Eighteenth-Century Gentility

Eighteenth-Century Gentility as Shown Through Estate Inventories from York County, Virginia

by Elizabeth Croix-Blust

In eighteenth-century America, social performance was vital for the communication and enforcement of an individual’s social standing. Though one’s position in society was primarily determined by their wealth, family’s reputation, or occupation, an individual’s behaviors could, and were widely expected to, reflect and reinforce the assumed respectability of their social position. Expectations of proper behavior, manners, and appearance of respectable members of society came to be organized under a culture of gentility. “Gentility” was defined as a set of values that emphasized the refinement of the individual. Acting as a gentleperson, then, required strict adherence to respectable behaviors as well as the creation of a beautiful environment to demonstrate one’s understanding of good taste as defined by the upper classes.^[1] As Richard Bushman writes in his book The Refinement of America, a true gentleperson, then, was constantly engaged in a “self-aware performance” in which every interaction with the wider public was measured against the genteel values of the upper class.^[2]

Though intended to reinforce social divisions, by the mid-eighteenth century, middling members of society aspired towards higher social standing through the emulation of genteel behaviors.^[3] By changing outside perceptions of their social respectability, these middling individuals could potentially shift their position within their wider community and their access to socially influential spaces without any substantial change in the traditional markers of social standing. In response to the widening accessibility of genteel performance through behaviors such as table manners or bodily carriage, the wealthiest members of society linked genteel performance to the possession of specific material goods. This was done because, as Cary Carson explains in his book Face Value, genteel material goods were used as props, facilitating the owner’s behavioral performance while also “accentuat[ing] differences” in the material wealth of individuals able and unable to purchase them.^[4] Furthermore, the refinement of one’s body and mannerisms expected of a gentleperson became generalized to their environment as the possession of more numerous and higher quality material goods provided further opportunity for the individual to demonstrate their command of genteel values by crafting a refined space around them.^[5] As a result, the home quickly became the environment in which this demonstration took place.^[6]

Defining gentility, then, was an inherent social tension as material objects both expanded and restricted access to genteel performance, and multiple groups competed for the social benefits of belonging within the often muddled boundaries of the genteel class. This tension is revealed upon examining estate inventories from early America, which cataloged an individual’s possessions at the time of their death, through the lens of genteel values. This paper specifically examines twenty-three estate inventories from York County, Virginia taken between 1756 and 1770. The inventories range in value from £26.18.6 to £2,318.10.9 ¾.

An analysis of the objects found in these inventories reveals that people of all income levels aspired to gentility. The possession and use of material goods to convey the tenets of order, control, beauty, ease, and specialization expressed those aspirations. However, access to wealth facilitated more plentiful and consistent expressions of these principles within the home. Understanding differences in the ability to express gentility across economic levels as well as which genteel ideals were universally pursued provides a better understanding of the diffusion of genteel cultural practices down the social hierarchy of early America. It also provides insight into the ways in which early American material culture was utilized as a tool of cultural construction to negotiate belonging to and maintain the exclusivity of genteel identity.

This paper focuses on estate inventories from York County, Virginia which, being concentrated in a single geographic location, limits the paper’s ability to account for geographic differences in the expression of gentility across the American colonies. However, the inventory records of York County are advantageous for an examination of genteel culture for several reasons. First, because they lived in the same community, the former heads of households inventoried had similar access to the sale of items listed, limiting different physical access to goods as a potentially confounding variable to explain differences in material possessions found across categories. Secondly, York County included several urban areas, such as Yorktown, at the time these inventories were taken. Urban areas tend to have greater economic diversity among residents, meaning the inventories used provided an examination of genteel culture across regularly spaced economic categories and reveal gradual changes in the performance of genteel culture across gradual changes in personal wealth. Finally, the records of York County estate inventories, made available by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, is one of the most comprehensive collections of estate inventories publicly available, and thus allowed for an examination of gentility and material culture across multiple economic groups.

The inventory collection, however, consists overwhelmingly of estates owned by European-descendant Americans. Though this was the group most engaged in the culture of gentility and from whom it derived, African Americans and Native Americans also interacted with, adopted elements of, and practiced gentility to differing degrees.^[7] As a result of the sources utilized, however, this paper does not account for the experiences of non-white populations engaging in genteel culture. Additionally, while the inventories used include households headed by both men and women, the following paper prioritizes differences in wealth over gender in understanding differing expressions of gentility.

To facilitate the comparison of inventories in and across similar economic groupings, the twenty-three inventories examined were divided into six categories. The number of households in each category decreases as the value of estates increases due to there being fewer inventories of higher values within the larger collection. Category one encompasses inventories valued at less than £100. This category includes the inventories of Lewis Bolton (valued at £26.18.6), Samuel Roberts (£51.14.3), John Jeggitts (£74.3.3), Joseph Pullett (£83.13.6 ½), and Ann Wright (£96.13.4). Category two encompasses inventories valued between £101 and £250. This includes the inventories of Joseph Nisbett (£104.14.6), Thomas Burfoot (£143.18), Matthew Jones (£155.10.6), and John Coulthard (£212.2.9). Category three encompasses inventories valued between £251 and £500. This includes the inventories of James Martin (£292.12.9), Sarah Green (£338.17.2), Robert Thurmer (£386.0.3), and John Shield (£412.2.1 ½). Category four encompasses inventories valued between £501 and £750. Included in this category are the inventories of Lawson Burfoot (£533.18.3), Simon Whitaker (£602.13.2 ½), Benjamin Catton (£639.3), and Anna Maria Thornton (£663.13.6). Category five encompasses inventories valued between £751 and £1000. This includes the inventories of John Coke (£772.18.1), William Waters (£810.16.3), and William Hunter (£892.18.5). Finally, category six encompasses inventories valued at more than £1000. This includes the inventories of Edmund Tabb (£1,214.10.6), Nathaniel Crawley Jr. (£1,765.2), and William Prentis (£2,318.10.9 ¾).

