The Schuyler Family Bible

 by Sarah Lindecke

The Schuyler Family Bible 

The Schuyler Family Bible is a fascinating item that gives us a peak into the Schuyler family’s history. In this post, we will look at the history of family Bibles and bookmaking before diving into the Schuylers’ Bible.

In many European nations, religious devotion was popularly expressed in a variety of forms. Perhaps most common were churches and their elaborate decorations, as well as more personal items like rosaries and jewelry. With the expansion of scriptoriums and other dedicated facilities for book creation during the Medieval period, there was an expansion of bookbinding as an act of piety. Most of this work was done by religious adherents, Christian monks, and other skilled craftsperson’s who dedicated many hours of labor towards the creation of beautiful and expensive manuscripts. Examples of these early illuminated manuscripts would usually have been specific books of the Bible or devotionals called Books of Hours. Many of these books had elaborate cover and internal art, sometimes made from expensive materials like gemstones, pigments for illumination, and vellum (the more expensive version of parchment made from animal skins).

Book of Hours, c. 1530
Held by the MET

With the advent of the printing press and other revolutions in the production of written materials, the artform of decorative books became more accessible, but books were still mainly commissioned by the gentry and merchant classes. Those who could afford the elaborately painted book covers and insets began purchasing customized books and manuscripts in vernacular languages. With this increase in literacy for the gentry, families began to expand their book collections, and often used those books to track their familial records as the books themselves functioned as family heirlooms. They typically recorded birthdates, marriages, deaths, and other significant life events on blank pages. These items provided families with the opportunity to leave information for descendants about ancestors and seminal events in their world.

The Schuyler Family Bible

For the Schuyler family, their family Bible provided all these functions while still being a work of art indicative of their status. The Schuyler family Bible was printed in 1719, most likely by Pieter Keur, under the company of Pieter Rotterdam in Dordrecht (Dordt in English), one of the five largest cities in the Netherlands today. The outside binding of the book is made from leather decorated with ornate corner covers and clasps. Even with its elaborate decoration, the spine of the Bible is unfortunately in poor condition. In previous years the Bible was displayed all open causing much of the damage seen today.

The Bible is printed in the Statenvertaling, or “Staten General,” version of the Bible. This version of the Bible was specifically translated after the Synod of Dordrecht (1618/19) declared it necessary for a new edition of the Bible to be rendered in Dutch from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages to preserve the integrity of the translation into Dutch. The translation was meant to ensure that the original wording and manner of the text were uncorrupted, and often included brief explanatory and summary passages to assist with understanding. Generally, this translation is the Dutch equivalent of the King James Bible, which was commissioned by the Church of England in 1611 under the patronage of King James VI and I of England and Scotland for the same reason.

The Schuyler Family Bible

With this new translation into Dutch, the design layout was updated to reflect a style attractive to the people commissioning the Bibles. Like many illuminated manuscripts from the earlier Medieval period, the designs in these newer Bibles were intricate and often symbolic. For example, within the Schuylers’ family Bible, the title page is designed to look like a neoclassical temple with a banner hanging down from the entablature explaining the version and contents of the Bible, alongside its maker at the bottom. The columns are a close match for Roman Etruscan columns because of their signature rounded edges. There is also a large seal placed in front of the banner. This seal shows a raging lion—a common symbol for the seven provinces of the Netherlands—holding a sword raised in one paw with a sheaf of seven arrows in his other. These items and the choice of a lion are generally meant to symbolize strength and courage but, in this case, the lion and accoutrements most likely represent how the 7 Dutch provinces were taken back from the Holy Roman Empire at the beginning of the 17^th century, creating unity within Dutch lands.

Around this symbolic lion is the phrase “eendracht maeckt macht,” which roughly translates to “unity creates power.” This form of the Bible itself is a work of unity as it was commissioned by a collective within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands to present more harmony within Biblical texts and teachings, while also unifying those in the Dutch world under the same version of the Bible. Many other symbolic items can be found throughout the design program of the “Staten General” Bible the Schuylers owned, but, beyond the interesting aspects of the Bible as a work of art, the Schuylers also used their it to record their family genealogy.

