Objects Defining Gentility

Material Culture in Colonial Williamsburg

By Madelon Proctor

By the middle of the eighteenth century, imperial trade networks brought new goods and ideas to British subjects around the globe. Colonists in British North America enjoyed access to luxury ceramics, cloth, and lumber as well as exotic beverages and spices to adorn their tables. This enhanced access and a larger disposable income allowed a growing number of Americans to adopt, and adapt, English notions of gentility. Genteel men and women espoused the belief that their wealth and affluence exemplified inner virtue and attempted to highlight those qualities through the acquisition of refined objects. Even if one could not participate in every aspect of that material culture, individuals could partake in a pseudo-gentility through the possession of one or two special items and use similar objects of lesser quality to make up the difference. Colonists’ veneration of lovely silks and ceramics, well-crafted mahogany furniture, and exotic goods like chocolate and spices facilitated the concealment of less desirable aspects of real life. Beautiful portraits by talented artists and new makeup concoctions helped to conceal the less desirable aspects of life in the New World.

Richard Bushman analyzes different expressions of gentility in his book The Refinement of America.^[1] According to Bushman, early colonists built houses of wooden planks and often left them unpainted or used a simple whitewash to preserve them. The accoutrements of daily chores and labor surrounded each home; one could see livestock in the yard, and the dirt of the fields never left the air by the door. By the early eighteenth century, however, scattered mansions, made from brick or finished with a painted exterior, dotted the landscape. Members of the upper classes wanted to display aspirations of beauty in their homes and see it in their communities. Older houses were for utility, and the newer ones were built for presentation. “The idea was not to deny the existence of rougher fields and pastures, but to distinguish the house as a place where roughness left off and refinement began.”^[2]

To get a better idea of the true, lived experience of individuals from the past, historians study inventories, wills, private diaries, and correspondence, as well as architectural and archaeological evidence. A number of transcribed inventories from eighteenth-century York County, Virginia, are available through the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, offering some insight into the lives of people described therein. This study will attempt to present and analyze data from a selection of forty-seven inventories. Estates are divided into levels based on their final valuation at less than £100, £101 through £250, £251 through £500, £501 through £750, £751 through £1000, and more than £1000. Inventories list men and women whose possessions were appraised by their neighbors, and are representative of people who were very wealthy, just getting by, or those who lived comfortably in that area somewhere in between.^[3] For instance, whereas Mr. Edmund Tabb’s estate itemized belongings at three properties, the value of John Cayce’s entire estate was appraised at only a little more than Mr. Tabb’s tableware.^[4]

The inventories demonstrate that throughout the eighteenth century, colonial Americans aspired to a mode of elite status akin to their contemporaries in England. Colonists felt that they ought to be considered on the same level as Britons in the mother country, and strove to adorn their houses, themselves, and their manners in similar styles. By displaying beautiful objects in their homes, wearing expensive clothing, and using refined manners for behavior and speech, they portrayed their inner virtuosity. This paper uses eighteenth-century inventories from York County to demonstrate the cultural ubiquity of gentility across society.

The “rougher fields and pastures” of life affected great and small, and the tools for performing daily chores like cooking, cleaning, starting a fire, and running a farm looked very similar across all class categories.^[5] John Cayce and Julius Kirk, whose combined inventories total less than £50, owned iron pots, frying pans, and stone jugs.^[6] Cayce had a gun, “3 old axes, 2 old Grubbing hoes, 3 old Broad hoes, [and] 2 old Spades,” and Kirk owned “1 narrow ax.”^[7] At the other end of the spectrum, Nathaniel Crawley Jr. and William Sheldon Sclater, the largest inventories for this study at £1765.2.0 and £1658.19.4½, also had iron pots, skillets, and jugs.^[8] For farming, Crawley’s inventory shows “9 old hoes” and “2 harrow hoes.”^[9] Sclater’s tools included twelve “Narrow Axes,” “1 Broad Ax,” and thirty-nine hoes of various kinds.^[10]

Several inventoried objects represented their owner’s occupation. Nathaniel Crawley Junior’s estate contained a couple parcels of carpenter’s tools valued at about seventeen shillings. James Bates and Anthony Robinson also had the tools for the carpenter’s profession listed as simply a “parcel.” ^[11] Robert Presson’s appraisers, however, inventoried a “Turners bench & tools,” a “Parcel of Unfinished Chairs,” a carpenter’s rule, a claw hammer, and “250 boards,” one might assume could be used for crafting furniture.^[12] William Sheldon Sclater had “A Coopers Ax” and Anthony Robinson and Gerrard Roberts Jr. each owned a “Parcel of Coopers Tools.”^[13]

Colonists also maintained livestock and grew their own food. Individuals from every class category owned horses, cattle, and pigs, and their inventories include items for their care. Ann Wright, whose estate appraised just under £100, owned bees, honey, and beeswax; several types of grain and a grindstone; and “Turkies,” geese, and “12 lb feathers” to supply her household, or perhaps to sell.^[14] Robert Presson kept several cows, steers, hogs, and a horse, as well as “1 Steer Yoke Link & Staple, saddles, and old and new fodder for the animals.^[15] Wealthier people like Anthony and Diana Robinson owned more than one hundred animals and equipment for their care.^[16] When Mr. Robinson died in 1756, he left twenty-four cows, eighty-seven sheep, and at least sixty-two hogs.^[17] He had “1 Young bay horse Spark,” “1 black horse Blaze,” and several mares.^[18] When Mrs. Robinson followed him five and a half years later, her estate included fifty-eight sheep and fifteen lambs, about forty cows, and some of her horses are described similarly to those in her husband’s.^[19]

Individuals from every rung of society participated in the messy parts of life, but their consumption of genteel objects and involvement in refined culture is more inconsistent. In her book The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, Jennifer Van Horn explores the perception and revelation of gentility in the Colonial Atlantic World.^[20] Through her analysis of select artifacts representing different forms of creativity, she evaluates a recognizable civility of the period and considers the influence of objects toward that perception. Van Horn gives a fascinating account of how various artistic mediums crafted a sense of refinement in eighteenth-century British America. The work opens with objects deemed important to the portrayal of English gentility in her colonies, but the second half addresses a departure from that reliance on the mother country’s favor. The author uses prints, portraiture, and elaborate furniture to illustrate how the American gentry presented an idealized appearance to the world.

English opinions, ideals, and fashions influenced the colonies throughout the eighteenth century. Citizens of larger towns organized philosophical societies and started public libraries for the education and enlightenment of more affluent residents. In keeping with this quest for civility, men commissioned portraits of themselves and family members for their homes. Portraits could be private or meant for display, and artists painted sizeable depictions of patrons to reveal intricacies in their pose, attire, and surroundings. Many upper-class citizens chose poses featuring their life’s endeavors – pursuits that varied in different areas of the country.