Evident in all twenty-three inventories is an effort to showcase the genteel value of specialization within the home. Specialization was a key tenet of gentility as it facilitated and reinforced a genteel person’s control of their environment. As Bushman explains, in attempting to elevate oneself above the vulgar, a gentleperson was expected to take command of their immediate space and turn it into an outward reflection of the person’s internal refinement.^[8] One way this was achieved was by partitioning the interior space of a home into specialized rooms facilitating the performance of specified genteel activities, such as eating or entertaining guests.^[9] Success in achieving specialization in one’s environment was often dependent on one’s wealth, however, as demonstrated by the proximity of tools of labor to the front of the house listed in the above inventories.

Estate inventories do not specify the layout of a house being cataloged, nor do a majority list the specific rooms in which items were found. However, it was common for members of lower classes to live in one or two-room homes while those of greater financial means built larger houses with more specialized rooms.^[10] The order in which tools relating to labor are listed in estate inventories, as well as their quantity, thus not only indicate a house’s general structure but also the physical barrier a lack of wealth posed on a person’s ability to specialize their domestic space in alignment with genteel values.

In inventories valued under £250, tools of physical trades are often listed among the estate’s cooking and dining items. For instance, in Lewis Bolton’s 1760 inventory, valued at only £26.18.6, tools of carpentry such as “16 Moulding Plains,” “Gages Chizels Files Gouges,” “2 Saws” and “a Chest of Tools” are listed between “a Corner Cupboard” and “Pewter dishes.”^[11] This arrangement of items suggests a room that served as a kitchen, workspace, and storage, with no space available to dedicate to each task. The 1768 inventory of Samuel Roberts, valued at £51.14.3, indicates a similar use of space with “2 Whip Saws,” “Some old Brass and Copper,” and “14000 Nails” being listed above “Knives and Forks” and below “7 Chairs.”^[12] Furthermore, listed within the 1762, £104.14.6 inventory of Joseph Nisbett, are “7 China Plates” and “Sundry Tea Ware” among “1 Gunter Scale and Inkstand.”^[13] This order of items provides evidence of business records or transactions being reviewed or completed in the same space used for eating. The presence of tools of labor in the common spaces of Bolton, Robert, and Nisbett’s estates indicates a lack of physical space in which this specialization of activity could take place and thus indicates wealth as a barrier to the full practice of genteel behavior.

The storage of tools of labor at the front of the house also indicates a failure of lower-value estates to convey another genteel principle within their environment: ease. Within genteel culture, ease of one’s movements, behaviors, and interactions signaled command over one’s person and affairs to highlight their natural belonging in the genteel class.^[14] The ultimate expression of ease was the freedom from work and the ability to partake in leisure. However, in these less valuable inventories, the presence of one’s tools of labor in common living spaces would have served as a constant reminder of one’s reliance on labor and prevented those in the household from ever being physically or mentally separated from their work. Within the house, then, a lack of specialized space, and the economic means to construct and maintain such spaces, proved a physical barrier to the full expression of genteel social values.

As such, a gradual transition away from this previous arrangement of space began in the middling inventories. For example, Robert Thurmer’s “Bench” and set of “Silver Smiths tools” are listed in his 1758 inventory, valued at £386.0.3, below “4 [volumes]” and above “2 Beds” and related furnishings.^[15] Similarly, in James Martin's 1767 £292.12.9 estate inventory, “Sundry” tools for “wig-making” are listed amongst “bed quilt[s]” and “matrass[es].”^[16] While the two men did not have separate work rooms within their homes, their placement of these tools in their private chambers reveals a consciousness of the social implications and judgments that would derive from their front rooms - the spaces used most frequently seen by guests - serving both living and working roles.^[17] In separating these spaces, Thurmer and Martin reveal a cognizant decision to perform the standards of gentility, and thus an increasing desire and ability to emulate the role of the genteel accompanying increased wealth.

The relationship between the public performance of leisure and the dedication of space to specific tasks was further refined in the inventories valued over £751. Significantly, tools of a trade, like carpentry or smithing, appear in only one of the six inventories valued over £751, as opposed to four of the nine inventories valued below £501.^[18] However, in this 1769 inventory belonging to Nathaniel Crawley and valued at £1,765.2.0, a “Parcel of Carpenters Tools” was stored at the back of the house among stores of food and farming equipment, a location no guests would be expected to see.^[19] Returning to Bushman’s idea of gentility as a self-aware performance, increasing distance between the front of the house and the location of tools of physical labor signifies that a judgment of value was placed on participation in physical labor among the genteel, a judgment which they adhered to when decorating and arranging the home.

Furthermore, this pattern cuts to the heart of the tension defining gentility. While the arrangement of space by those in the middling inventories to separate their leisure time and guests from their labor indicates that an understanding of genteel values had developed among the middling class by the mid-eighteenth century, gentility had been developed by the upper classes in such a way that personal understanding of such values was not sufficient for their proper execution. As knowledge of genteel principles spread and participation in its culture increased, the upper classes who originated the culture were able to safeguard their social status by making social performance dependent on consumption. This pattern is echoed within multiple areas of genteel social life measured within estate inventories.

It should also be noted that, even when such tools were present in upper inventories, the likelihood that the estate owner would have engaged in their use decreases due to an increased presence of enslaved persons among their listed assets. Of the nine inventories valued below £251, four list enslaved persons, with the largest number of slaves being two.^[20] Of the eight inventories valued between £251 and £750, seven list enslaved persons, ranging from two to eleven people.^[21] All six of the inventories valued over £751 list enslaved persons, ranging from four to thirty-two people.^[22] Tasked with the economic and domestic work of a household, slave labor would allow the owner of an estate to both avoid these physically demanding tasks and spend more time in leisure. Additionally, the presence of slaves in all estates valued over £751 could create a class of people entirely free of the demands of physical labor. Such a change would create an internal social identity defined not only by a person’s possession of slave labor but by their time spent engaging in various leisure activities. Once again, wealth emerges as a key factor in a person’s ability to construct their domestic environment in a way conducive to the pursuit of genteel principles and behaviors.