Genealogy in the Schuyler Family Bible 

The first entry into the genealogy pages records the marriage of Philip Schuyler’s (1733-1804) father Johannes Schuyler (1697-1741) and Cornelia van Cortlandt (1698-1762) on October 18^th, 1723. The next entry announces the birth of Philip Schuyler’s older sister, Gertrude (1724-1813), who was born August 18^th, 1724. Further down, it lists on November 20^th, 1733, the birth of Philip Schuyler. Other family events such as the marriage of Philip Schuyler and Catharine van Rensselaer Schuyler (1734-1803) on September 7^th of 1755, and the births of their many children, are listed in the Bible.

Within the bounds of the Schuyler family Bible, there are five children whose history exists only on those pages. These five children are the twins and triplets Catherine had in 1761 and 1770, respectively. We learned from the Bible record that one twin died at birth and was left unnamed, but the other was a girl who survived for about a month before passing away. Her name was Cornelia—a name that was later reused for another Schuyler daughter. The triplets were born in 1770, and were either stillborn or died shortly after birth. None were named and their sexes are not listed. The Schuylers do not write a lot about these twins and triplets, suggesting that the family may have wanted to recuse themselves from extended conversation about their losses. These children were not the first or last children the Schuylers would lose during childhood, but the loss may have felt much larger in these cases.    

The Schuylers’ family Bible provides us with a window not only into their religious world, but their familial one as well. While its present condition makes it to impossible to display open, the Bible is safely on display in the Yellow Parlor of Schuyler Mansion. We’re fortunate to have  research scans of the genealogy in particular, without which so much of the Schuylers’ history would be lost. 

The Schuyler Family Bible

The Schuyler Family Bible

Bibliography and Further Sources 

18th and 19th Century European and American Paper Binding Structures (culturalheritage.org)

De Hamel, Christopher. A History of Illuminated Manuscript (Phaidon, 1986)

History Between the Pages: The Family Bible in Genealogical Research (montgomeryhistory.org)

Israel, Jonathan (1995), The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, Clarendon Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-873072-1.

Israel, Jonathan. "The Statenvertaling Bible." Calvin University. Last modified 1995. Accessed September 18, 2024. https://calvin.edu/centers-institutes/meeter-center/about-the-synod-of-dordt/the-statenvertaling-bible.

Rudy, Kathryn M. (2016), Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized their Manuscripts, Open Book Publishers, doi:10.11647/OBP.0094

Simms, P. Marion, PhD. The Bible in America: Versions That Have Played Their Part in the Making of the Republic. New York: Wilson-Crickson, 1936. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026292543

From the Commonplace Book to the Scrapbook

Excerpt of Eliza Schuyler Hamilton's commonplace book. 

Did you know that the first Saturday in May is National Scrapbook Day? Although the term “scrapbook” wasn’t used until the mid to late-1800s, the concept has existed for centuries. Popularized in the 15^th century with the advent of the printing press, people have been using what were called “commonplace books” to compile documents such as recipes, letters, poems, and journal entries. Even as early as the 8^th century, these types of books were used to compile biblical texts, and the concept of these books as a form of personal expression and record keeping developed thereafter.

In 1685, Enlightenment philosopher John Locke wrote a treatise on commonplace books, translated into English in 1706 as A New Method of Making Common-Place-Books. Locke offered insights into how a person could document a wide array of information, including proverbs, speeches, and ideas. By the 18^th century, the commonplace book had cemented its status as a cherished resource for educated women, providing them with a repository for pamphlets, newspaper clippings, and reflections on the world around them.

Within the Schuyler Mansion collections, there is an excerpt of a commonplace book kept by Eliza Hamilton Schuyler (1811-1863), great-granddaughter of Catharine and Philip Schuyler. Entitled “A Common Place book of Winter life,” these pages detail just eight days from January 1^st-8^th of 1855. Three small holes visible on the left-hand side of what is now a single sheet of paper indicate it was once a longer book Eliza kept. How long she kept it, and where the missing pages are, is currently unknown.