Interestingly, only a few inventories from the upper-class categories included any reference to pictures: Susanna Fontaine, Edward Potter, and Dr Benjamin Catton owned several pictures each.^[21] Although portraits cost a good deal, they retained little value after completion for those outside of the family. Margaretta M. Lovell, in her book, Art in a Season of Revolution, related the cost of such a painting as “about that of a silver tankard or a teapot, or nine weeks’ wages for a skilled journeyman artisan.”^[22] Instead of holding any resale value, however, “its cost was unrecoverable…A portrait was not an exchangeable investment commodity; its value was as non-financial as that of a tombstone.”^[23] Perhaps their absence in the selection of inventory records can be attributed to an insignificant appraisal price.

Scattered throughout the middle and lower classifications, there are several more allusions to prints and pictures. Julius Kirk owned “2 plain and 2 colored prints,” Thomas Crease had three prints, Reginald Orton had “A large Picture,” and Lydia Charlton’s inventory listed two pictures.^[24] Eight pictures and a dozen smaller pictures are recorded under Robert Thurmer’s name, and “12 Pictures of the Seasons,” “3 Old Maps of the World,” “Solomon's Temple,” and “2 very old Pictures” belonged to Sarah Green.^[25] Individuals seeking to display art in their homes without paying the high cost for a portrait might opt to purchase a print or a set of prints. These kept some of their value, were cheaper to produce and purchase, and added a bit of beauty to one’s home.

In many large cities in North America, patronization of the arts became a marker of civility as it was in England. Families aspiring to present a cultured, genteel, and benevolent impression to their communities commissioned portraits to decorate entryways to their homes. Visitors saw representations of virtue in the different aspects of a given portrait, from the exhibited wealth and status to the fact that a sum was paid for the talent and time it took to complete. A kind face, a clean and proper form of dress, and an honest accounting of one’s means and goals contributed to their assumed Christian obedience and goodness.

Portraiture depicted a gentleman’s morality in life and in death, while also enabling women to see themselves in new ways. Van Horn explains that both the artist and the act of his patronization were virtuous, and “ties art production to the production of national virtue.”^[26] Interestingly, an example of portraiture the author touches on in chapter four is an image of a young woman holding a masquerade mask. Rather than portraying virtuosity, the popular European masquerade was a time to conceal one’s identity and present an idealized self. Attendees might dress as a character from history or portray themselves as a member of another class, race, or gender.

Masks were most broadly associated with the masquerade and, because of that, with deception and illicit activity. Van Horn references Patriots and British sympathizers, accusing their opponents of donning a mask or having thrown one aside to reveal their ill intentions. From a less inimical perspective, eighteenth-century women often wore a mask when walking out of doors to protect their faces from the elements. This practice also incurred scrutiny, however, because women from every race and social standing could be mistaken for a genteel lady. Additionally, although custom required masks be removed when a gentleman approached, they became a shield against unwanted attention and allowed for an anonymous breaking of social courtesies.^[27]

Concealing one’s imperfections and presenting only the characteristics their world esteemed was not simply the job of a mask or the artist’s palette. The genteel lady used makeup to cover up imperfections but concealed her potions and creams in ornamented dressing tables.^[28] She covered blemishes and created the illusion of perfection to better portray a civilized face and body when she entered the public sphere. This idealized woman revealed a healthy complexion complete with pale skin, blushing cheeks, and rouged lips. One might fabricate this image with proper cosmetics to conceal roughness associated with lower status or even one’s race. Whitening makeups and elixirs were intended for use by genteel women suffering from sun burns or unintentional tanning; however, colonists supposed them to have been used by Africans, African Americans, and Native Americans to lighten their skin to an “acceptable” tone for the purpose of social deception.

“A woman’s skin…testified to the state of her virtue,” and the elaborate furniture and textiles associated with women's dressing and makeup helped conceal what all went into preparing her toilette each day.^[29] Almost every inventory in the selection contains at least one looking glass. Anna Maria Thornton owned two, along with “1 Dressing Box and Glass” and a desk.^[30] Another dressing table, “1 Gilt Looking Glass,” and three dressing glasses appear in Lydia Charlton’s inventory.^[31] Sarah Green’s “large looking Glass Gilt frame” was valued at £3.10.0, and Richard Hobday’s appraisers listed “1 Looking Class & Comb and other Trifles” as well as “A Parcel of Bottles and other Trifles” on the inventory of his belongings.^[32] The records from York County, Virginia, present an assortment of men and women whose household décor appears to allude to some attempt at genteel culture.

Men also used specialized pieces of furniture to conceal sensitive documents or books for business, and over half of the York County inventories mention desks. Captain George Wilkinson, whose estate was appraised for £68.8.0 and puts him in the lowest category, had “1 Walnut Desk” in his home worth fifty shillings.^[33] Thomas Burfoot and Joseph Nisbett, representing the second category, each owned a desk worth about £4.^[34] In the rest of the categories, desks average around £4-£6 and are often cataloged along with a bookcase. Nathaniel Crawley Jr., for instance, had “1 Desk and Book Case” for £5.11.0, both inventories for Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Robinson list a desk and book case worth £6, Samuel Hill’s desk appraised for £5, as did each of John Cary’s and Sarah Green’s desks with book cases.^[35]

Desks and dressing tables concealed the less desirable, mundane features and activities of colonial life behind fabric covering or inside carved drawers. Inventories from that period also reveal a growing number of tables in households from across social classes, and another piece of furniture integral to the presentation of gentility was the tea table. Ann Smart Martin’s essay, “Tea Tables Overturned: Rituals of Power and Place in Colonial America,” describes how “a small round table created a sense of intimacy and its own cultural performance.”^[36] While examining the origins of the tea table, the author suggests the importance of that piece of furniture to the tea ritual.

Nathaniel Crawley Jr., the most prosperous individual for this study, owned a mahogany tea table valued at £2.10.0.^[37] A near relation, Nathaniel Crawley Sr., also had a tea table listed in his inventory, but the type of wood is not specified.^[38] James Bates, whose estate was appraised for just under £1000, owned a walnut tea table worth £1.^[39] However, even in those inventories appraised for less than £100 there are a few tea tables enumerated. Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, for instance, had a “round tea table” worth fifteen shillings and “1 tea board and waiter,” while Mrs. Mary Steele’s inventory includes “1 Tea Board and Waiter.”^[40]

Tea was an intimate social activity, precisely scripted for polite culture. The notions and equipment of taking tea shifted some as a greater number of colonists from the middle, and even lower, classes began to participate in the activity. Although a table purchased specifically for entertainment might be unattainable for some, ceramic tea pots, cups, and other like items are noted frequently in the archaeological and inventory records throughout that part of North America. People “naturally drew upon the inventory of genteel objects and manners to improve their lives or dignify occasions.”^[41]