Leisure activities valued by the genteel included intellectual pursuits, reflected in an increasing frequency and value of books relating to an increase in overall estate value. A “P[arcel of] Books” is seen in only two of the nine inventories valued under £250, before becoming near ubiquitous in those valued over £251.^[23] This is partly due to the access to leisure time discussed above, and partly due to the high cost of books during this period. The high price of a personal library is evidenced in Benjamin Catton’s 1768 inventory, valued at £639.3, with 170 books and “some magazines,” valued at a total of £21.10.0 - a single book valued at as much as £4.^[24] In the 1761 inventory of William Hunter valued at £892.18.5, books total £28 while William Water’s six “Roman History” books cost £1 a piece.^[25] Such an expenditure is but a fraction of these estates but would represent anywhere from all to 1/10 the value of the estates in categories one and two. Clearly, engagement in intellectual pursuits was not only a function of one’s free time, but their expendable wealth as well. Such expenditures were valued under gentility, however, as books allowed the genteel reader an opportunity to beautify their minds. A proper gentleperson needed to not only act out gentility but view and engage with the world through its mindset, the refinement of which was achieved through reading and the pursuit of knowledge.^[26] Even the mental pursuit of understanding genteel principles, then, was subsumed under the upper class’ use of material culture in the construction of genteel identity since full participation in its culture required the purchase and study of often prohibitively expensive materials.

Though a barrier to participation when exercised in this way, the importance of material culture in genteel identity also allowed the middling and lower classes opportunities to negotiate its boundaries by strategically utilizing the social ideals ascribed to certain objects. Those who could not afford to invest in books could instead be lent a certain air of intellectual gentility through the presence of a desk which suggested “the presence of letter writers in the household” who were believed to have refined their minds in order to participate in the practice.^[27] Desks of higher quality woods and better craftsmanship reinforced this association by exemplifying the beauty implied of the user’s mind, though they fetched a higher price.^[28]

For Edmund Tabb, a £5 desk was a fraction of his wealth, and a second £3 desk among bedroom furniture presents no great strain on household finances.^[29] For Samuel Roberts, however, a £5 “Cherry Desk” represents a tenth of his total estate value, and as such is displayed prominently in the house’s front room where it could be seen by all guests, as evidenced by its place below “1 Shovel and Fire Tongs” and above “1 Punch Bowl.”^[30] Similar emphasis is placed on equally valuable desks across the inventories valued under £500, with desks ranging in value from £4 to £5 being the first or second item listed in the entire inventory.^[31] Furthermore, Martins’ “1 pine desk,” valued at 35 shillings, reveals that even when a higher quality desk was unobtainable, there remained an aspiration for the connotations a desk brought to a household.^[32] Even if an individual was unable to afford, either in money or time, engagement in the intellectual culture of reading, the social ideals ascribed to less cost-prohibitive letter writing desks allowed for a broader group of people to attain the appearance of refinement. The example of the genteel desk, then, provides an example of how the language of socially elite culture can be modified by those on the outskirts of its inclusion to secure a degree of participation in it.

An outward performance of gentility, as well as an emphasis on leisure, is also reflected in the common possession of entertainment equipment across inventories. Like letter writing, gatherings of genteel peers at an occasion such as a dance or game of cards provided opportunities to publicly perform gentility, reinforcing their belonging within the group by demonstrating their ease in navigating its many social demands.^[33] The relative stability of the value of card and backgammon tables in six categories reveals entertainment’s social importance in demonstrating a command of genteel identity.

The inventories of Joseph Pullet, - valued at £83.13.6 ½ - John Coulthard - valued at £212.2.9 - and William Hunter - valued at £892.18.5 - list backgammon tables of equal value.^[34] Additionally, William Hunter’s inventory lists “2 Card Tables” equal in value to Martin’s two “mahog[any]” and “walnut” card tables found in his £292.12.9 estate.^[35] Though valued the same, these possessions were not made equal, as £5 represents twice as much of Martin’s total estate than Hunter’s. A disproportionate investment in tools of entertainment within middling and lower inventories reinforces the idea, as seen in investments in desks, that though wealth prevented genteel principles from being expressed consistently within estates of lower values, a strong understanding of genteel principles led members of these estates to concentrate their investment in gentility’s performance where guests were most likely to see it.

Limitations posed by wealth on the outward image of gentility are also present, however. While Pullett’s estate lists “3 wooden punch ladles” valued at a total of 2 shillings, their quality is a far cry from Martin’s “silver” punch ladle valued at £0.12.6, and are still less valuable than William Prentis’ “Punch Ladle” valued at £1.5.0.^[36] Though similar entertainment items being owned across multiple categories of estate inventories exhibited similar aspirations of gentility, greater wealth enabled the complete attainment of these genteel desires by allowing the purchase of higher quality and more decorative items used for the same function.

In refining the objects considered ideal representations of genteel identity, the upper classes sought to restrict membership in this culture to those who could afford its artifacts. Almost paradoxically, this attempt to restrict membership afforded those in close proximity to gentility greater social prestige by maintaining exclusivity and desirability of the identity as its culture became more widely practiced and emulated. Though consumption was a barrier to inclusion for many, as the inventories analyzed have shown, restrictive material culture was vital in defining gradations in genteel identity. Material culture was thus not simply a product of the ideals of genteel culture but a tool of its construction. Tracing the use of material goods differing in quality and material across inventory categories, such as the punch ladles seen above, grants insight into the attempts by those active in the culture of gentility to define its parameters.