The eight surviving entries allow us a glimpse into Eliza’s daily life. Almost every day, she recorded the temperature at exactly 8AM. While she sometimes mentioned activities in her family life, such as taking her children to German school, she mainly focused on nature. Her notes were poetic at times: “soft glowing sunset—streaking the [Hudson] river with broady [sic] bands of red, purple & gold—I take this hour for myself & such to rise” In this case, she was describing the view from her father’s home near Irvington, NY. She wrote that the sunset reminded her of the day she was married. She said that day had been “rainy & dull,” but the “clouds broke—such joy flashed upon me with these brilliant slanting beams, that they have strengthened me ever since—” Her entries provide a beautiful window into her world and memories even over 160 years since she recorded them.

While Eliza’s commonplace book focused on nature and her daily life, so many 19^th century scrapbooks were full of other mementos like tickets, playbills, and magazine clippings. As magazines began to disseminate even more, the art of scrapbooking as we know it today began to develop thanks to Mark Twain patenting a self-pasting scrapbook that would generate over $100,000 in sales. With the photography also becoming more accessible as near the turn of the 20^th century, scrapbooking as opposed to keeping commonplace books became more typical in American homes.

Perhaps as adults, Eliza’s children clipped articles or photos from ladies’ magazines or saved calling cards and playbills. Thanks to each generation’s unique way of keeping mementoes and snippets of their lives as they wanted to remember them, we get a glimpse into a much more personal past.

The Legacy of Louisa Lee and Georgina Schuyler

By Jessie Serfilippi

In two of our previous blog posts (one and two), we’ve discussed the advocacy work of Louisa and Georgina, great-granddaughters of Catharine and Philip Schuyler and Elizabeth and Alexander Hamilton. When Schuyler Mansion opened to the public in 1917, Louisa and Georgina had donated a number of items they inherited from their parents: Eliza Hamilton and George Lee Schuyler. Below are a few of those pieces and some information on them.

Corner Chair

This corner chair is made in the Chippendale style with a bit of the Queen Anne style influence. It was likely made in Massachusetts or New York between 1765-1775. This type of chair was meant to be more comfortable than a standard chair because the user could relax into the curved portion of the chair. They were mostly used by men because the construction of the chair made it challenging for a woman to sit in it while maintaining proper posture.

Writing Table

This table was also a gift from Louisa and Georgina. While it could be used for writing and similar work, it was commonly used for breakfast, for card and board games, reading, and tea. This table was likely made between 1795-1805 in the United States. It’s made in the Hepplewhite Pembroke style.

Cordial Glass

Made between 1760 and 1790, this glass was free blown and probably imported from England. The Schuylers owned multiple glasses in this style, likely for entertaining guests.

Secretary

Made in the Chippendale style, this desk was likely made in New England around 1770. It is comprised of a desk and bookcase. It has many storage spaces, one of which could be locked, and candle holders. As it was a gift of Louisa and Georgina, it’s possible that it belonged to their great-grandfather, Philip Schuyler, who would have done a lot of his military and political work from this desk.

The Cost of Comfort: Philip Schuyler's 1761 Expenses

By Jessie Serfilippi and Ian Mumpton

An 18th century mirror in the
Yellow Parlor.

In 1761, Philip Schuyler made his only trip across the Atlantic to England, where he intended to purchase furnishings and other items for the mansion he was constructing in Albany. This year not only represents a unique time in Schuyler’s life, but it’s also a year we have a wealth of documentation for in the form of a recreated inventory compiled from surviving receipts. Yet, even with all the documents we do have, there are likely many receipts we’re missing. It is important to note that this recreated inventory does not include food or most pieces of clothing. Neither Carpeting costs nor the amount spent on the actual construction of the Albany mansion are included, either. It also does not include major pieces of furniture, such as chairs, tables, sofas, or beds.

Area above the fireplace in the
Yellow Parlor where Schuyler may
have hung a mirror he purchased.

The only pieces of furniture that Schuyler brought back from England were “3 look’g glass” and “1 fine middle glass.” These pieces were mirrors, which were either used as looking glasses or were hung above fireplaces to make rooms brighter and larger looking. He may have decided to purchase furniture upon his return to New York to avoid the risk of water damage on the journey home and to save the cost of shipping. 

What we are about to dive into is certainly not everything Philip Schuyler purchased in 1761, but it will give us a glimpse into his lifestyle and wealth.  