At his primary residence, Edmund Tabb’s wife would have set the walnut tea table listed in his inventory with their China plates and bowls and a matching tea set – enough to serve two dozen guests.^[42] Because the tea table was smaller and more intimate, the couple might have entertained larger gatherings using the “Mahogany Table and Cloth” or “Large black Walnut Table” and furnished them with one of three fruit plates, “7 Custard Cups [of] different Sorts,” “4 Tart Cups and a Spoon Boat,” “4 Cutt Glass Crewits,” and “1 Slop Bowle and 3 Small Glass Muggs and Butter Boats.”^[43] Tabb also owned two dozen pewter plates, “7 Pewter Dishes,” and two dozen earthen plates for use in less formal occasions, as well as “19 Common Wine Glasses” and eighteen plates at his second property.^[44] China and “Delf” bowls and plates adorned Nathaniel Crawley Junior’s mahogany tea table, but he also owned several dozen pewter and stone dish sets for less formal occasions.^[45] James Moss and Pinkethman Eaton, both of whom also owned estates valued over £1000, had a slightly smaller selection of pewter, stone, and earthenware for placement on their walnut tables.^[46]

In her essay “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage,” Rodris Roth uses portraiture, correspondence, historical inventories, and archaeological findings to assess the importance of manners and methods for taking one’s tea during that period.^[47] China cups and saucers, a teapot, silver spoons, a container for sugar and cream, and sometimes even a bowl for waste adorned the tea table. The lady of the house directed the production and served tea to her guests around that piece of furniture. Specific protocols dictated every aspect of the gathering, and a misstep might result in embarrassment. Although it began as a leisure activity for the gentry, those of the lower classes adopted various aspects of its inherent performance and use. The author asserts that the custom of taking tea, as evidenced through archaeological and inventory records, was prevalent throughout the British colonies on the eve of the American Revolution.

Almost every household in the selection of inventories for this study owned dishes for the service of tea. In the category just below the £1000 mark, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson had some China and “delph” ware, as well as some earthen ware and dishes of stone and metal.^[48] With inventories valued for slightly more than half of theirs, Captain Ellyson Armistead and Gerrard Roberts Jr. had a couple of China pieces and some Pewter.^[49] Even Elizabeth Williamson, whose estate appraised for just under £55, owned “1 tea board, 1 waiter, some china cups & saucers, [and a] China bowl with cover.”^[50] A leaf could be inserted into one of her two tables to allow more seating space when she hosted friends and neighbors.^[51] Mrs. Joanna McKenzie had a matching set of “8 blue and white china plates.”^[52] With another “12 tea-cups and 5 saucers” and a sugar dish, she could create a lovely setup on her tea table.^[53]

The genteel lady prepared herself for the day by applying her makeup before a looking glass at a dressing table covered in an embroidered cloth. She donned a gown fashioned in the latest European style while a maid straightened the blankets on her bed. Before hosting a tea party, she covered the table with a pretty silk cloth and checked that the proper number of China cups and saucers, napkins, and comfortable chairs were available to her guests. Along with the furniture and ceramics she used, her expensive textiles mutely revealed her family’s prosperity. Thread was made from silk, wool, cotton, or flax, and weavers used different techniques to create osnaburg, diaper, or damask cloth for consumers like her across the empire.

In the book, Portrait of a Woman in Silk, Zara Anishanslin describes how silk, botany, and portraiture each contributed to a unique understanding of gentility in the long eighteenth century.^[54] She examines Robert Feke’s 1746 portrait of Anne Shippen Willing and dissects the myriad histories one can glean from that production. Not only are the sitter and artist documented, but Anishanslin confirms the collaboration of the man who wove Willing’s dress and the woman who designed its exotic floral pattern. Master weaver Simon Julins hired Anna Maria Garthwaite to create a pattern for silk to be worked on his loom in England. Charles Willing purchased the cloth to be made into a dress for his wife, and, wearing it, she sat for a portrait across the Atlantic in America. Through the artist’s skillful brush strokes, the lovely pattern and silky sheen preserve the remembrance of contributions outside of its frame. Each of the lives discussed in Anishanslin’s pages contributed to the material culture of the empire and the veneration of the exotic.

Europe encountered silk through trade with China. Although there was only a scattered success with its cultivation in the New World, the association with Chinese silks and Asian botanicals contributed to notions of the American colonies as interesting and unusual locations. Silk was unlike any other cloth in the eighteenth-century British Empire. Members of upper-class society admired it for its unique sheen and smooth texture; they chose to wear silks for the immediate recognition of their wealth and status. Patterned textiles, such as the cloth used to make Anne Shippen Willing’s dress, fetched an even higher price. Willing wore the dress made of expensive fabric, more valuable because of its bi-color design rather than using a single shade of cloth, to display her status in the community and her virtue. By commissioning a portrait, she reasserted that status and attempted to preserve her virtuous form in paint.

Men and women from every income category in the inventories from Colonial Williamsburg used fabrics including tablecloths, napkins, sheets and pillowcases, counterpanes, blankets, handkerchiefs, and specific items of clothing for the quest toward gentility. Men without excess means, like Captain George Wilkinson, still expected to participate in areas of refinement, dressed in coats and waistcoats, shirts, hose, stockings, and britches.^[55] He also had several neck cloths, “3 Hatts” and “4 Wiggs,” “1 Silk Pocketbook,” and two purses.^[56] Reginald Orton had “An old Waistcoat & Breeches” to wear, but his inventory also boasted a carpet and “A Suit of Bed Curtains.”^[57] William Timson owned a “Parcel [of] Wearing Cloathes,” “1 pr. Cotton Gloves,” and “1 pr. leather breeches,” as well as a rug, a table cloth, and “A Bedstead Cord & Teaster.”^[58] Those with the greatest wealth, like Mr. Edmund Tabb, also wore gloves and hats, dressed their tables in a cloth, and owned a carpet for their floor.^[59]

Textile products took a lot of work and time to create, so many colonists relied on spinning and weaving to keep their families clothed. Women like Ann Wright owned “1 Spinning Wheel & 2 pr. Cards,” “11 lb Wool,” and “78 lb Cotton in the seed” to spin their own yarn.^[60] Judith Cary also had “1 Spinning Wheel & 1 pr. Cotton Cards,” and Susanna Fontaine owned “2 old Spinning Wheels with Iron Spindles,” “8 Pounds Spinning Cotton,” and “7 Ewes & 1 Ram” for wool.^[61] Richard Hobday, Edward Moss, and Nathaniel Crawley Jr. each had a weaver’s loom.^[62] The inventory for Matthew Shields listed a quilting frame, but there are no others noted in this study.^[63] About half of the inventories for this study record at least one spinning wheel and the paraphernalia associated with spinning yarn.