A similar pattern seen in the chairs listed in estate inventories is thus also important to note as well. During the eighteenth century, chairs were most often “sold in sets or multiples of six.”^[37] Sets of matching chairs were important as they facilitated genteel entertainment by “encourag[ing] social calls and conversation among equals.”^[38] Underscoring this importance, multiples of six are present in every inventory. Even Bolton, whose entire inventory was valued at only £26.18.6, owned a set of “6 Chairs.”^[39]

Differentiating sets of chairs across inventory categories, however, is a noticeable change in the quality of materials used for each chair. While chairs of high-quality wood like walnut and cherry are found in all categories of inventory, they are only listed in four of the thirteen inventories valued under £500 as opposed to five of the ten valued over £501.^[40] The reverse is true of lower quality rush and flagged chairs - made of wood frames and grass-woven seats - found in only three of the ten inventories valued over £501 and six of the thirteen found in inventories valued under £500.^[41] Additionally, the inventories valued above £501 consistently had a greater number of chairs, with no inventory under £500 owning more than a dozen chairs in a set as opposed to four of the ten inventories valued over £500, with the largest being Nathaniel Crawley Jr’s “5 ½ dozen [walnut chairs].”^[42] Once again, the adaptation of genteel objects into more affordable options indicates an ongoing negotiation of gentility’s boundaries and relationship to material goods.

Departing from standardized sets, the specialization of chairs for a specific purpose began in category four. Building off of the idea that more specialized spaces in the home facilitated genteel activities, specialized objects held similar social connotations.^[43] Informed by this principle, Simon Whittaker and Benjamin Catton both owned “1 smoking chair,” and William Prentis owned “1 Easy” chair.^[44] William Prentis, as indicated in the 1765 inventory of his £2318.10.9 ¾ estate, also owned the only listed couch in all twenty-three inventories, valued at £5, a price equal to twice Sarah Green’s “12 Leather bottom Walnut Chairs” or James Martin’s “1 doz bl[ack] wal[nut]” chairs, and twenty times Ann Wright’s “10 flag’d Chairs.”^[45] Ownership of such chairs signaled not only the increased opportunity to engage in leisure but the increased ability to invest in such leisure. Taken into consideration with the tools of entertainment and books discussed earlier, the presence of these specialized chairs indicates that greater access to wealth allowed the eighteenth-century home to reflect and reinforce a genteel appearance in multiple, specialized forms.

Any genteel space would have been incomplete, however, without proper decoration. In fulfilling the genteel goal of elevating the refined above the vulgar, beautification of a space through decoration transformed the common and dull into a work of art.^[46] In drawing on many disparate pieces, decoration also revealed the individual’s ability to discern the tasteful from the distasteful and create order out of chaos, thus demonstrating their ease in navigating the world with a genteel mindset and discernment. Returning to the desks and chairs made of high-quality woods discussed above, part of their high value was due to the quality of the wood itself. However, hard woods with smooth finishes were valued for their glossy finish that complemented the baroque appreciation for light and shadow.^[47] Thus, ownership of these furniture pieces additionally reveals attention to the beautification of a space.

However, common items with more obvious aesthetic purposes used in decorations commonly include looking glasses, paintings, and carpeting. These objects increase in both frequency and value as the value of estates increases. Only two of the five estates valued under £100 contain decorative items, with John Jeggits’ 1769 estate valued at £74.13.3 listing a single “Looking Glass” valued at £0.7.6 and Joseph Pullett’s inventory listing “1 glass pyramid” valued at £1.^[48] Category two is similarly sparse with John Coulthard owning two looking glasses, one large and one small, and “6 Maps” - a form of wall decoration utilized by “all kinds of people'' as a less expensive alternative to paintings.^[49] The maps and “large looking Glass” being listed in the same line with “1 Chimney” glass suggest that these few decorations were concentrated in the house’s front room where guests would gather and be most likely to see them, and thus reflect an attempt to craft an outward-facing identity in line with genteel principles of decoration despite limited resources.^[50]

Paintings, or pictures as they were commonly called, appear starting in category three. Paintings in the eighteenth century were most commonly portraits, but could also be scenes designed as conversation pieces that displayed the owner’s tastes and lent the owner the chance to perform one's knowledge of the arts.^[51] Both forms were expensive to commission while also depreciating in value almost immediately, so their social value within genteel culture derived from the opportunity they provided the owner to demonstrate both the refinement of their environment and their mind.^[52] The high cost of decorative art is reflected in the fact that paintings and pictures are absent from all inventories valued below £251.

Where they first appear in category three, Sarah Green’s pictures, like chairs, seem to have been created or arranged in sets with the inventory listing “12 Pictures of the Seasons,” “3 old Maps of the World” and “2 very old Pictures” in separate lines.^[53] These pictures, as well as “1 large looking Glass Gilt frame,” are listed “In the Hall.”^[54] Besides “1 Looking Glass” in “the Chamber,” the concentration of all her paintings and her more decorative and expensive looking glass (valued at £3.10 as opposed to £0.7.6) in the front hall reflect similar motivations and goals as John Coulthard in his use of maps.^[55] Additionally, as depictions of the “Seasons,” Green’s “12 Pictures” were most likely prints instead of paintings, a mass-produced form of art made from a woodblock or metal plates pressing ink on paper that was significantly cheaper than commissioning a painting.^[56] Like James Martin’s pine desk discussed previously, Green’s display of these prints in a similar fashion one would use for portraits and paintings reveals an awareness of and aspiration for the genteel connotations of proper decoration, even if its expression was ultimately tailored due to economic restraints. Green’s collection of pictures is thus another example of those of middling means utilizing their knowledge of genteel material culture to lend themselves an air of refinement through a modified expression of gentility’s key principles.