Schuyler managed to ring up a big total in 1761-- £872. Today, this amount of money would translate to $1,594,249.75 when compared to the median income of an Albany citizen. But what did it mean in Schuyler’s time? To get a better idea, let’s compare this amount of money to average wages of the period (1750-1775) using statistics put out by US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

Job	£ Made Per Year
Laborer	31.2
Weaver	40
Carpenter	62.4
Bricklayer	93.6

It would take the average laborer over twenty-seven years to purchase everything Schuyler did in one—and that’s only if the laborer put all the money they made toward this effort, which would be impossible, as it does not include necessities for survival such as food or clothing. It would take the average bricklayer over nine years to do the same. Using the same sum of money, Schuyler could have bought 498 bushels of wheat, which would have made about 27,786.75 loaves of bread. This could feed one person for 37 years at the average rate of consumption, or a family of eight for 4.63 years. The amount Schuyler spent was extravagant, and so was what he purchased.

Some of what Schuyler bought was practical. For example, he purchased “2 doz brass drawer locks,” “1 doz strait cupboard locks,” and “13 gross inch screws.” He bought “1 bag buttons” and “12 doz best coat buttons.” He also purchased some clothing, including six pairs of grey breeches, six pairs of “shoes bound,” and one pair of “strong boots.” While the clothing he purchased may have sustained him for that year, he likely purchased more clothing for Catharine and their children, who at that time included Angelica, Elizabeth, Peggy, and, briefly, a baby girl named Cornelia who died at about a month old. 

An original silver spoon and
tea cup, and a replica teapot
atop a silver platter. 

Reproduction syllabub atop
a silver waiter.

Schuyler spent money on many important household goods that would be used by the family for decades to come, but he also didn’t spare expense on them. In addition to some practical pieces, he purchased many items the average 18^th century family would likely go without. These pieces showed his status. Some of what be bought included: “blades forks with 3 prongs,” “6 large water glasses & saucers,” “12 polished spoons,” “birch handle carving knives,” “a tea pot,” “a sugar dish,” “24 strong wine glasses,” “4 jelly glasses,” “2 sillabub glasses,” “8 baskets with flower handles,” and “1 plain silver waiter.” A major sign of his status in these purchases included getting different glasses for various types of drinks. The amount of wine glasses he purchased also suggests that he would be hosting large groups of people, which also implied his wealth and status. 

An 18th century magic lantern. 

There were also more obvious ways he showed off his wealth. Among his many purchases in 1761, four stand out as the most extravagant. He purchased both a “reflecting telescope” and a “triple barometer.” He purchased a magic lantern and pictures to go in it, as well. He also bought a “crane necked chariot.” That purchase alone cost him £95. That is over 300% of the average laborer’s salary. If an average family in Albany were to make a purchase of a similar scale today, it would cost them $173, 687.19. 

An 18th century Benjamin Martin
telescope.

While the chariot was a status symbol—one he could ride around in—the first two items seem to have been tailored to his personal interests. He purchased them from a man named Benjamin Martin, an Englishman known for making clocks, as well as reflecting telescopes and triple barometers. The magic lantern was also an item of pleasure, though likely one that was shared by the entire family and guests, unlike the reflecting telescope and triple barometer. 

Schuyler also spent a large sum of money on wallpaper for his home during 1761. He purchased “56 pieces flock paper” to cover the walls of seven out of eight rooms in the home. He also bought “10 paintings of ruins of Rome” for the up and downstairs hallways. These purchases alone cost him £31.65—slightly more than what the average laborer made each year.

Original marble around the
fireplace in the Yellow Parlor.

His extravagance did not stop there. Schuyler purchased “2 new Italian marble slabs-case & packing,” and “4 marble chimney pieces with hearths.” Marble was extremely expensive—even Schuyler could not afford too much of it, but he was still able to purchase some—a feat that would have been impossible for the average 18^th century person. On marble alone, Schuyler spent £48.55, or roughly $93,548. 

Reproduction flocked wallpaper
in Schuyler's study.

We have restored some of the most important pieces Schuyler purchased during his shopping spree in England, such as the Ruins of Rome wallpaper and much of the flocked wallpaper, and are constantly working on making the home as accurate to Schuyler’s lifetime as possible. Come visit us to get a feel for the 18^th century opulence Schuyler so highly valued and take in for yourself the extravagance his 1761 trip brought to the Schuyler Mansion.