Although the material used for their creation varied, colonists created beautiful and comfortable spaces to “distinguish the house as a place where roughness left off and refinement began.”^[64] Many of the inventories attributed to men do not reveal a large number of apparel or linens, however, those of women generally have several fabrics; they also include every example of silk besides the pocketbook belonging to Captain Wilkinson. John Coulthard left his wife, Rebecca “5 Table Cloths” in his inventory to cover a portion of the eleven tables therein.^[65] He also left her several sheets, pillowcases, towels, and blankets.^[66] Anthony Robinson left Diana a suit of white and a suit of calico curtains, several tablecloths, pillow cases, sheets, towels, and a “coverlid,” but no clothing.^[67] When her estate was appraised it included “Two Diaper Table Cloths,” “a Danmark Table Cloth,” “Two Coarse Table Cloths and some Linnen,” “four Pieces Ticken for Bolsters and Pillows,” “a Bedstead Hide and Cord,” and several pairs of sheets.^[68]

With one of the most extensive collections of apparel of all the inventories included in this study, Elizabeth Williamson is also one of the poorest; most of her appraisal value comes from her linens. She had “Callimanco shoes” and a pair of worsted hose for her feet; a silk bonnet and silk hood, “7 caps and 2 white hoods,” and a velvet cap for her head; fourteen shifts, “7 petticoats and 1 quilted Do.,” “1 stuff gown and 2 calico Do.,” and “2 scarlet short cloaks and 1 crape Do.” for her primary covering; and she could complete the ensemble with “2 pair kid gloves and 1 pr. Cold. Do.,” one of her eight aprons, “2 small aprons & ps. old Ticking,” a parcel of ribbons, and a silk handkerchief!^[69] Her tables boasted cloths; her beds were made with sheets, blankets, quilts, and pillows; and she owned a rug for her floor.^[70]

The “creation of a beautiful setting” was an important “characteristic of formal entertainment” in the eighteenth century.^[71] The house changed from a simple family dwelling to a place one might host a tea party or play card games with neighbors. Although community members gathered for celebrations long before this period, they “were boisterous public occasions” and “attracted everyone looking for a good time.”^[72] “‘Gentility’ was an inherently judgmental and exclusive value” that “reflected pride in wealth, upbringings, and family lineage.”^[73] Constructing homes with a parlor and acquiring tea services and furniture for visitors enabled Americans to entertain a limited group. Providing for a specific number of invited guests “create[d] an artificial social environment” that denied “admission to coarse and vulgar people.”^[74]

With inventories appraised for just under £100, Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, Ann Wright, and Mrs. Mary Steele still owned about a dozen chairs apiece.^[75] Lucy Hansford, worth less than £70, could seat her guests in one of her “5 Flag Chairs.”^[76] Although John Cayce and Captain Wilkinson did not have chairs in their inventories, Julius Kirk had “4 rush bottom and 1 wooden bottom chairs” and Mann Bryan’s four “leather Chairs” offered a comfortable place for visitors to sit.^[77] In the second appraisal category, those rated between £100 and £250, John Coulthard left Rebecca sixteen chairs with bottoms of leather, six of which were fashioned from mahogany.^[78] Judith Cary’s inventory lists “11 high and 3 low flag Chairs,” and Lydia Charlton had enough chairs to seat twenty-nine people and three stools, besides!^[79]

With the highest valuation of the inventories for this study, Nathaniel Crawley Jr. had forty-two chairs made from various materials, a “Parcel of Rush bottom Chairs,” and a bench.^[80] Included in this range of seating choices are two comfortable armchairs and several chairs carved from walnut.^[81] His neighbor Edmund Tabb owned “A Dozn. Chairs, and 2 Arm'd Chairs” at his primary residence and “½ Dozn. Leather Bottom Chairs” and “30 Flagg Bottom do.” at the secondary one.^[82]

Carpenters found an abundance of forests in the Americas from which to obtain wood for building chairs, bedsteads, and tea tables. They fashioned furniture from pine, oak, maple, and walnut, but specific preferences for one species over another shifted as different carving styles became popular. Britons, having fewer options available for cabinetry and furniture-making, developed a preference for mahogany. Their interest in the hardwood, capable of producing a reflective shine when polished, extended across the empire and soon found its way into American markets.

The men and women in the lowest two categories have no furniture carved out of mahogany. In the third category, there are five smaller pieces owned by two individuals, all tea tables and waiters. Another tea table, a corner cupboard, and a square table made from mahogany are recorded in the fourth category, whereas one large mahogany table and three smaller ones appear in the fifth. In the highest category, Pinkethman Eaton had a dozen mahogany chairs, Edmund Tabb owned “A Mahogany Table,” and Nathaniel Crawley Jr. had a tea table crafted from that wood.^[83]

Much of the furniture belonging to those individuals in the highest categories of this study were carved from more expensive woods like mahogany, walnut, and black walnut. Walnut and black walnut are prevalent throughout the inventory categories. About half of the people from the first four own at least one piece of furniture made of walnut, and every single individual from the highest two categories does. Conversely, no one in the uppermost three categories owns furniture described as oak, however, they do have a few listed as pine. These woods make up the majority of any detail in the poorest inventories, although most of their furniture has no descriptor for its material makeup.

In her book, Mahogany, Jennifer Anderson chronicles the history of that material from environmental and economic perspectives.^[84] Her research uncovers the native habitats of the mahogany tree, some of its early uses by Native Americans, and the impression it made on early Europeans. Narrowing her study to mahogany’s impact on the British Empire, she concludes that its popularity stemmed from the growing availability of “tropical commodities,” favorable changes in customs duties, “the active engagement” of individuals for its promotion as a worthwhile good, and the “alignment of [its] characteristic physical properties with eighteenth-century English aesthetics and values.”^[85] Anderson builds a case for the supposed superiority of mahogany sourced in Jamaica, recounts its depletion and the varying qualities of wood represented by that name, and addresses the redefinition of refinement in British America in the Early Republic through its story.

Genteel citizens performed while seated in chairs around an intricately carved mahogany table. The artistry carpenters and cabinet makers employed in designing dressing tables and office secretaries helped to conceal the owner’s crafted civility over their imperfections. Van Horn compares the common white pine hidden under a mahogany veneer to less-than-ideal persons hidden under fashionable makeup or a mask. She establishes the enslaved state of the people procuring exotic wood for colonial furniture, while comparing their skin tone to the deep colors of that desirable product. “To become civil required an act of repression and one of substitution, suppressing bodily urges and functions beneath a pleasing front that denied the existence of an impolite self within.”^[86]

Those aspiring to gentility owned chamber pots and close stools to contain those least desirable bodily functions. Elizabeth Williamson, for instance, had “1 Close Stool Pan,” three chamber pots, and a wash basin, but no one else in that lowest grouping owned any such items. Only three members of the third appraisal level had a chamber pot, but half of those in the second category had a close stool chair with a pan, or at least one chamber pot – or both. Ever the embodiment of material culture, Nathaniel Crawley Junior’s inventory lists a close stool chair and eleven chamber pots! Although their utility was in the concealment of the base nature of its user, the illusion of perfection chamber pots and close stools granted helped to foster those higher ideals colonists sought.

Colonial aspirations to conceal their imperfections and participate in material culture through their possessions is revealed through the types of goods cataloged within inventories. By purchasing silks, commissioning portraits, using ceramics, and acquiring exotic woods, they participated in a global trade network built to move those consumables to consumers. Merchants moved imported commodities from all over the world, but their patron’s choices determined what they purchased. A merchant’s life was indicative of the empire, and the ability to secure imperial British goods for his clients dictated his livelihood. Consumers expected options, rather than relying on satisfying only the necessities of life. There was an expectation to be able to procure and use certain items simply because one was a British citizen.^[87] As a part of the British Empire, Colonial North America had access to its products. One could present tea and spices from the East, coffee from Africa, and sugar from the Caribbean to display affluence and connections.