Looking glasses and pictures remain in consistent use as decoration in categories four through six, though paintings do not become universal until category six, reflecting their high cost. Additionally, in inventories valued above £751, all the decorations discussed above are found in greater frequency throughout the house. For example, William Prentis’ inventory lists “13 Pictures” in the “Dining Room,” “3 Pictures” in “the Nursery,” and “1 Picture” in “Mr. Prentis’s Room.”^[57] Similarly, William Waters’ “1 Carpet” and “2 Pictures” are listed after dishes, separated from the other decorations concentrated at the very beginning of the inventory among fireplace equipment and “15 Walnut” chairs.^[58] William Hunter’s inventory lists pictures and carpets in “the Parlour,” “the Chamber,” and “a Back Room.”^[59] This is a far cry from the examples of John Coulthard or Sarah Green, revealing that while those of lower economic means emulated gentility within their economic constraints, access to wealth allowed for gentility to be expressed consistently, infusing its principles throughout multiple physical spaces and the activities undertaken within them.

An understanding of material culture in its relevance to gentility, then, requires not only an investigation of what objects were valued but how their presentation indicated the owner’s understanding and application of those values. As stated before, the concentration of decorations like pictures and high-value furniture at the front of the house once again indicates wealth as a barrier to the consistent expression of such values in the home. It also reveals, however, the breadth to which understanding of genteel values had spread in early American society so that even those of lesser means could effectively present artifacts of genteel culture in a manner most effective for communicating genteel ideals. Recognizing that the ideals of beauty, order, control, ease, and specialization were so widely understood that they were emphasized through consistent presentations of material goods across inventory categories provides a cultural reason why the materials and quantity of objects considered genteel had become so stratified in an effort to restrict social membership within this culture to the wealthy.

Stratification in the material and quantity of genteel items as a function of refining membership in the genteel class is nowhere more evident than in the ownership of tea equipment across inventory categories. As Rodris Roth explains in “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage” tea drinking initially emerged as an upper-class ritual in the early Americas due to the high cost of tea and its related equipment.^[60] Often taken with guests drawn from one’s peer group, the tea ceremony provided an opportunity for the performance and enforcement of genteel behaviors as participants were made to navigate expectations relating to conversation, bodily carriage, and manipulation of specialized equipment.^[61] However, by the time of these inventories in the mid-eighteenth century, the cost of tea had fallen, making tea and tea equipment popular across all economic levels, reflected in all twenty-three inventories listing at least one teapot or kettle.^[62] No longer differentiated simply through the act of drinking tea, gentility was communicated through the accumulation of more and higher quality tea equipment.

For example, wealthier inventories owned a greater number of tea kettles and pots. Five of the nine inventories valued below £251 list only one tea kettle or teapot, and no inventory lists more than two.^[63] Similarly, in the inventories valued between £251 and £750, four of the eight inventories list one teapot or kettle, however, the most numbered inventory, that of Anna Maria Thornton, lists a total of three kettles and two pots.^[64] In inventories valued over £751, the number of teapots and kettles ranges from William Waters’ two to John Coke’s “3 Tea Kettles” and “7 Tea Pots.”^[65] The ownership of multiple teapots and kettles signals the ability to both host more guests and purchase more tea at once. It also granted the ability to brew and serve tea out of separate vessels, reserving more decorative teapots for the presentation of tea to one’s guests while metal kettles brew tea within the kitchen walls in order to maintain beautification of the space.^[66]

An increase in related tea equipment - such as tea cups and saucers, milk pots, sugar tongs, and teaspoons - follows this same pattern, though with slightly greater variation due to the internal diversity of equipment one could buy to supplement their tea ritual. Tea tables, however, follow a more consistent distribution. In categories five and six, only John Coke lacks a dedicated tea table.^[67] In categories three and four, four of the eight inventories list tea tables or tea boards.^[68] Finally, in categories one and two, John Coulthard’s inventory lists the only tea board and John Jeggitts’ inventory lists the only tea table.^[69]

The specialization of tea tables speaks to the importance of the proliferation of tables in general. The examples of tea tables, backgammon and card tables, and desks previously analyzed reflect a proliferation of ritualized physical spaces. Not owning a card or tea table did not preclude one from engaging in those activities, as reflected by the eleven inventories that list teapots and kettles but no tea table or board.^[70] Owning multiple tables that could be dedicated to specific uses did, however, reflect a genteel awareness of specialization and order in the regimented and measured performance of individual behaviors such tables encouraged. A concentration of specialized tables in the inventories valued above £751 further illustrates greater wealth making their ownership, and thus their social connotations, more attainable while also reinforcing the idea that cost-prohibitive material culture was utilized to restrict the expression of genteel values within one’s environment as knowledge of these values became more widespread.

Another indication of aspirations of gentility seen in food-related equipment is the presence of utensils. Once an upper-class luxury, the presence of forks alongside spoons and knives in all six inventory categories reflects the adoption of food equipment and accompanying genteel values of order and control by the middling and lower classes similar to that seen in the ownership of tea equipment.^[71] However, the increasing number of utensils, as well as their increasing quality of materials, accompanying an increase in overall estate value reflects a more consistent expression of the genteel ideals of bodily control concentrated among the wealthy. For example, only two of the seventeen inventories in those valued under £751 list more than twelve of a single type of utensil.^[72] Additionally, in each of these inventories, unless specifying between soup and teaspoons, each type of utensil is listed and evaluated as a single set. This is opposed to four of the six inventories valued above £751 owning over a dozen of each utensil, ranging from Nathaniel Crawley Jr.’s 13 forks to William Waters’ 54 total knives.^[73]

Looking at material, four of the six inventories in inventories valued over £751 list utensils of higher quality materials meant to elevate both their value and appearance. William Prentis’ inventory lists “horn knives” and “ivory forks,” Nathaniel Crawley Jr’s lists “Silver Table spoons,” William Waters’ lists “Pistol Handle knives,” and William Hunter’s lists “Silver Table [spoons],” “Green handled knives and forks,” and “Ivory handled [knives] and forks.”^[74] Of the seventeen inventories valued under £750, only three inventories indicate such quality, with Anna Maria Thornton’s inventory listing “Silver Table Spoons,” Sarah Green’s inventory listing “forks Ivory handled,” and Thomas Burfoot’s inventory listing “Silver Spoons.”^[75] The high cost of these specialized and ornamented materials, as well as their concentration in inventories of greater value, illustrate that the complete expressions of gentility were more attainable by those with the resources able to make large expenditures on such items.