The Corner Chair: Stylish Seating in a Roundabout Way

By Ian Mumpton

The Corner chair displayed in the Study at Schuyler Mansion
Walnut or Mahogany, Green Velvet Upholstery, circa 1765-1775

Touring Schuyler Mansion, visitors have the opportunity to view an impressive collection of 18^th century objects and furniture, including a number of items original to the family. One piece that always garners attention is the Corner chair (also referred to as a Roundabout chair) in the Study. Unlike other chairs in the home, the Corner chair has its seat turned 45 degrees to the usual position, coming to a point at the “front”, with the rail and back wrapping around two sides of the square seat. It occupies a central position in the room as soon as you enter, and its unusual shape makes it the frequent object of conversation and questions: “Why does that chair look like that?”, “How would you sit in a chair of that sort?”

What makes this chair so cool is that there is no single answer to these questions. Instead, to explain a Corner chair, you have to look at who is using it when, how they end up using it, and why they are doing so.

Many early-18th century examples of these chairs either feature rounded fronts or indented sides. According to Jenny Pynt and Joy Higgs, authors of A History of Seating,3000 BC to 2000 AD: Function Versus Aesthetics, early Roundabout chairs were designed to encourage good posture while reading and writing. The sitter would sit inclined forward over their reading or writing surface, straddling the forward leg of the chair. This was not possible for women with their long gowns, but for men it allowed them to put their legs slightly back with their knees falling just a little below the level of the chair seat. This resulted in a sitting position that both inclined the sitter forward but maintained a straight back at a roughly 90 degree angle to the lap. According to Pynt and Higgs, less ornate version of these chairs could be found in working homes in the early century as well, especially those of weavers, further indicating the intention to encourage comfortable posture.

Portrait of John Bours in the Worcester Art
Museum. Bours is seated sideways in a corner chair,
accentuating his refinement

By the mid-to-late 18^th century, more angular versions of the chair grew in popularity. Rather than coming to a rounded front over the forward leg, this style of Corner chair, like the one in the Schuyler Mansion study, comes to a right angle with straight edges. This change in style accompanied a change in use, though it is debated whether form followed function or vice versa. Attempting to straddle the forward leg on an angular chair of this sort can be far less comfortable than with its rounded cousins. Instead, by mid-century, it became increasingly common to sit sideways in the chair, reclining along one arms of the chair in a dashing style.

To understand the importance of this change, it is necessary to explore personal display and proper sitting culture of the time. The 18^th century concept of refinement held that, just as a genteel person beautified their home with elegant furnishings and filled their lives with intellectual and gentlemanly activities, the way that one presented the body reflected a cultured lifestyle. Proper posture was considered essential to attaining this intangible goal, not only while standing, but while sitting as well.  The easiest way to explore this is through images.

The Wrapping Landlady, reflecting rustic, working-class seating.

The first image, The Wrapping Landlady, dates to the 1750’s. It depicts two people whom, from their clothing alone, we can easily tell occupy a relatively low station in society. To the 18^th century eye, posture would be just as clear an indicator of their status. While the landlady herself sits with an upright posture, her folded arms hint at a working-class status. The man is another case altogether. He is leaning back on a bench, his elbow on the table and one leg stretched out along his seat. This is not at all the posture of a gentleman.

The Thistlethwayte Family c.1758 by Thomas Hudson,
in the collection of the Yale Center for British Art

We can contrast this with the Thistlethwayte family portrait, circa 1758. Note the perfectly straight backs of the mother and her daughters, as well as the careful placement of their arms. While the father is not sitting, he is very specifically leaning on the back of the seat occupied by his wife, his feet neatly crossed with his weight on his back leg. While, like the man in the other image, he is leaning, the environment and situation in which he leans indicates a deliberate comfort in the refined atmosphere of the portrait. 

It is important to note that refinement wasn’t entirely synonymous with wealth (though wealth certainly made it easier to achieve a refined lifestyle!), as William Wilkie’s painting of Nathan Hawley and his family illustrates. While Hawley is certainly not poor, the visible floorboards and relatively unadorned walls tells us that this is a family of significantly more humble means that the Schuylers. However, certain touches, including the presence of a floor cloth and the good posture of the family, indicate a aspiration to refined gentility.