Captain George Wilkinson encountered the commodities of Great Britain as he sailed from port to port. Like most British subjects, he appreciated coffee and tea, but he also brought home things like “Chocolate and Mustard” from his travels.^[88] There are many spice mortar and pestles counted among the inventory lists throughout the categories. The appraisers also report pots for tea and coffee in almost every home. Less common are the chocolate pots found in the inventories of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, Thomas Crease, and Captain Ellyson Armistead.^[89] Mrs. Diana Robinson owned a glass mustard pot as well as “4 Glass Salts and a Stand;” Susanna Fontaine’s inventory records “2 Glass Salt Cellars,” a coffee mill, and both a marble and a brass spice mortar; and Nathaniel Crawley Jr. had “3 Salts,” a sugar box, a “Lime Strainer,” a coffee mill, two spice mortar and pestle sets, “1 large Copper Kettle,” and several coffee and tea pots.^[90] Through the consumption of the foods and beverages of the empire the people of York County, Virginia, partook in the new world of eighteenth-century material culture.

True gentility could not be obtained through appearances alone. In his article “A Mumper among the Gentle,” Stephen Bullock addresses the pseudo-gentility of the “colonial confidence man,” Tom Bell, and analyzes what his dealings exposed in society.^[91] Bell attended Harvard, but he applied himself more to thievery than his studies and the institution expelled him during his junior year. His attention to a “checklist of desirable traits and abilities” necessary for acceptance in the world of the elite, however, allowed him to act the part of a gentleman.^[92] According to historian Richard Bushman, a correct posture yet easy demeanor, the ability to converse intelligently, and a delicate taste and love of beauty, as well as fine clothing and a well-maintained cleanliness, signified a member of the gentry. Tom Bell exhibited these qualities of refinement to impersonate men of notable importance and character. He “sold himself,” the idea of a genteel self, and took advantage of his inside knowledge of polite society to close the sale.^[93] He entered those upper echelons of colonial society to steal expensive clothing and incur debts never to be repaid.

Along with beautiful objects like mahogany furniture, silk bed linens, and portraits of family, members of the gentry sought classical education and scientific study. In Feke’s portrait of Anne Shippen Willing, she wears a silk dress featuring an orientally inspired floral design.^[94] Anna Maria Garthwaite took special care in placing the floral patterns, just as if she were planting them in an English garden. “Garden plants worked as well as paintings or books to encourage conversation.”^[95] Creating in oneself a repertoire of knowledge and ability made one more appealing in company. Since manners were a show, one must be able to entertain and remain agreeable on that stage.^[96] Whether at the mahogany tea table, seated to an Asian inspired meal, sitting for a game of cards in the parlor next to a bookcase full of the classics, or strolling through the garden, conversation could be led by one’s surroundings – surroundings carefully orchestrated to incorporate meaningful aspects of gentility.

Considering the association of learning with gentility, it is surprising the lack of attention given to books in the inventories from Colonial Williamsburg. The majority of books are listed as “a parcel of books” or “a parcel of old books” as they are for Elizabeth Williamson and Julius Kirk.^[97] Lydia Charleton also had “3 Old Books, 1 Family Bible, [and] 1 Prayer Book” in her inventory, and James Johnson had a Bible, but several individuals only boasted books without titles.^[98]

In the lowest three sections, only the inventories of Thomas Crease, John Cary, and Robert Thurmer included titles for some of their books.^[99] By far the most extensive collection of these belonged to Crease: a large Bible, twelve pamphlets, “2 Books called the Instruction for the Indians,” Christians Consolations, “short introduction of the Lords Supper,” a large prayer book, and a “book Companion for the Festivals.” Cary had eight volumes of Addison and Steele’s book The Spectator along with four of The Tatler and both volumes of The Guardian by those authors.^[100] He also owned a copy of John Mair’s Book-Keeping and all four volumes of Prideaux’s Connections, a collection written to illuminate the connections between the Old and New Testaments by Humphrey Prideaux.^[101] Thurmer’s estate counts seven unspecified books, and four volumes of Arabian Nights described as “Entertainment.”^[102]

Similarly, most of the allusions to books in the upper half of the inventories ignore titles. For instance, Doctor Benjamin Catton’s reports fifty-eight books, twenty-five smaller books, and some magazines, but adds no other notations. Anthony Robinson had a large Bible and “Law Books;” Edward Moss also owned a large Bible, a “New book of Devotions,” and a parcel of old books; and Edmund Tabb had “17 Old Books and a Leather Case” and two testaments.^[103] Only Captain Ellyson Armistead’s “12 Volumes of Tillotson’s Sermons” and “Dr. Tillotson’s Life” are recognized by name; although he even has two entries identifying “A Parcel Books.”^[104]

Some of the other objects indicative of education and culture include maps, writing implements, tools for one’s profession, and musical instruments. Captain Armistead and Captain Wilkinson each owned a spy glass for use at sea, and Armistead also owned four large maps, three maps with “Cuts,” and five maps with “Glasses.”^[105] In keeping with the men of his vocation, the inventory of Doctor Catton holds two inkstands, a paper knife, and “2 Boxes Surgeon's Instruments.”^[106] Joseph Nisbett had a “Gunter Scale” and an inkstand; John Coulthard had six maps; Mr. Tabb owned two maps, an inkstand, two “Old Compasses,” and an “Old Fiddle;” a fiddle belonged to Matthew Shields; and a violin appears listed in the estate of William Sheldon Sclater.^[107]

A clock suggests a reverence for timeliness and a nice watch signifies status. Six colonists whose inventories appear in this study owned a clock and five had timepieces marked as simply “watches.” Men representing every category except the sixth carried silver watches, however; Edward Potter, Captain Ellyson Armistead, John Cary, William Timson, and Thomas Crease chose to display these more costly ornaments as a marker of refinement.^[108] Perhaps due to his profession, Captain George Wilkinson owned more than one timepiece and some accessories. He had a “Pinch Beck Watch,” a watch fashioned of silver, a watch chain, and a “Watch Coat.”^[109]

Bushman suggests that the display of objects typically associated with the genteel experience might be misinterpreted as a prideful demonstration in a modern context. Rather than portray a validation of power or wealth; however, he asserts that members of the upper classes believed they had moral advantage over those of the lower classes. The refined “looked with condescension, pity, or scorn on the vulgar common people existing on the other side of the spiritual divide.”^[110] When poorer folks made attempts to appear above that station by using objects like teapots and tea tables, their motives were questioned. Martin recognizes the assumption of “inappropriate social climbing” with references to Dr. Alexander Hamilton’s low opinion of a poor man’s “superfluous” tea equipage and Benjamin Franklin’s assumption that a tea table was less suitable for a “good housewife” than a spinning wheel.^[111]

Members of elite society restricted habits of vice for their own enjoyment by influencing “legislative measures designed to define and root out behavior which they thought threateningly licentious.”^[112] Affluent gentlemen set limitations on where one could gamble or drink alcohol in the public sphere.^[113] A promotion of moral betterment and gentlemanly “unity” excluded any but the “proper” ritual for imbibing.^[114]

The expectations and actions of gentility were more than an exclusion and restriction, though, they were a performance. Men and women attended dances to be “watched and admired.”^[115] They scrutinized “any false move” in their company and held nothing back in their recollections of an evening’s activities.^[116] Instances of vanity and pride cannot be considered more of a Christian ideal than the vices elites scorned.

