Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

The first stage of the Wetherburn Tavern kitchen refurnishing is almost complete. Using the 1760 Wetherburn inventory as a guide, inappropriate objects were removed and replaced with items listed on the kitchen inventory. Other small items, perhaps considered too incidental or worthless to be listed on the inventory, but still necessary for the operation of the kitchen also were added. Eventually, objects not currently in the collection, but listed on the inventory, will be acquired to complete the kitchen refurnishing.

Since almost all of the new objects installed in the kitchen are antiques, we will be putting together a "touch-it" box of small reproductions for Lanthorn Tour leaders to use in their interpretation. A notebook of curator cards for all the objects in the kitchen and laundry will be available in the closet of the kitchen for quick reference. Debbie Lundeen also will have a copy of the notebook.

It should be pointed out that, although these adjustments have brought the furnishings of the kitchen in closer alignment with the inventory, considerably more work needs to be done with regard to identification of some of the inventory items and the actual arrangement of furnishings in the kitchen/laundry spaces. This will be undertaken as time allows.

Due to the excessive wear they are receiving I will be removing the brass candle arms from the chimney glass in the Bullhead Room within the next few days. On every visit I find the arms bent in a new direction, probably from visitors leaning against the chimney breast. While the arms are reproductions, my concern is that the glass or the frame may be severely damaged should the brass give way. The arms on the looking glass between the north windows will remain in place since they seem to be protected by the table below.

Candle arms such as these would have been taken to the kitchen the morning after each use (along with the candlesticks) to be cleaned. Should interpreters be questioned about the absent arms, I suggest that they use this opportunity to point out one of the regularly required chores associated with living by candle light.

Please pass this information on to your interpreters, and call on me should you have any questions.

In order to bring the furnishings at Wetherburn's Tavern more in line with what is indicated by the 1760 inventory of Henry Wetherburn's estate, we have made the following changes within the building:

Room over the Bull Head—Previously we had installed in this area two mahogany high-post beds made in Boston and intended for domestic rather than commercial use. In their place we have substituted two low-post beds which are more in keeping with the inventory reference that calls for two beds with no hangings and worth only L2/10/0 and L3 a piece. With these changes this room has been brought into line with the furnishings called for by the inventory, i.e., a public sleeping area with inexpensive furnishings and little privacy.

Passage Chamber—We have removed one bed from this area (referred to as the Porch Chamber in the inventory). This deletion means that the number of beds for the room is correct according to the inventory. We have also moved the chamber pots into this space.

Middle Room—Prior to the experiment this room had been interpreted as the private club room. We believe that the interpretive statement should be changed so as to present this room as it was more than likely used during Henry Wetherburn's tenure, that is, as the tavern's public dining room. As noted in our memo of November 9, 1984, this no doubt would have been the room's use prior to the 1751 addition, and it would have continued to serve such a function afterward. The Great Room would have served for private gatherings given the high value of its furnishings.

No major furnishings changes need to be made in the Middle Room (although some long-term acquisitions will be our goal to make it more accurate). However, we have installed a tavern rate schedule on the wall as would have been required by law.

We are excited about these changes for Wetherburn's and believe that they make for a more authentic and convincing portrayal of Henry Wetherburn's establishment. If you have any Page 2 questions concerning these changes please feel free to give either of us a call.

On October 21, the furnishings of the Wetherburn's Tavern Laundry were reworked for the tavern experiment and also to better reflect the presence of servants and slaves in this area. Martha Katz-Hyman has written the attached synopsis of our rationale for the refurnishing which we hope will be of use in future interpretations of the space. The permanency of the total present arrangement is unknown, but we hope to preserve many features of it after the completion of the experiment.

RATIONALE FOR REFURNISHING WETHERBURN LAUNDRY

In accordance with the plans for the interpretive experiment scheduled for Wetherburn's Tavern for October 23-November 3rd, the laundry area of the Kitchen/Laundry outbuilding of the Tavern has been rearranged to more accurately reflect a laundry area, as well as an area which could have been a black work area/gathering space.

In furnishing the area as a laundry space, the inventory of the tavern was consulted, as were several mid-eighteenth century Virginia inventories. In addition, a memo of Mary Goodwin to Mrs. Duncan of April 1968, was consulted. (The memo, as well as a summary of the several inventories are attached.) In general, the types of items that would be appropriate to a laundry of that period and place are now in the laundry, including large iron and copper kettles for boiling water, wooden tubs to wash the clothing, a bench, several smaller pails, a table, baskets, ironing blanket and cloth, several types of irons (flat, box, and goffering), a spinning wheel, a clothes horse (for drying clothing), and other small items. All of these objects are shown on a non-laundry day (clothes horse folded and in the corner, tubs and kettles empty and dry, ironing blanket folded and in a basket, irons cool, etc.).

