group 241, the National Archives. )]

[Illustration: Figure 61. --1865: NOT ALL MULTIPURPOSE INNOVATIONSresulted from the use of new materials. Daniel D. Whitker patented acombination saw and rabbet plane little different from one illustratedby André-Jacob Roubo in his _L'Art du menuisier_ in 1769. (Wash drawingfrom U. S. Patent Office, October 4, 1865, Record Group 241, the NationalArchives. )]

In sum, these ideas produced a major break with the traditional shape ofthe bench plane. William Foster in 1843 (pat. 3, 355), Birdsill Holly in1852 (pat. 9, 094), and W. S. Loughborough in 1859 (pat. 23, 928) areparticularly good examples of the radical departure from the woodenblock. And, in the period after the Civil War, C. G. Miller (discussed onp. 213 and in fig. 63), B. A. Blandin (fig. 64), and Russell Phillips(pat. 106, 868) patented multipurpose metallic bench planes of excellentdesign. It should be pointed out that the patentees mentioned aboverepresent only a few of the great number that tried to improve theplane. Only the trend of change is suggested by the descriptions andillustrations presented here. The cumulative effect awaited a showcase, and the planemakers found it at the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 heldin Philadelphia. 

[Illustration: Figure 62. --ABOUT 1865: THE PROGRESS OF AN IDEA from an18th-century encyclopedia through an American patentee to commercialreality can be seen in this flier advertising Whitker's saw-rabbet. (Smithsonian Institution Library. Smithsonian photo 56629. )]

The impact of these new planes at the Exhibition caused someretrospection among the judges:

 The planes manufactured in Great Britain and in other countries fifty years ago were formed of best beech-wood; the plane irons were of steel and iron welded together; the jointer plane, about 21 inches long, was a bulky tool; the jack and hand planes were of the same materials. Very little change has been made upon the plane in Great Britain, unless in the superior workmanship and higher quality of the plane iron. [19]

The solid wood-block plane, varying from country to country only in thestructure of its handles and body decoration, had preserved itsintegrity of design since the Middle Ages. At the Centennial, however, only a few examples of the old-type plane were exhibited. A new shapedominated the cases. Designated by foreign observers as the Americanplane, it received extended comment. Here was a tool

 constructed with a skeleton iron body, having a curved wooden handle; the plane iron is of the finest cast-steel; the cover is fitted with an ingenious trigger at the top, which, with a screw below the iron, admits of the plane iron being removed for sharpening and setting without the aid of the hammer, and with the greatest ease. The extensive varieties of plane iron in use are fitted for every requirement; a very ingenious arrangement is applied to the tools for planing the insides of circles or other curved works, such as stair-rails, etc. The sole of the plane is formed of a plate of tempered steel about the thickness of a handsaw, according to the length required, and this plate is adapted to the curve, and is securely fixed at each end. With this tool the work is not only done better but in less time than formerly. In some exhibits the face of the plane was made of beech or of other hard wood, secured by screws to the stock, and the tool becomes a hybrid, all other parts remaining the same as in the iron plane. [20]

The popularity of Bailey's patented planes (fig. 65), the type sopraised above, was by no means transitory. In 1884 the Boston firm ofGoodnow & Wightman, "Importers, Manufacturers and Dealers in Tools ofall kinds, " illustrated the several planes just described and assuredprospective buyers that

 These tools meet with universal approbation from the best Mechanics. For beauty of style and finish they are unequalled, and the great convenience in operating renders them the cheapest Planes in use; they are SELF-ADJUSTING in every respect; and each part being made INTERCHANGEABLE, can be replaced at a trifling expense. [21]

By 1900 an advertisement for Bailey's planes published in the catalogueof another Boston firm, Chandler and Farquhar, indicated that "over900, 000" had already been sold. [22]