Nathan Hawley and Family, in the collection of

the Albany Institute of History and Art

If good posture was considered refined, then breaking with that conformity could either mar or enhance one’s social standing. The rusticity of the working man in The Wrapping Landlady is marked by his relaxed, informal sitting habits, whereas the father of the Thistlethwayte family’s refined lean marks him as a gentleman. Of course, in order to achieve the desired effect, the poor posture had to be deliberate. Gentlemanly status alone could not bestow the laurels of refinement upon a sloucher. William Hogarth’s A Midnight Modern Conversation lampoons the idea of inherent refinement with its depiction of a group of gentlemen who, full of too much wine and punch, have turned their parlor into a scene of drunken revelry and contented foolishness. They are neither seated properly nor do they lean in a dignified manner. Instead, the whole party is slouched in their chairs or, most heinous of all, tilting their seats back on back on two legs.

William Hogarth, A Midnight Modern Conversation. Note the man tilting his chair on the left.

Corner chairs become the ultimate example of this deliberately casual symbol of refinement. Unlike the working man’s bench in The Wrapping Landlady, Corner chairs, with their elaborate woodwork and expensive upholstery material, are themselves refined. When gentlemen began to sit in the sideways, the inherent refinement of the chair served to bring an element of relaxed gentility to their reclined posture. It seems that this is how the chair in the Study at Schuyler Mansion was used. There is much heavier evidence of wear on the left arm of the chair. Further, the legs on the left side of the piece are much more heavily worn than those on the right. In fact, these legs are worn at a nearly 45 degree angle with the floor. Was someone tilting their chair? It is a definite possibility.

Despite the change in use, Rondabaouts retained their masculine characteristics. Angled chairs and deeply carved rails posed a tearing risk to the fine silk gowns of ladies. Just as importantly, the “art of the lean”, as Dr. Robin Campbell has referred to it, was a masculine form of body presentation. In formal company, ladies were expected to maintain a much more upright posture (for example, while Mr. Thistlethwayte may demonstrate his refinement by leaning, his wife and daughters all maintain perfect posture in their family portrait).

A number of myths and half-myths have formed around these chairs over the years. One favorite is that they were designed for men because men could slide their sword through the carved back of the chair, thereby allowing them to sit comfortably. This is because it is supposedly impossible to sit in a corner chair with a sword on otherwise. In their original use as writing chairs, the number of scholars needing to arm themselves for their studies is presumably rare by the 18^th century, but those gentlemen using them to lean back with their feet up would have found them much more comfortable for sitting with a sword on their belt. (Wondering how common swords might have been by the 18^th century? Click here to read one of our earlier articles on the topic).

With their unusual appearance, Corner chairs raise all sorts of questions for modern audiences, but as strange as they may be, they are a fascinating opportunity to think about just how important body language and personal display has been, and continues to be, to human society.

Calculating the Cost of Carpet

 by Ian Mumpton

Brussels carpet in the restored Green Chamber
at Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site.

 A while back on the blog we posted a short article on the  reproduced Brussels carpeting in the Yellow Parlor of  Schuyler Mansion (you can read it by clicking here if you  missed it). Carpeting of this sort was not only stylish and  colorful, but provided a luxurious and warm environment for  socializing in refined company. Its message lay not in its  mere cost, but in the genteel lifestyle that it communicated to  guests of the family.

 But still, it cost a lot.

Just how much is “a lot”? Well, in 1800, Philip Schuyler paid £68, 8 shillings for enough carpeting for five rooms of the house. In 1800, £68 8s was roughly equivalent to $275, or $5,136 in 2017 money. This basic calculation for inflation doesn’t truly convey the prices we’re talking about here. To get a more accurate idea of what $275 meant in 1800 in Albany, we need to look at wages and buying power.

"Threshing Grain" from
Diderot's Encyclopedia, 1762

According to figures provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in New York State in 1800, an agricultural wage laborer would have to work for just over a year and seven months to make $275. Again, that’s direct wages, not savings after housing and living expenses, making carpeting of this sort a luxury that very few people could ever even dream of.
What else could the Schuylers have purchased for £68 8s in 1800? According to a New York Senate report, you could buy a bushel of wheat in Albany for 12 shilling and 6 pence at that time, so £68 8s would give you just a hair under 66.75 bushels of wheat, or enough to make over 6,000 one-pound loaves of bread. This would keep a family of eight in bread for a year. If you weren’t looking for bread, you could always buy 820 fowl for the same price.