Starting with the promise that when it was not in use as a laundry this space could have been used as a gathering space by slaves owned by Wetherburn as well as slaves and servants of tavern guests, the table reflects a variety of activities that could have gone on here. There are objects related to shoe-mending and harness-polishing, and perhaps some mending of clothing. Plates and spoons are available for a meal, and the open bottle and variety of drinking vessels indicate that drinks were available while small maintenance tasks or other household duties were carried out. A pipe is ready for smoking. On the linen press is the bedroll of a tavern guest's slave, and a hat is tossed there, while someone has hung his waistcoat over the chair, ready to be put on again if needed. Some kitchen equipment and storage items are here too; inventories from this period indicate that laundry areas were often used for kitchen overflow. The quality of the items that the slaves might have used is indicated by the chipped and battered nature of the plates, spoons, mugs, and seating equipment in the room.

Although an iron kettle is shown over the hearth, there is some question regarding the appropriateness of showing cooking in the laundry. It is entirely possible, depending on the season, business of the main kitchen, and whether or not it was laundry day, that a pot of hominy might be heated over a laundry room fire, ready for the slaves to eat. It is just as likely that a pot of hominy or other boiled food for slave/servant consumption was kept going on the kitchen hearth, especially on warmer days.

There is a rough pallet rolled up in the corner, indicating that this room may have been used as a sleeping space for one of Wetherburn's slaves or perhaps for the slave of a tavern guest. In all likelihood, Wetherburn's slaves would have used the attic space over the kitchen, or other free non-public space in the tavern itself.

In rearranging the items in this rather small area, we have tried to take into account the multiple-use nature of the space and the variety of tasks that could have been going on in one day.

Wash House of Ishmael Moody

1 Screen

1 Screen frame & 2 Tables
4 Tubs 3 Pails + 1 Piggen
2 pr. Iron dogs 1 Rat-trap 2 bags feathers wt. 50 lb.

In reply to your phone call yesterday, I will try to answer briefly a few of your questions. Miss Sue Neale of this department is going to prepare a report on laundries.

Like most outbuildings, if we can judge by the inventories (as we must), laundries had all sorts of unexpected things stored in them, regardless of their principal use. Also, if we can judge by the inventories, and the insurance policies on Williamsburg properties, laundries were often attached to or included in the kitchens. For example, of the 26 Williamsburg buildings insured in 1796 with the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia (established in Richmond in 1795), some 14 listed kitchens and gave dimensions, and only 2 noted separate kitchens and laundries. (Some of the policies only insured the main house). The kitchens, all but one of them of wood, insured in 1796, varied somewhat in size, i.e.:

The two buildings insured in 1796 showing separate kitchens and laundries on the policies were as follows:

Apparently some kitchen furniture was often built in, and therefore not listed in inventories; and possibly benches or stands for tubs, and any needed shelving for irons and other laundry equipment, were also built in and not listed. We do not have surviving specifications for Williamsburg outbuildings, but such specifications appear occasionally in the vestry minutes concerning glebe lands belonging to parishes in Virginia. One 1762-1764 example of a kitchen and laundry together appears in the Cumberland Parish minutes as follows:

[August, 1762, directions for "Gleebe Buildings" including] "...the kitchen & Landry 28 by 16 & 9 foot Pitch & a Dairy 12 foot square & 9 foot Pitch."
[In Nov., 1764 the vestry ordered that:]
"...The walls of the kitchen proper be lined wth. ¾ Plank the Floor to be laved wth. tile a dresser & 4 shelves to be fixed up on each side extending from the fire place to each door, the floor of the Landry to be layed with plank, the walls to be lath'd & plastered, a floor to be lay'd up stares & the upper room lathed & plastered, 2 windows at each end of 4 paynes each, a step lather with a rail to it,..."
[Landon C. Bell, ed., Cumberland Parish, Lunenburg Country... (1746-1816) Richmond: 1930, p. 384, 392-3.]

There were comparatively few inventories listing articles in laundries - most of them listed laundry items intermingled with kitchen equipment, further indicating that the kitchen and laundry were often together.