Additionally vital in the control and separation of an individual from their eating environment were napkins and tablecloths. More obviously functions of table beautification, patterned or dyed tablecloths added aesthetic interest to an otherwise plain wooden surface. However, these tablecloths also added a degree of separation between the food and the table, much like utensils provided between food and the diner. Napkins further emphasized the expected cleanliness of the user and table, providing a personalized, discrete and controlled opportunity to rid oneself of accidental spills and crumbs. Like the other artifacts of gentility discussed herein, tablecloths and napkins increase in both frequency and quality alongside the value of estate inventories, indicative both of their cost and the use of more specialized items by the upper class to restrict the full expression of genteel values such as beautification to a limited few. Resultantly, a single inventory valued under £100, that of Ann Wright, lists such textiles, with “2 Table Cloths” and only “4 Napkins” being valued at £.0.11.8.^[76] Compare this to the “23 Diaper Napkins” of William Prentis’ £2,318.10.9 ¾ estate, valued at £2.6, and it becomes clear that greater wealth, in facilitating the dressing of more place settings with napkins at once, allowed for a more consistent and public show of gentility at the table.^[77]

In the inventories valued over £751, the size of tablecloths is also denoted. Edmund Tabb, for example, owned a total of four “Large Table Cloth[s],” with each being valued at an entire pound, and William Waters owned “6 large” and “3 very large” tablecloths, suggesting different cloths being bought and used for tables of different sizes.^[78] Thus, tablecloths would not only be used at the formal dining table, but perhaps on a tea table, lending separation, beauty, and an air of refinement to multiple eating experiences and achieving an expression of genteel values consistently across multiple activities.

 Not only were these textiles expensive in their initial purchase, but the frequent contact of tablecloths and napkins with grease, sauces, and crumbs from meals necessitated continued monetary investment in the form of “soap, hot water, bleaching ground, [and] “smoothing irons,” as well as in physical labor, to keep them clean and presentable.^[79] Such an investment is exemplified by Edmund Tabb’s “Box with hard Soap” valued at £1.6, a cost greater than both Ann Wright and Sarah Green’s respective napkins and tablecloths.^[80] Consequently, consistent use of such objects in the crafting of a genteel eating experience would have been easier to accomplish by those of greater overall wealth.

Similar to beautifying and controlling one’s environment, material goods facilitated and marked one’s ability to beautify and control the body through personal grooming. Though not as ubiquitous as card tables or tea sets, furniture specifically made for grooming made attention to personal appearance possible. Grooming furniture does not appear until category four, with three of the four inventories listing a “Dressing Table” or “Box.”^[81] Four dressing tables are found in categories five and six.^[82] Five of the six inventories valued over £751 also list dressing glasses among their inventories, a distinction separating these mirrors from the looking glasses found in all five inventories.^[83] In William Hunter’s inventory, an even more specialized grooming tool, a “Stand Bason and Mugg,” was listed within an “Upstairs” room.^[84]

In addition to reflecting their high cost, the confinement of grooming furniture to the upper categories signifies the incompatibility of a manicured appearance with labor-intensive daily life. Thus, for those whose estates were listed in categories five and six - a grouping in which only one of the six inventories list tools of a labor-intensive trade as discussed at the beginning of the paper - their ability to partake in grooming rituals facilitated by such grooming furniture signals their ability to abstain from strenuous and personally dirtying labor. Additionally, four of the six inventories listing grooming furniture also list napkins among their textiles, reflecting the fact that increased purchasing power facilitated consideration of one’s appearance and bodily cleanliness in multiple areas of daily life.^[85] While members of the middling class used the values present in genteel material culture to negotiate their inclusion in the genteel class elsewhere, as seen in their use of desks and decoration, the upper class’ use of grooming furniture provides an example of genteel material culture used to limit inclusion by ascribing genteel principles to furniture only compatible with a privileged lifestyle.

The location of these expensive dressing tables among bedroom furniture also illustrates a consistent expression of gentility within the house. Like decorations found in interior rooms of a home, the use of furniture specifically designed for crafting a genteel appearance within one’s most private chambers reveals attention to maintaining the tenets of gentility even when no public was present to see it. Additionally, the ritual use of this furniture demanded would have transformed the bedroom into a space of preparation, forcing considerations of proper genteel appearance and deportment into the mind of the individual long before they stepped into the company of others.^[86] Gentility was thus reinforced not just as a performance, but as a mindset and perspective meant to guide one’s every action.

Evidence of personal grooming is present in inventories valued below £500, though the grooming objects are of lesser quality and more limited in use. Six of these thirteen inventories list “flatt” or “sad irons” despite having no grooming furniture.^[87] These irons, used to smooth wrinkles in clothes, show that an awareness and intentional crafting of one’s physical appearance was present among members of all economic levels. While the “Yarn” and  “Cotton” garments found in the lower inventories are not the ideal materials for genteel clothing, their owners recognized that even poorer quality clothing could be somewhat elevated through ironing.^[88] However, without the dressing glasses and tables of the upper inventories, the same attention could not be paid to the “small” but “brilliant touches of adornment” that emphasized the individual’s effortless command of genteel appearance.^[89] In grooming equipment, the tension of genteel identity is once again evident with those securely in its confines restricting membership through expensive and numerous material goods while those at its edges utilized less expensive alternatives to pursue the expression of similar values. However, as the specialized nature of genteel performance demanded consistent expressions of beauty, ease, order, and control throughout the house, grooming equipment provides an example of the limits of negotiating inclusion in the genteel class imposed by a lack of wealth and the inability to fully participate in genteel material culture.