For the Schuylers, this luxury carpeting was more than simply another part of the trappings of their high-society lifestyle, but something which enabled it. The incredible expense of furnishings like Brussels carpet not only served to create a genteel environment for the Schuyler family, but was part of a fantastically exclusive lifestyle utterly unattainable for the vast majority of the population, including those whose labor generated that income. To their peers, such materials indicated wealth, refinement, and prestige, all of which culminated in the social power and authority which Philip sought for himself and his family.

Dressing the Part II- Johnny Schuyler, King of Swag

by Ian Mumpton

Last week we put up an article about receipts from Sothebys detailing high-end fashion purchases made by the Schuylers  in the 1760’s and early 1770’s. The types of finery referred to in these receipts would have been instrumental to the family’s identity. Textiles and personal adornment were a means for displaying not only their extravagant wealth, but an even more pervasive element of refinement, gentility, and power. The clothing described was not only expensive to buy, but followed the latest European trends, showcasing the Schuylers’ familiarity with international fashion and an ability to import textiles and styles from Europe. The mercantile connections that made this possible also made the Schuylers powerful players in society. As the mature male head of the family, Philip himself would have worn expensive, high quality textiles, however the understated sense of refinement by which he shaped his outward expression rejected ostentatious display in his own personal adornment (even if not in his home, carriages, or family). This was not the case for his oldest son, however.

Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, as painted by Robert. His clothing
reflects a far more somber style than his older brother's.

John Bradstreet Schuyler, called John or Johnny by friends and family, seems to have been more than a little bit of what the era referred to as a Dandy. His younger brother, Philip Jeremiah, is painted in several portraits wearing high-quality yet understated clothing in various shades of black, brown, or grey, very similar to his father. No portraits of Johnny exist, however, by looking at his shopping receipts, a very different picture emerges.

In the collection of the New York Public Library is a receipt labeled NYPL 543-Reel 16. It lists expenses owed to a Mr. Abraham Brouwer of New York by Mr. John B. Schuyler accumulated between February 5^th and March 26^th of 1785. The total price listed is £17, 1 shilling and 3 pence less £3, 4 shillings paid in cash (roughly over $2,500 in current US currency). This is a hefty sum of money; a little over 30% of the average annual income for a skilled craftsman in the city of Albany at that time. So what did young (he was not yet 20 years old at the time) Johnny Schuyler buy for £17.1.3? Let’s dig in:

New York February 5th 1765

Mr. John B Schuyler

to Abraham Brouwer

To Making one coat 2 vests & 2 pairs of breeches                                              £3.0.0

2 ¼ yd of white Mode                                     @ 12/                                 1.7.0

1 Velvet Cape                                                                                             0.6.0

1 ½ yd of Linnin                                              @2/0                                  0.3.0

20 Large Gold Buttons                                   @14                                    1.3.4

6 small do.                                                          @7d                                0.3.6

1 ½ yd of white satten                                        @24/                                1.16.0

1 ½ yd of Corded Silk                                       @10/                                 1.7.0

3 ½ yds of Linnin                                               @3/4                                0.11.0

10 small Gold Buttons                                       @6                                   0.9.0

1 Dozⁿ small & 3 Large Black Buttons                                                      0.1.2

¼ yd of Durant                                                                                            0.0.9

Silk Thread Twist & Buckram                                                                     0.10.6

10 Small Button moles and Tape                                                                 0.1.6

D^o 9 to Making one Coat                                                                                        1.0.0

1 velvet cape                                                                                                0.6.0

Silk Thread Twist & Buckram                                                                     0.5.6

D^o 16 to one linnin Drawers                                                                                   0.9.0

March 9- to making 2 pairs of breeches                                                                 1.0.0

1 piece of 2  yds of Nankeen                                                                        0.17.0

1 ½ yds of Brown Holland                             @ 2/0                                    0.4.0

2 Dozⁿ Small & 6 Large  moles                                                                   0.1.0

4 yds of Tape                                                                                                0.0.8

To cash [Lent/Spent/?] one Crown                                                               0.9.0