There are thirteen colonists represented by the Williamsburg inventories in this study who owned cyder or cyder casks and seven who had a still. No one in the top group had cyder or casks, but Nathaniel Crawley Jr. owned a still and had rum in his inventory.^[117] One of the largest holdings of alcohol was that of Robert Crawley, with forty gallons of brandy and four hundred sixty gallons of cyder.^[118] As to gaming, however, only Nathaniel Crawley Jr., Edmund Tabb, John Coulthard, and Thomas Crease owned tables specific to playing backgammon.^[119] It is interesting to note that most people from the middle categories did not have alcoholic beverages or a dedicated game table.

Throughout the examination of the Colonial Williamsburg inventories with regard to art, furniture, ceramics, and fabric, one can see an aspiration of the men and women from the middle categories to attain a similar materiality to those in the highest ones. “A titled aristocracy…was almost nonexistent in the colonial-settler generation” in America, but historians note the closing of “the social gap between the elite and the middling sort” toward the middle of the eighteenth century.^[120] Bushman states that the gradual introduction of individual utensils and dinnerware also indicate those ideations of bettering oneself and one’s family. These objects and ideas reveal the shrinking class gap and present a shift from a “deferential model of manners” to one “that focused on relations between equals.”^[121] Through their acquisition of polite manners and a classical education, “gentility was conferred on anyone who could afford to act the part.”^[122] This movement from an aristocracy, to which one must acknowledge deference to one of equality, albeit solely for those who had the means, sheds some light on republican ideals espoused during the American Revolution. A land where “all men are created equal” and had the God-given right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” could only have been conceived by persons familiar with that new idea of gentility.^[123]

However, the gentleman was still master of his home in much the same way a king ruled a kingdom. He interacted with his peers on equal terms in the public setting but resumed a position of power among his household. Gentility required a certain set of expectations for members of elite society, though. For decorum, passage from room to hall, porch to garden, or tea table to card table followed rules and an accepted pattern. Richard Bushman calls the house a “performer” of itself, and a “stage [set] for drama…envisioned within the frame of a story.”^[124] The elite decorated their houses to present that visual appeal and distinctive view of gentility, while creating means to conceal anything that might detract from that big picture. Hidden stairways or back entrances protected the necessary workings of plantation life from polite eyes, but they also afforded slaves a relative freedom of mobility. Whereas politeness dictated the movements of white residents, black members of the household might move about without such inhibitions.

Those hidden residents of the household, enslaved persons, are also tallied in the inventories of Colonial Williamsburg. They often include a notation of a name or gender along with a monetary evaluation of their existence. The smooth silks and shiny silver as well as the white China and dark mahogany were positioned to portray gentility in the British colonies. Secluded to the darker recesses of sitting rooms and hallways, slaves were integral to the maintenance of genteel culture in the home yet unseemly in its portrayal. Slaves make up a significant percentage of inventories; they are glaringly absent in only five of those from Colonial Williamsburg.

In the lower category levels, most inventories designate over half of their value to their slaves; often that number is much closer to two thirds or three fourths. The estate of Adueston Rogers appraised for £184.13.8, but the majority of that can be attributed to the value associated with two slaves.^[125] The only furniture he owned were “5 Old Flagg Chairs,” a small table, and two chests, however his inventory included an enslaved boy named Sam and an enslaved woman whose name is illegible, having been torn from the records, each allotted at £75.^[126] Mann Bryan’s appraisers note his ownership of two female slaves named Phillis and Moll.^[127] Although his inventory appears in the lowest category, he participated in a material culture of gentility with items like his pair of shoes and stockings, “3 Wigs & Box,” a spoon made of silver, and parcel of books.^[128] Bryan’s estate valued for less than £80, and Phillis and Moll make up £70 of that value.^[129] Mrs. Mary Steele’s total appraisal value is listed at just under £90 yet it includes eight enslaved men and women valued at £255 and not included in that amount.^[130]

At more than £500 in appraised value, both Lawson Burfoot and Robert Crawley might have had a greater disposable income to spend on objects of gentility, however most of their inventory value is also tied up in their slaves.^[131] Burfoot owned a mahogany tea table and several pieces of China, but the slaves recorded in his estate, five male and four female, make up £380 of the £530 evaluation of his belongings.^[132] Robert Crawley owned very few genteel items, however he held sixteen people in bondage who were appraised for £375 of his £580 estate.^[133] Nanny, a woman claimed within the bounds of that estate, received a valuation of “n[ot]hing.”^[134] The thirty-two men and women enumerated in the inventory of Nathaniel Crawley Jr. were valued at £1145, but his remaining £640 allowed him to purchase many of the objects he and his contemporaries associated with gentility.^[135]

Slaveholders often gave their slaves names more commonly associated with children. George, Tom, and Fancy appear in William Powell’s inventory, for instance.^[136] William Sheldon Sclater, the slaveholder with the most slaves in his possession in the inventories of this study, even resorted to repeating names: he had three named Sam, two called Moll and one Molly, two identified as Sue, three Sarahs, another two named Nanny, and there are a Phill and a Phillis.^[137] They also assigned names with meanings of importance to Christianity or for notable destinations or ideas. Emmanuel, Abram, Peter, and Paul can be seen in the estate of Nathaniel Crawley Junior; Cross belonged to Matthew Shields, Holiday to James Bates, and Patience and Cupid to Anthony Robinson; and London is listed in Sarah Green’s inventory while Philadelphia is in Captain Armistead’s.

Some of the slaves found in inventories are cataloged with only the description of “A Negro Woman,” as in those held by Mrs. Joanna McKenzie and Lucy Hansford.^[138] John Coulthard willed his entire estate to his wife, but upon their majority his sons would inherit his slaves Sarah and Orange.^[139] The inventory of his estate, however, lists them solely as “1 Negro Woman” and “1 Negro Boy.”^[140] There are also many instances of slaves missing any descriptor at all. Pinkethman Eaton’s inventory is damaged and torn with age and the section for his slaves includes things like “Negroes M [torn]” for a value of £125, “Jack [torn] Peter £20” with a line value of £180, “Han[nah?] [torn] Judah £35” and a total of £135, and the whole line with the designation of “Ton [torn]” for £85.^[141] A young girl valued at £25 in the inventory of James Moss is also remembered only as “T[torn].”^[142]