Other mass-produced edge tools--axes, adzes, braces and bits, augers, saws, and chisels--illustrated in the trade literature of the toolmakersbecame, as had the iron-bodied bench plane, standard forms. In the lastquarter of the 19th century the tool catalogue replaced Moxon, Duhamel, Diderot, and the builders' manuals as the primary source for the studyand identification of hand tools. The Centennial had called attention tothe superiority of certain American tools and toolmakers. The result wasthat until the end of the century, trade literature faithfully drummedthe products that had proven such "an attraction to the numerousartisans who visited the Centennial Exhibition from the United Statesand other countries. "[23]

[Illustration: Figure 63. --1870: THE METALLIC VERSION OF THE PLOW PLANElater produced by Stanley and Company was patented by [Charles] G. Miller as a tool readily "convertible into a grooving, rabbeting, orsmoothing plane. " In production this multipurpose plow gained anelaborate decoration (fig. 51) nowhere suggested in Miller'sspecification. (Wash drawing from U. S. Patent Office, June 28, 1870, Record Group 241, the National Archives. )]

[Illustration: Figure 64. --1867: THE DRAWING accompanying B. A. Blandin'sspecification for an "Improvement in Bench Planes" retained only thefamiliarly shaped handle or tote of the traditional wood-bodied plane. This new shape rapidly became the standard form of the tool with latervariations chiefly related to the adjustability of the plane-iron andsole. (Wash drawing from U. S. Patent Office, May 7, 1867, Record Group241, the National Archives. )]

Collins and Company of New York City had been given commendation for theexcellence of their axes; through the end of the century, Collins' brandfelling axes, broad axes, and adzes were standard items, as witnessHammacher, Schlemmer and Company's catalogue of 1896. [24] Disston sawswere a byword, and the impact of their exhibit at Philadelphia was stillstrong, as judged from Baldwin, Robbins' catalogue of 1894. Highlyrecommended was the Disston no. 76, the "Centennial" handsaw with its"skew back" and "apple handle. " Jennings' patented auger bits werelikewise standard fare in nearly every tool catalogue. [25] So were benchplanes manufactured by companies that had been cited at Philadelphia forthe excellence of their product; namely, The Metallic Plane Company, Auburn, New York; The Middletown Tool Company, Middletown, Connecticut;Bailey, Leonard, and Company, Hartford; and The Sandusky Tool Company, Sandusky, Ohio. [26]

An excellent indication of the persistence of the Centennial influence, and of the tool catalogue as source material, is seen in Chandler andFarquhar's illustrated pamphlet of 1900. Their advertisement forBarber's improved ratchet brace (fig. 66), a tool much admired by theCentennial judges, amply illustrates the evolution of design of a basicimplement present in American society since the first years ofsettlement. The Barber brace represents the ultimate sophistication of atool, achieved through an expanded industrial technology rather than byan extended or newly found use for the device itself. It is a primeexample of the transition of a tool from Moxon to its perfected form inthe 20th century:

 These Braces possess the following points of superiority: The Sweep is made from Steel; the Jaws are forged from Steel; the Wood Handle has brass rings inserted in each end so it cannot split off; the Chuck has a hardened Steel antifriction washer between the two sockets, thus reducing the wear. The Head has a bearing of steel balls, running on hard steel plates, so no wear can take place, as the friction is reduced to the minimum. The Brace is heavily nickel-plated and warranted in every particular. We endeavor to make these goods as nearly perfection as is possible in durability, quality of material and workmanship, and fineness and beauty of finish. [27]

[Illustration: Figure 65. --1900: AMERICAN PLANEMAKERS had been cited atthe Philadelphia Centennial as having introduced a dramatic change inthe nature of the tool. Although wood-bodied planes continued to beused, they were outdated and in fact anachronistic by the close of the19th century. From the 1870's forward, it was the iron-bodied plane, most frequently Bailey's, that enlivened the trade literature. (Catalogue of Chandler and Farquhar, Boston, 1900. Smithsonian photo55798. )]