The inventory of Lt. Gov. Francis Fauquier's personal property at the Palace listed together, in what was obviously the Laundry (following the listing of "4 calves"):

"6 Flatt Irons [valued at] 0: 10: 0
1 large Copper [kettle or boiler] 6: 0: 0
2 large Pine Tables & 2 Ironing Blankets 1: 1. 0
1 Mangle 5: 0: 0
2 Horses for Clothes 1: 0: 0"
[And following, probably upstairs, "1 bed and Furniture 4: 0: 0
3 Old Beds 1: 10: 0 2 setts old curtains 2 Blankets & Pillows 3: 0: 0."]

The inventory of articles in the Laundry at the Palace was made following Lord Botetourt's death in 1770, and it included most of the above items:

"Laundry
5 Flat Irons, 2 Box Irons, with one Heater to each,
2 Iron Stands, 1 p^r of Tongs, 1 Large Boyling Copper,
1 Long Stool, 2 pine Tables, 1 Linnen Horse, 1 Mangle,
1 Large Iron pot, 1 Brass Skillet, 2 Linnen Baskets,
3 Washing Tubs, 2 pails, 1 piggin, 4 Mangle Cloaths,
2 Ironing Cloaths, 1 Wooden Funnel, 1 Hair Sieve,
3 Rensing Tubs (1/3 part of a Barrel of Lamp Oyl, a small Quantity of Tar in y^e Cellar adjoyning to the Laundry.)"

With the exception of the mangle (a machine "for rolling and pressing linen and cotton clothing, etc. after washing" which did not appear in other York County or Williamsburg inventories and the 4 Mangle Cloaths,") some of the above would have been found in most laundries. Pine tables were often used for ironing boards, with "Ironing blankets" or "Ironing Cloaths," as mentioned in the Fauquier-Botetourt inventories.

Following some kitchen equipment listed in the Anthony Hay inventory of 1771 at the Raleigh Tavern (where we know the Kitchen and Laundry were separate buildings), kitchen and laundry equipment are listed together - possibly the Laundry was also used to house an overflow from the kitchen. After pot hooks, spit racks pots, pans, etc. were inventoried:

"...
4 Trays 8/, 10 Washing Tubs, and pails 20/ 2 Tin Coffee pots 2 Pine Tables 15/. 2 Copper Coal Skuttles 10/. 2 large Copper Kettles 240/. 1 Kettle Trivit 10/. 5 flat Irons 15/. 1 Cloaths Horse 7/6, 1 large Pine Table 12/6, 26 Pewter Dishes 130/ 10 Dozen and 5 Pewter plates @ 18/ [per doz.] 6 Water Plates 20/, 2 Coolers, 1 Warming Pan 20/, 1 Tin Cistern 5/." [List of stock follows this.]

Although no irons are listed in the Wetherburn Kitchen inventory, there are certain items that were probably used for 4 laundering (although most of them could also have been used for washing dishes, with the exception of the clothes horse). There are several illegible places in the Kitchen inventory, which might have listed irons. The Kitchen inventory included:

"1 Cloaths Horse 0: 10: 0 ...2 Soap Jarrs 0: 12: 0 ... 3 Tubs, 3 Pails 0: 12: 6 2 Kitchen Tables [possibly ironing tables 0: 5: 0.]"

Almost all of the York County inventories included irons of some kind, referred to as box-irons or box-irons-and-heaters, flat-irons, pressing-irons, sad-irons, and smoothing irons. Except for the box-irons, these were flat-irons. The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions of these irons:

"Box-irons,

a smoothing iron with a cavity to contain a heater."
[1746 example cited: "Box-Irons for smoothing Linen-Clothes."] Vol. I, p. 1038.

"Flat-iron,

1. An iron with a flat surface for smoothing linen, etc." [All examples cited here of 19th century.] Vol. IV, p. 296.

"Pressing-iron, (Obs.)

An iron implement used by tailors, dressmakers, laundresses, etc. which is heated and used to press down seams, smooth cloth, and the like; a smoothing-iron." [Examples cited ca. 1343-ca. 1637.] Vol. VIII, p. 1318.

"Sad-iron,

A smoothing iron, properly a solid flat-iron, in contradistinction to a `box-iron'." [Examples cited all 19th century.] Vol. IX, p. 25.

"Smoothing-iron, a flat-iron..."

[1755 example cited from Johnson's dictionary; "Iron, A flat iron, box-iron, or smoothing iron."] Vol. IX, -S. p. 289.