Silk Thread & Twist                                                                                      0.4.0

D^o 26 to making One Vest                                                                                        0.10.0

¾ Yds. Of Mirselis                                                                                        0.9.0

1 ½ yd. of linnin                                                 @ ¾                                   0.4.2

Thread & moles                                                                                            0.1.6

_____

17.1.3

[?] By Cash 3.4.0

___

Balance Due 13.17.3

That’s quite a list. Breaking it down, the receipt lists multiple sets of clothing with the individual components that went into each. The first set of clothing listed is for a coat with two sets of small-clothes (vest and breeches). What is wonderful about this receipt is that not only can we tell what the clothing was, but we can piece together a strong conjecture about what it looked like.

Pompeo Batoni, Portrait of Richard Milles, London, National
Gallery. While we do not know what color his cape was,
John B. Schuyler appears to have worn a similar style to Milles here,
complete with white satin. His buttons were gold, however.

The textiles listed would have made for an extremely snazzy outfit. The first item listed is 2 ½ yards of White Mode. “Mode” refers to “a la Mode” fabric, a super-fine silk with a high gloss and semi-translucent quality. It was popular for scarves and cravats, but may have also served as the lining for the coat or have gone into a waistcoat (one of the “vests” referred to). The clothing was likely lined with linen, or one of the vests may have had a linen back, leaving the best fabric for the visible portions. There is also a reference to white satin, corded silk, and a large number of gold buttons in various sizes, however, the ¼ yard of durrant is more mysterious. Durrant was a heavy felted wool that was popular as a faux-buffed leather. At ¼ yard, it is the smallest piece of fabric listed for this set. As it was meant to emulate buffed leather, it would have been a pale tan or off-white itself. Perhaps it was used to trim or offset the main garments as pocket flaps or as banding along the bottom of the breeches legs? In either case, John B. would have cut a dapper figure stepping out in his white and gold suit with a velvet cape.

This was not his only purchase from Mr. Brouwer however. The other entries record a second coat and vest, as well as two more breeches, giving him two full outfits complete with choice of breeches and a cape for each. While his first suit what white and gold, he seems to have gone with browns and gold for the second set of breeches at least. The receipts list brown Holland, a super-fine linen, and “Nankeen”, or Nanking, a Chinese textile most common in brownish-gold tones. The reference to tape and twist associated with these breeches indicates that they were likely ornamented as well, and may well have matched the vest ordered soon after. This vest, likely lined and backed with linen, would have displayed a “Mirselis” front. This is most likely a reference to Marseilles cloth, a heavily textured, highly ornamental fabric.

An example of Marseilles cloth , English, 1760-1775, 

So what was Johnny conveying with silk clothing and velvet capes? This is more difficult to answer; after all, internal motivations don’t usually leave receipts. Wealth was obviously on display, as well as his family’s mercantile connections and appreciation for European style. However, while the women of the family appear to have dressed in highly ornate clothing, at least on certain occasions, there is little evidence that the men (including his father and younger brother) wore anything on par with this. While Philip certainly dressed well, John B. is an outlier. We can only speculate as to why, however a few possibilities are worth considering. Philip and Catharine Schuyler were both from Dutch roots, however they adopted a refined and elegant English material lifestyle that would have been far more “showy” than that of their own parents. Perhaps Johnny here was simply continuing that tradition himself. As a young man of means from a powerful family, it is possible that he simply wanted to participate in the high end fashion that his family’s money could afford.

On the other hand, it is possible that this display was a form of rebellion. John Bradstreet Schuyler was the oldest son of the family, and as such, Philip Schuyler intended for his son to enter into the same sort of business and politics that had man him one of the leading citizens of New York. Unfortunately for Johnny, he had little knack for this. His father at one point described him as, “A man of little genius”, and frequently critiqued his poor handling of business at the family’s Saratoga estate. Could this have been a young man’s attempt to forge his own identity in society independent of his father? We may never know for sure, but we hope that our ongoing research into this young man’s personal life might yield some answers. Collected documents such as these receipts are invaluable in this regard. While almost nothing has survived in the form of actual Schuyler family textile pieces, these sorts of documents allow us to catch a very intimate and specific glance into the daily lives of these historical individuals.