[Illustration: Figure 66. --1900: FEW TOOLS SUGGEST MORE CLEARLY theinfluence of modern industrial society upon the design and constructionof traditional implements than Barber's ratchet brace. It is not withoutinterest that as the tools of the wood craftsman became crisplyefficient, his work declined correspondingly in individuality andcharacter. The brace and the plane, as followed from Moxon through thetrade literature of the late 19th century, achieved perfection in formand operation at a time when their basic functions had been usurped bymachines. (Catalogue of Chandler and Farquhar, Boston, 1900. Smithsonianphoto 56626. )]

The description of Barber's brace documents a major technical change:wood to steel, leather washers to ball bearings, and natural patina tonickel plate. It is also an explanation for the appearance and shape ofcraftmen's tools, either hand forged or mass produced. In each case, thesought-after result in the form of a finished product has been animplement of "fineness and beauty. " This quest motivated three centuriesof toolmakers and brought vitality to hand-tool design. Moxon hadadvised:

 He that will a good Edge win, Must Forge thick and Grind thin. [28]

If heeded, the result would be an edge tool that assured its owner "easeand delight. "[29] Throughout the period considered here, the mostpraiseworthy remarks made about edge tools were variations of either"unsurpassed in quality, finish, and beauty of style" or, more simply, commendation for "excellent design and superior workmanship. "[30] Thehand tool thus provoked the same value words in the 19th as in the 17thcentury. 

The aesthetics of industrial art, whether propounded by Moxon or by anofficial at the Philadelphia Centennial, proved the standard measure bywhich quality could be judged. Today these values are particularly validwhen applied to a class of artifacts that changed slowly and have astheir prime characteristics anonymity of maker and date. With suchobjects the origin, transition, and variation of shape are of primaryinterest. Consider the common auger whose "Office" Moxon declared "is tomake great round holes" and whose importance was so clearly stressed atPhiladelphia in 1876. [31] Neither its purpose nor its gross appearance(a T-handled boring tool) had changed. The tool did, however, developqualitatively through 200 years, from a pod or shell to a spiral bit, from a blunt to a gimlet point, and from a hand-fashioned to ageometrically exact, factory-made implement: innovations associated withCooke (1770), L'Hommedieu (1809), and Jennings (1850's). In eachinstance the tool was improved--a double spiral facilitated thedischarge of shavings, a gimlet point allowed the direct insertion ofthe auger, and machine precision brought mathematical accuracy to thedegree of twist. Still, overall appearance did not change. At theCentennial, Moxon would have recognized an auger, and, further, hislecture on its uses would have been singularly current. The large-borespiral auger still denoted a mortise, tenon, and trenail mode ofbuilding in a wood-based technology; at the same time its near cousin, the wheelwright's reamer, suggested the reliance upon a transportdependent upon wooden hubs. The auger in its perfected form--fine steel, perfectly machined, and highly finished--contrasted with an auger ofearlier vintage will clearly show the advance from forge to factory, butwill indicate little new in its method of use or its intended purpose. 

Persons neither skilled in the use of tools nor interested in technicalhistory will find that there is another response to the common auger, asthere was to the upholsterer's hammer, the 18th-century brace, or thesaw with the custom-fitted grip. This is a subjective reaction to apleasing form. It is the same reaction that prompted artists to usetools as vehicles to help convey lessons in perspective, a frequentpractice in 19th-century art manuals. The harmony of related parts--thebalance of shaft and handle or the geometry of the twist--makes theauger a decorative object. This is not to say that the ancientwoodworker's tool is not a document attesting a society's technicalproficiency--ingenuity, craftsmanship, and productivity. It is only tosuggest again that it is something more; a survival of the past whoseintrinsic qualities permit it to stand alone as a bridge between thecraftsman's hand and his work; an object of considerable appeal in whichintegrity of line and form is not dimmed by the skill of the user nor bythe quality of the object produced by it. 