Across the eighteenth-century estate inventories analyzed above, the pursuit of genteel identity is reflected in the number, placement, and quantity of objects within the house. Acting as props in the social performance of gentility, household items were used to communicate the owners’ understanding of the tenets of order, control, beauty, ease, and specialization highly valued within this culture. However, access to wealth facilitated more plentiful and consistent expressions of these principles within the home by allowing for both higher quality and more numerous objects to be purchased. Understanding the positive relationship between wealth and consistent genteel presentation of oneself and home is a vantage point for understanding material culture as a tool utilized in constructing the boundaries of genteel identity. Providing opportunities for both expanding and limiting that identity, gentility’s reliance on material goods for the expression of social values created a culture that was at once highly restrictive and permeable. Analyzing trends in the type, quantity, and quality of objects listed in estate inventories across several categories of overall value, then, reveals the tension between understanding gentility’s principles and one’s ability to fully articulate them that worked to maintain the culture’s exclusivity despite increasing participation in it.

^[1] Richard Lyman Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, and Cities (New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992), xiv-xv.

^[2] Bushman, The Refinement of America, xiv.

^[3] Bushman, Refinement of America, xv-xvi.

^[4] Cary Carson, Face Value: The Consumer Revolution and the Colonizing of America (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2017), 13.

^[5] Bushman, Refinement of America, 96.

^[6] Bushman, Refinement of America, 19.

^[7] Carson, Face Value, 115-123.

^[8] Bushman, Refinement of America, 96.

^[9] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 109.

^[10] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 110.

^[11] Inventory Estate of Lewis Bolton, York County Virginia, December 1, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[12] Inventory Estate of Samuel Roberts, York County Virginia, February 15, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[13] Inventory Estate of Joseph Nisbett, York County Virginia, June 24, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[14] Bushman, Refinement of America, 57.

^[15] Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, May 31, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[16] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[17] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 105.

^[18] See the inventories of Lewis Bolton (12/1/60, £26.18.6), Samuel Roberts (8/15/68, £51.14.3), John Jeggitts (6/19/69, £74.13.3), and Matthew Jones (1/17/63, £155.10.6).

^[19] Inventory Estate of Nathaniel Crawley, Jr, York County Virginia, November 22, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[20] See the inventories of Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4), John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9), Thomas Burfoot (7/17/58, £143.18.0), and Joseph Nisbett (6/24/62, £104.14.6).

^[21] See the inventories of Sarah Green (5/21/59, £338.17.2), Robert Thurmer (5/31/58, £386.0.3), John Shield (6/16/70, £412.1.1 ½), Lawson Burfoot (10/21/65, £533.18.3), Simon Whitaker (5/18/67, £602.13.2 ½), Benjamin Catton (11/21/68, £639.3.0), and Anna Maria Thornton (5/18/61, £663.13.6).

^[22] See the inventories of William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5) and Nathaniel Crawley, Jr (11/22/69, £1,765.2).

^[23] See the inventories of Joseph Nisbett (6/24/62, £104.14.6) and Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4).

^[24] Inventory Estate of Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, November 21, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[25] Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[26] Bushman, Refinement of America, 80.

^[27] Bushman, Refinement of America, 90, 96.

^[28] Bushman, Refinement of America, 96.

^[29] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[30] Inventory Estate of Samuel Roberts, York County Virginia, August 15, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[31] See the inventories of Samuel Roberts (8/15/68, £51.14.3), Joseph Pullett (5/25/67, £83.13.6 ½), Thomas Burfoot (8/21/58, £143.18), Joseph Nisbett (6/24/62, £104.14.6), and Sarah Green (4/01/51, £338.17.2).

^[32] Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[33] Bushman, Refinement of America, 85.

^[34] See the inventories of Joseph Pullet (5/25/67, £83.13.6 ½), John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9), William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5).

^[35] See the inventories of William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5), and James Martin (3/16/67, £292.12.9).

^[36] Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullett, York County Virginia, May 25, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[37] Rosemary Troy Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 1620-1860: A Handbook for Interpreters (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2001), 55.

^[38] Kevin M. Sweeney, “High-Style Vernacular: Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1994), 8.

^[39] Inventory Estate of Lewis Bolton, York County Virginia, December 1, 1760. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[40] For inventories under £500, see those of Joseph Pullet (5/25/67, £83.13.6 ½), John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9), James Martin (3/16/67, £292.12.9) and Sarah Green (5/21/59, £338.17.2).  For inventories over £501, see those of William Prentis (10/21/65, £2,318.10.9¾), William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8), William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5), Lawson Burfoot (10/21/65, £533.18.3), and Simon Whitaker (5/18/67, £602.13.2 ½).

^[41] For those over £501, see the inventories of Nathaniel Crawley Jr (11/22/69, £1,765.2.0), Edmund Tabb (4/10/62, £1,214.10.6), and John Coke (2/5/68, £772.18.1). For inventories under £500, see those of Sarah Green (5/21/59, £338.17.2), Robert Thurmer (5/31/58, £386.0.3), John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9), Joseph Pullett (5/25/67, £83.13.6 ½), Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4), and John Jeggitts (6/19/69, £74.13.3).

^[42] See the inventories of Nathaniel Crawley Jr. (11/22/69, £1,765.2.0), Edmund Tabb (4/10/62, £1,214.10.6), John Coke (2/5/68, £772.18.1), and William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8). 