The inventories from this study are not wholly representative of life in Colonial North America, but they do offer a snapshot of what things people considered important and how much some objects were worth relative to others. Just as some of the names of slaves are missing from the records, whole sections with entries for other possessions are also absent or illegible. There are also some unique items listed which could not be readily categorized, though. The “Old Chariot” Anna Maria Thornton had was worth £10, for instance, whereas Lydia Charlton’s “Moveable Hen House” appraised for only ten shillings.^[143] Joanna McKenzie had a bell, Joseph Nisbett had a “House Bell,” and Nathaniel Crawley Jr. had a “Cow Bell.”^[144] There was a cotton gin on Adueston Rogers’s property, as well as a shark chain, “Half [of] a Canoe in Partnership & 1 Oyster Tongs.”^[145] Several boats and fishing equipment can be found throughout: Edward Moss also owned “the half of a Canoe in partnership;” James Johnson had a boat, a “Pine Canow,” and two fishing lines; and William Powell had “1 Small Cannoe.”^[146] William Timson had a small boat, a canoe, two “large Peruager[s],” a parcel fishing lines and hooks, and “2 pr. oyster Tongs & a Gigg.”^[147] A “Large Boat with her Tackle called Fanny” belonged to Edmund Tabb; he also had a smaller one called Banger.^[148]

Estate inventories like those used for this study allow historians to glimpse the daily lives of York County Virginia’s eighteenth-century residents. A decedent’s tools told of one’s trade, the quantity and quality of tea equipage indicated social status, the materials used to create textiles and fashion furniture hinted at the owner’s wealth, and the presence of exotic goods and spices revealed participation in the global economy of the British Empire. By mid-century, a growing percentage of Americans chose to portray their refinement and inner virtuosity through the items they displayed in their homes, the clothing and makeup they wore, the ideas they learned and shared, and the manners they employed. Americans built larger and more highly decorated houses and filled them with beautiful art, furniture, ceramics, and linen. They entertained guests in larger living spaces furnished for leisure rather than work and exploited the labor of African slaves to help sustain that lifestyle.

[1] Richard Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1992)

[2] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 133.

[3] Colonial inventories were performed by men familiar with local property and estate values. These men were friends or neighbors of the deceased and often worked in the same or similar trade.

[4] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of John Cayce, York County Virginia, February 7, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Mr. Edmund Tabb’s estate was appraised at £1214.10.6 and it lists “1 Dozn. Table Spoons and 1 Soop Spoon weight” with a combined value of £15. John Cayce’s entire estate was only estimated at £16.5s.

[5] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 133.

[6] Inventory Estate of John Cayce, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, March 5, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Kirk estate inventoried for £22.5.4½

[7] Inventory Estate of John Cayce, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, March 5, 1763.

[8] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, November 22, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of William Sheldon Sclater, York County Virginia, July 18, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

[9] Inventory Estate of Nathan Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[10] Inventory Estate of William Sheldon Sclater, York County Virginia, 1757.

[11] Inventory Estate of James Bates, York County Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, August 16, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Bates’s estate is valued at £996.6.9, and Robinson’s is valued at £974.16.9

[12] Inventory Estate of Robert Presson, York County Virginia, November 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Presson’s estate is valued at £107.5.7½

[13] Inventory Estate of William Sheldon Sclater, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Gerrard Roberts Jr., York County Virginia, August 17, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

 NOTE – Estate of Gerrard Roberts Jr. valued at £ 568.9.6

[14] Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, November 15, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Wright’s estate is valued at £96.13.4

[15] Inventory Estate of Robert Presson, York County Virginia, 1757.

[16] Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, February 19, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of Diana Robinson valued at £870.0.5

[17] Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

[18] Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

[19] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, 1762.

[20] Jennifer Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, (Williamsburg, VA: University of North Carolina Press, 2017)

[21] Inventory Estate of Susanna Fontaine, York County Virginia, September 20, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Edward Potter, York County Virginia, November 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Doctor Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, November 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Fontaine inventory valued at £750.2.0½, Potter inventory £793.9.6 and Dr. Catton inventory £ 639.3.0

[22] Margaretta M. Lovell, Art in a Season of Revolution Painters, Artisans, and Patrons in Early America, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 9.

[23] Lovell, Art in a Season of Revolution, 9.

[24] Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, 1763.

Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, January 27, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, August 2, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, January 27, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Crease estate value £166.4.3, Orton estate £175.3.0, and Charlton estate £126.5.1.

[25] Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, May 31, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Thurmer £386.0.3 and Green £ 338.17.2    

[26] Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, 116.

[27] Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, 249-251.

[28] Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, 273.

[29] Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, 291.

[30] Inventory Estate of Anna Maria Thornton, York County Virginia, December 3, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Anna Maria Thornton estate value £663.13.6

[31] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, 1761.

[32] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, 1759.

Inventory Estate of Richard Hobday, York County Virginia, December 19, 1763. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Hobday estate value of £474.0.7

[33] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, July 18, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Wilkinson estate value £68.8.0                  

[34] Inventory Estate of Thomas Burfoot, York County Virginia, August 21, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, June 24, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Burfoot £143.18.0 and Nisbett £104.14.6

[35] Inventory Estate of Nathan Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of Samuel Hill, York County Virginia, February 19, 1770. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, March 19, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, 1759.

NOTE – Hill estate £634.4.2 and John Cary estate £378.2.11

[36] Ann Smart Martin, "Tea Tables Overturned: Rituals of Power and Place in Colonial America," In D. Goodman, & K. Norberg, Furnishing the Eighteenth Century, (Routledge, 2006), 172.

[37] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

NOTE – His inventory includes at least ten more tables worth over £9!

[38] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Sr., York County Virginia, February 20, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – The estate of Nathaniel Crawley Sr is valued at £637.8.9

Ancestry.com, “Virginia, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1652-1900,” (Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2021), https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62347/images/007794507_00255?pId=2016913 (Nathaniel Crawley Jr.) and https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62347/images/007794507_00110 (Nathaniel Crawley Sr.)

NOTE – The wills of both Nathaniel Crawley Jr. and Sr. linked above. Several pages beyond the page for each will is the itemized inventory for that man. Neither original record specifies a distinction of “Jr.” or “Sr,” so I assume these were appended to distinguish the records within the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s directory.

[39] Inventory Estate of James Bates, York County Virginia, 1769.

[40] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, January 28, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Mary Steele, York County Virginia, July 21, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – McKenzie estate valued at £98.14.0 and Steele estate valued at £87.14.6

[41] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 181.

[42] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[43] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[44] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[45] Inventory estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[46] Inventory Estate of James Moss, York County Virginia, November 15, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Pinkethman Eaton, York County Virginia, September 15, 1766. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate James Moss valued at £1298.0.9 and that of Pinkethman Eaton valued at £1020.0.6

[47] Rodris Roth, "Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage," In R. Blair, Material Life in America, 1600-1860 (Boston: NE University Press, 1988), 439-462

[48] Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, 1762.

[49] Inventory Estate of Capt. Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, January 16, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Gerrard Roberts Jr., York County Virginia, 1767.

NOTE – Estate of Captain Armistead valued at £536.18.0

[50] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Williamson estate value £54.17.2

[51]Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, August 15, 1757.

[52] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

[53] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

[54] Zara Anishanslin, Portrait of a Woman in Silk: Hidden Histories of the British Atlantic World (New Haven: Yale University Press 2006).

[55] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

[56] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

[57] Inventory Estate of Reginald Orton, York County Virginia, 1757.

[58] Inventory Estate of William Timson, York County Virginia, January 17, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of William Timson valued at £364.4.8

[59] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[60] Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, 1756.