In America, this integrity of design is derived from three centuries ofexperience: one of heterogeneous character, the mid-17th to themid-18th; one of predominately English influence, from 1750 to 1850; andone that saw the perfection of basic tools, by native innovators, between 1850 and the early 20th century. In the two earlier periods, thewoodworking tool and the products it finished had a natural affinityowing largely to the harmony of line that both the tool and finishedproduct shared. The later period, however, presents a striking contrast. Hand-tool design, with few exceptions, continued vigorous and functionalamidst the confusion of an eclectic architecture, a flurry of rivalstyles, the horrors of the jigsaw, and the excesses of Victorian taste. In conclusion, it would seem that whether seeking some continuous threadin the evolution of a national style, or whether appraising Americancontributions to technology, such a search must rest, at least in part, upon the character and quality of the hand tools the society has madeand used, because they offer a continuity largely unknown to otherclasses of material survivals. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, "History in Tools, " _Annual Report SmithsonianInstitution_, 1918, pp. 563-572 [reprint]. 

[2] JOHANN AMOS COMENIUS, _Orbis Sensualium Pictus_, transl. CharlesHoole (London, 1685), pp. 130, 143. 

[3] JOSEPH MOXON, _Mechanick Exercises or the Doctrine of Handy-Works_, 3rd. Ed. (London, 1703), pp. 63, 119. 

[4] MARTIN, _Circle of the Mechanical Arts_ (1813), p. 123. 

[5] PETER NICHOLSON, _The Mechanic's Companion_ (Philadelphia, 1832), pp. 31, 89-90. 

[6] _Catalog_, Book 87, Cutler and Co. , Castle Hill Works, Sheffield [inthe collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London]; and_Illustrated Supplement to the Catalogue of Bench Planes_, ArrowmammettWorks (Middletown, Conn. , 1857) [in the Smithsonian InstitutionLibrary]. 

[7] York County Records, Virginia Deeds, Orders, and Wills, no. 13(1706-1710), p. 248; and the inventory of Amasa Thompson in LAWRENCE B. ROMAINE, "A Yankee Carpenter and His Tools, " _The Chronicle_ of theEarly American Industries Association (July 1953), vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 33-34. 

[8] _Reports by the Juries: Exhibition of the Works of Industry of AllNations, 1851_ (London, 1852), p. 485. 

[9] U. S. Patent specifications cited in this paragraph may be found atthe U. S. Patent Office, Washington, D. C. 

[10] In 1865 George Parr in his application for an improved screwdriverstated categorically that the scalloped blade served no purpose otherthan decoration. See U. S. Patent 45, 854, dated January 10, 1865. 

[11] Francis A. Walker, ed. , _United States Centennial Commission, International Exhibition, 1876, Reports and Awards, Group XV_(Philadelphia, 1877), p. 5. 

[12] Ibid. , p. 6. 

[13] Ibid. , pp. 9-10. 

[14] Ibid. , pp. 11-12. 

[15] Ibid. , pp. 14, 44, 5. 

[16] Ibid. , p. 13. 

[17] Restored patent 4, 859X, August 24, 1827, National Archives, Washington, D. C. 

[18] U. S. Pat. 16, 889, U. S. Patent Office, Washington, D. C. The numberedspecifications that follow may be found in the same place. 

[19] Walker, ed. , _Reports and Awards_, group 15, p. 13. 

[20] Ibid. 

[21] _Tools_ (Boston, 1884), p. 54 [in the Smithsonian InstitutionLibrary]. 

[22] _Tools and Supplies_ (June 1900), no. 85 [in the SmithsonianInstitution Library]. 

[23] Walker, op. Cit. (footnote 19), p. 14. 

[24] _Tools for All Trades_ (New York, 1896), item 75 [in theSmithsonian Institution Library]. 

[25] See _Baldwin, Robbins & Co. : Illustrated Catalogue_ (Boston, 1894), pp. 954, 993 [in the Smithsonian Institution Library]. 

[26] Walker, op. Cit. (footnote 19), p. 14. 