^[43] Carson, Face Value, 93.

^[44] Inventory Estate of Simon Whitaker, York County Virginia, May 18. 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Benjamin Catton, York County Virginia, November 21, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[45] Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of James Martin, York County Virginia, March 16, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, February 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[46] Bushman, Refinement of America, 96.

^[47] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 84.

^[48] Inventory Estate of John Jeggitts, York County Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of Joseph Pullett, York County Virginia, May 25, 1767. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[49] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 244.

^[50] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[51] Margaretta M. Lovell, “Painters and Their Customers,” in Art in a Season of Revolution: Painters, Artisans, and Patrons in Early America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 10; Bushman, Refinement of America, 87.

^[52] Lovell, “Painters and Their Customers,” 21.

^[53] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[54] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[55] Inventory Estate of Sarah Green, York County Virginia, May 21, 1759. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[56] Krill, Early American Decorative Arts, 244.

^[57] Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[58] Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[59] Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[60] Rodris Roth, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage,” in Material Life in America, 1600-1860, ed. Robert Blair St. George (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 441.

^[61] Roth, “Tea-Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America,” 446.

^[62] T. H. Breen, “‘Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century,” in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1994), 451.

^[63] For inventories listing teakettles or pots, see those of John Jeggitts (6/19/69, £74.13.3), Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4), Samuel Roberts (8/15/68, £51.14.3), Lewis Bolton (12/1/60, £26.18.6), and John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9). The inventories containing two teakettles are those of Thomas Burfoot (7/17/58, £143.18.0), Matthew Jones (1/17/63, £155.10.6), and Joseph Pullet (5/25/67, £83.13.6½).

^[64] See the inventories of Sarah Green (5/21/59, £338.17.2), Robert Thurmer (5/3/58, £386.0.3), Benjamin Catton (11/21/68, £639.3.0), John Shield (6/16/70, £412.1.1½), and Anna Maria Thornton (5/18/61, £663.13.6).

^[65] Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of John Coke, York County Virginia, February 5, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[66] Roth, “Tea-Drinking in EIghteenth-Century America,” 447.

^[67] Inventory Estate of John Coke, York County Virginia, February 5, 1768. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[68] See the inventories of Lawson Burfoot (10/21/65, £533.18.3), Sarah Green (5/21/59, £338.17.2), Robert Thurmer (5/31/58, £386.0.3), and James Martin (3/16/67, £292.12.9).

^[69] Inventory Estate of John Coulthard, York County Virginia, June 21, 1756. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of John Jeggitts, York County Virginia, June 19, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[70] See the inventories of Joseph Pullett (5/25/67, £83.13.6½), Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4), Samuel Roberts (8/15/68, £51.14.3), Lewis Bolton (12/1/60, £26.18.6), Joseph Nisbett (6/24/62, £104.14.6), Matthew Jones (1/17/63, £155.10.6), Thomas Burfoot (7/17/58, £143.18.0), John Shield (6/16/70, £412.1.1½), Benjamin Catton (11/21/68, £639.3.0), Simon Whitaker (5/18/67, £602.13.2½) and Anna Maria Thornton (5/18/61, £663.13.6).

^[71] Bushman, Refinement of America, 77-78.

^[72] See the inventories of Joseph Pullett (5/25/67, £83.13.6½) and Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4).

^[73] See the inventories of Nathaniel Crawley Jr. (11/22/69, £1,765.2.0), William Prentis (10,21,65, £2,318.10.9¾), William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8), and John Coke (2/5/68, £772.18.1).

^[74] See the inventories of William Prentis (10/21/65, £2,318.10.9 ¾), Nathaniel Crawley Jr. (11/22/69, £1,765.2), William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.3), and William Hunter (8/24/61, £892.18.5).

Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[75] See the inventories of Anna Maria Thornton (12/03/60, £663.13.6), Sarah Green (4/01/59, £338.17.2), and Thomas Burfoot (8/21/58, £143.18).

^[76] Inventory Estate of Ann Wright, York County Virginia, February 21, 1757. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[77] Inventory Estate of William Prentis, York County Virginia, October 21, 1765. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[78] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation; Inventory Estate of William Waters, York County Virginia, August 21, 1769. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[79] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth (New York City: Vintage Books, 2002), 113.

^[80] Inventory Estate of Edmund Tabb, York County Virginia, April 10, 1762. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[81] See the inventories of Anna Maria Thornton (5/18/61, £663.13.6), Lawson Burfoot (10/21/65, £533.18.3), and Benjamin Catton (11/21/68, £639.3.0).

^[82] See the inventories of William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8), William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5), and Edmund Tabb (4/10/62, £1,214.10.6).

^[83] See the inventories of William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8), William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5), Nathaniel Crawley Jr. (11/22/69, £1,765.2.0), Edmund Tabb (4/10/62, £1,214.10.6), and William Prentis (10/21/65, £2,318.10.9¾).

^[84] Inventory Estate of William Hunter, York County Virginia, November 16, 1761. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[85] See the inventories of Anna Maria Thornton (5/18/61, £663.13.6), William Waters (8/21/69, £810.16.8), William Hunter (11/16/61, £892.18.5), and Edmund Tabb (4/10/62, £1,214.10.6).

^[86] Carson, Face Value, 92.

^[87] See the inventories of Lewis Bolton (12/1/60, £26.18.6), Joseph Pullett (5/25/67, £83.13.6½), Ann Wright (2/21/57, £96.13.4), John Coulthard (6/21/56, £212.2.9), James Martin (3/16/67, £292.12.9), and Simon Whitaker (5/18/67, £602.13.2½).

^[88] Inventory Estate of Robert Thurmer, York County Virginia, May 31, 1758. Williamsburg Digital Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

^[89] Bushman, The Refinement of America, 71.