[61] Inventory Estate of Judith Cary, York County Virginia, July 17, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Susanna Fontaine, York County Virginia, 1756.

NOTE – Judith Cary’s estate appraised for £156.18.0

NOTE – Perhaps left over from her husband’s belongings, Fontaine’s inventory lists upper and “Soal” leather, as well as “1 old Plane a large Gimblet & a pair of Shoemakers knippers.”  

[62] Inventory Estate of Richard Hobday, York County Virginia, 1763.

Inventory Estate of Edward Moss, York County Virginia, February 20, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.                          

Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

NOTE – Edward Moss estate value of £752.11.0

[63] Inventory Estate of Matthew Shields, York County Virginia, June 16, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of Matthew Shields valued at £779.11.9

[64] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 133.

[65] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 17, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Ancestry.com, “Virginia, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1652-1900,” (Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2021), https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62347/images/007794508_00500?pId=2016913 (The will of John Coulthard).

NOTE – Estate of John Coulthard valued at £212.2.9

[66] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, 1756.

[67] Inventory Estate of Anthony Robinson, York County Virginia, 1756.

[68] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, 1762.

[69] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, 1757.

[70]Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, 1757.

[71] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 49.

[72] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 46.

[73] Peter Thompson, ""The Friendly Glass": Drink and Gentility in Colonial Philadelphia" The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 113, no. 4 (1989), 553.

[74] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 48-49.

[75] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Mary Steele, York County Virginia, 1767.

[76] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mrs. Mary Steele, York County Virginia, 1767.

[77] Inventory Estate of John Cayce, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, 1763.

Inventory Estate of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, January 17, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Appraisal of Mann Bryan estate listed at £78.8.9

[78] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, 1756.

[79] Inventory Estate of Judith Cary, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, 1761.

[80] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[81] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[82] Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[83] Inventory Estate of Pinkethman Eaton, York County Virginia, 1766.

Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[84] Jennifer Anderson, Mahogany, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012)

[85] Anderson, Mahogany, 19.

[86] Van Horn, The Power of Objects in Eighteenth-Century British America, 321.

[87] T. H. Breen, ""Baubles of Britain": The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century" In A. Hoffman, Of Consuming Interests, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1994), 444-481.

[88] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

[89] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of Capt. Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, 1768.

[90] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Diana Robinson, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of Susanna Fontaine, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia,1769.

[91] Steven C. Bullock, "A Mumper Among the Gentle: Tom Bell, Colonial Confidence Man" The William and Mary Quarterly 55, no 2 (1998), 231.

[92] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 60.

[93] Bullock, “A Mumper Among the Gentle,” 233.

[94] Anishanslin, Portrait of a Woman in Silk

[95] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 129.

[96] C. Dallett Hemphill, "Manners and Class in the Revolutionary Era: A Transatlantic Comparison" The William and Mary Quarterly 63, no 2 (2006): 345-372.

[97] Inventory Estate of Elizabeth Williamson, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of Julius Kirk, York County Virginia, 1763.

[98] Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, 1761.

Inventory Estate of James Johnson, York County Virginia, December 18, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of James Johnson valued at £271.1.1

[99] Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, 1764.

Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, 1758.

[100] Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, 1764.

[101] Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, 1764.

[102] Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, 1758.

[103] Inventory Estate of Doctor Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, 1768.

Inventory Estate of Edward Moss, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

[104] Inventory Estate of Capt. Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, 1768.

[105] Inventory Estate of Capt. Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, 1768.

Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

[106] Inventory Estate of Doctor Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, 1768.

[107] Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of Matthew Shields, York County Virginia, 1765.

Inventory Estate of William Sheldon Sclater, York County Virginia, 1757.

[108] Inventory Estate of Edward Potter, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of Capt. Ellyson Armistead, York County Virginia, 1768.

Inventory Estate of John Cary, York County Virginia, 1764.

Inventory Estate of William Timson, York County Virginia, 1757.

Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, 1757.

[109] Inventory Estate of Captain George Wilkinson, York County Virginia, 1768.

[110] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 184.

[111] Martin, “Tea Tables Overturned,” 172-173.

[112] Thompson, “The Friendly Glass,” 553-554,

[113] Linda L. Sturtz, “The Ladies and the Lottery: Elite Women's Gambling in Eighteenth-Century Virginia” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 104, no. 2 (1996): 165-184.

[114] Thompson, “The Friendly Glass,” 557, 554.

[115] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 52.

[116] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 54.

[117] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[118] Inventory Estate of Robert Crawley, York County Virginia, 1760.

[119] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

Inventory Estate of Mr. Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, 1756.

Inventory Estate of Thomas Crease, York County Virginia, 1757.

[120] Hemphill, Manners and Class in Revolutionary America, 350-351.

[121] Hemphill, Manners and Class in Revolutionary America, 353.

[122]Hemphill, Manners and Class in Revolutionary America, 353.

[123] Thomas Jefferson, et al, Copy of Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776.

[124] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 129.

[125] Inventory Estate of Adueston Rogers, York County Virginia, June 21, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Rogers’ estate value £184.13.8

[126]Inventory Estate of Adueston Rogers, York County Virginia, June 21, 1762.

[127] Inventory Estate of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, 1757.

[128]Inventory Estate of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, 1757.

[129]Inventory Estate of Mann Bryan, York County Virginia, 1757.

[130] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Mary Steele, York County Virginia, 1767.

[131] Inventory Estate of Lawson Burfoot, York County Virginia, August 19, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Inventory Estate of Robert Crawley, York County Virginia, January 3, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of Lawson Burfoot valued at £533.18.3 and that of Robert Crawley valued at £588.4.6

[132] Inventory Estate of Lawson Burfoot, York County Virginia, 1765.

[133] Inventory Estate of Robert Crawley, York County Virginia, 1760.

[134]Inventory Estate of Robert Crawley, York County Virginia, 1760.

[135] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[136] Inventory Estate of William Powell, York County Virginia, December 17, 1764. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

NOTE – Estate of William Powell valued at £331.14.5

[137] Inventory Estate of William Sheldon Sclater, York County Virginia, 1757.

[138] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

Inventory Estate of Lucy Hansford, York County Virginia, 1760.

[139] Ancestry.com, Will of John Coulthard.

[140] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, 1756.

[141] Inventory Estate of Pinkethman Eaton, York County Virginia, 1766.

[142] Inventory Estate of James Moss, York County Virginia, 1762.

[143] Inventory Estate of Anna Maria Thornton, York County Virginia, 1760.

Inventory Estate of Lydia Charlton, York County Virginia, 1761.

[144] Inventory Estate of Mrs. Joanna McKenzie, York County Virginia, 1767.

Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, 1762.

Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley Jr., York County Virginia, 1769.

[145] Inventory Estate of Adueston Rogers, York County Virginia, 1762.

[146] Inventory Estate of Edward Moss, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of James Johnson, York County Virginia, 1758.

Inventory Estate of William Powell, York County Virginia, 1764.

[147] Inventory Estate of William Timson, York County Virginia, 1757.

[148] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tab, York County Virginia, 1762.