[27] _Tools and Supplies_, op. Cit. (footnote 22). 

[28] _Mechanick Exercise_ ... , p. 62. 

[29] Ibid. , p. 95. 

[30] Walker, op. Cit. (footnote 19), pp. 31-49. 

[31] _Mechanick Exercises_ ... , p. 94. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_Book of trades, or library of the useful arts. _ 1st Amer. Ed. Whitehall, N. Y. , 1807. 

_Boy's book of trades. _ London, 1866. 

_The cabinetmaker in eighteenth-century Williamsburg. _ (WilliamsburgCraft Series. ) Williamsburg, Va. , 1963. 

COMENIUS, JOHANN AMOS. _Orbis sensualium pictus. _ Transl. Charles Hoole. London, 1664, 1685, 1777, et al. 

COTTER, JOHN L. _Archeological excavations at Jamestown, Virginia. _ (No. 4 in Archeological Research Series. ) Washington: National Park Service, 1958. 

DIDEROT, DENIS. _L'encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. _ Paris, 1751-1765. 

EARLY AMERICAN INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION. _Chronicle. _ Williamsburg, Va. , 1933+. 

GILLISPIE, CHARLES COULSTON, ed. _A Diderot pictorial encyclopedia oftrades and industry. _ New York: Dover Publications, Inc. , 1959. 

GOODMAN, W. L. _The history of woodworking tools. _ London: G. Bell andSons, Ltd. , 1964. 

HOLTZAPFFEL, CHARLES. _Turning and mechanical manipulations. _ London[1846]. 

KNIGHT, EDWARD HENRY. _Knight's American mechanical dictionary. _ NewYork, 1874-1876. 

MARTIN, THOMAS. _The circle of the mechanical arts. _ London, 1813. 

MERCER, HENRY C. _Ancient carpenters' tools. _ Doylestown, Pennsylvania:The Bucks County Historical Society, 1951. 

MOXON, JOSEPH. _Mechanick exercises. _ 3rd ed. London, 1703. 

NICHOLSON, PETER. _The mechanic's companion. _ Philadelphia, 1832. 

PETERSEN, EUGENE T. _Gentlemen on the frontier: A pictorial record ofthe culture of Michilimackinac. _ Mackinac Island, Mich. , 1964. 

PETRIE, SIR WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS. _Tools and weapons illustrated bythe Egyptian collection in University College, London. _ London, 1917. 

ROUBO, ANDRÉ-JACOB. _L'art du menuisier. _ (In Henri-Louis Duhamel duMonceau, _Descriptions des arts et métiers_. ) Paris, 1761-1788. 

SACHS, HANS. _Das Ständebuch: 114 Holzschnitte von Jost Amman, mitReimen von Hans Sachs. _ Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1934. 

SINGER, CHARLES, et al. _A history of technology. _ 5 vols. New York andLondon: Oxford University Press, 1954-1958. 

SLOANE, ERIC. _A museum of early American tools. _ New York: WilfredFunk, Inc. , 1964. 

TOMLINSON, CHARLES. _Illustrations of trades. _ 2nd ed. London, 1867. 

WELSH, PETER C. "The Decorative Appeal of Hand Tools, " _Antiques_, vol. 87, no. 2, February 1965, pp. 204-207. 

---- U. S. Patents, 1790-1870: New uses for old ideas. Paper 48 in_Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology:_ Papers 45-53(U. S. National Museum Bulletin 241), by various authors; Washington:Smithsonian Institution, 1965. 

WILDUNG, FRANK H. _Woodworking tools at Shelburne Museum. _ (No. 3 inMuseum Pamphlet Series. ) Shelburne, Vermont: The Shelburne Museum, 1957. 

 U. S. Government Printing Office: 1966

 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. , 20402--Price 70 cents

 _Paper 51, pages 178-228, from_ UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN

 [Illustration]

 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION · WASHINGTON, D. C.