The York County inventories listed numerous tubs, without identifying words, and also beer tubs, butter tubs, cooling tubs, fat tubs, flower (flour) tubs, lye tubs, meal tubs, pickling and powdering [or salting] tubs, soap tubs, upright tubs, washing tubs, and water tubs. The washing tubs were usually listed with irons, clothes horses, etc., and, according to The Oxford English Dictionary a "Wash-tub" was a "tub in which c[lot]hes are 5 washed" [examples cited from 1602-1838]. Vol. XII, p. W-134. The inventories also listed a number of piggins and pails, along with other laundry articles - these probably used for bringing water to the tubs and bailing it out of them. These were both wooden vessels - the Oxford defines a piggin as follows:

"Piggin,

a small pail or cylindrical vessel, esp. a wooden one with one stave longer than the rest serving as a handle; ... [Examples cited 1554-1887. Piggins varied in size according to their use.] Vol. VII, p. 847.

Our abstracts of York County records inventories list references to ironing tables - sometimes pine ironing tables (in the 1750's, -60's and -70's), and one reference to an ironing-board - a 1742 reference in the inventory of Henry Hacker, where, oddly enough, listed in the "PARLOUR" were only:

No "Washboards" were listed in our York County records inventories, nor were they advertised for sale in the Virginia Gazette. The Oxford English Dictionary defined "Washboard" as "U.S. A hardwood board, with a fluted surface…on which washer-women rub clothes in washing" and cited an 1860 example. (Vol. XII, p. W-132.)

I have not been able (in the time I'm giving to this) to figure out what was used to take the place of a washboard - if anything was - in the Williamsburg laundries. The Oxford defines "Battledore" as follows, but I have found no reference to a "battledore," (or a "bat," or a "beetle," mentioned in the definition) in any of the inventories, or in the Virginia Gazette Index or Swem's Index:

"Battledore,

1. A beetle or wooden `bat' used in washing, also (when made cylindrical) for smoothing out or 'mangling' linen clothes..." [Examples cited c. 0-1883.]

Vol. I, p. 708.

As already noted, the mangle that was purchased from Lt. Gov. Fauquier's personal estate at the Palace for the Laundry there is the only mangle listed in our York County inventories. Mangles were not advertised for sale in the Virginia Gazettes, nor are they mentioned in Swem's index. Writing in 1790 from Mount Vernon to Tobias Lear concerning the Morris house which was rented for him in Philadelphia, George Washington mentioned that "Mrs. Morris has a Mangle (I think they are called) for Ironing of Clothes, which, as it is fixed in the place where it is commonly used she proposes to leave, and take mine. To this I have no objection, provided mine is equally good..." (Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XXXI, p. 127.) The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VI, p.M-117) defines "Mangle" as follows, and gives examples of the word from 1774 to 1891:

"Mangle...A machine for rolling and pressing linen and cotton clothing etc. after washing; in its older form, an oblong rectangular wooden chest filled with stones, worked backwards and forwards by a rack and pinion arrangement (or, earlier, by straps wound round a roller worked by a handle), and resting upon two cylinders, which were thus rolled with great pressure over the fabric spread upon a polished table beneath; now consisting of two or more cylinders working one upon another."

Clothes-baskets [defined in the Oxford as "a recepticle for clothes, etc. esp. those for the wash" (Vol. II, p. 524) ] and Clothes-horses [defined as an "upright wooden frame standing upon legs, with horizontal bars on which clothes are hung to dry or air" (Vol. II, p. 525) ] sometimes appeared in inventories with other laundry articles, as indicated in the inventories quoted above.

Starch was imported into Virginia from Great Britain, and also Philadelphia (it was exported from New York and Philadelphia, as well as from Great Britain), and it was probably often also home-made. It was made from rice, or potatoes, and in the colonies sometimes from rice and flour. It was probably mixed with water and heated to a thick consistency, just as it was some years ago, before the various labor-saving starches were packaged. Starch was packaged in paper, or might have been kept in jars or cannisters in 7 a reasonably dry place. It was seldom listed in the York County inventories; although Lt. Gov. Fauquier's inventory at the Palace listed "3 Papers Starch 12 lbs @ 1/3 - - - [£] 0: 15: 0." This was purchased for Lord Botetourt. "50 lb Starch" was listed in the 1st Store Room at the Palace, in Lord Botetourts inventory of 1770, the container or containers not noted. The "Hair Sieve" listed in the Laundry in Lord Botetourt's inventory may have been used for straining starch, which could be lumpy. A cullender could also be used for this purpose.

Bluing may not have been as extensively used to whiten clothes as it is today, although the "1 broken paper of stone blue" and "28 lbs powder'd blue" listed in the 1st Store Room at the Palace, in Lord Botetourt's inventory, were doubtless for whitening linen. George Washington ordered "2 lb. powdered Blue," as well as eight pounds of starch from a London merchant in 1759. "Powder-blue" is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as "Powdered smalt, esp. for use in the laundry." Examples of usage from 1707 to 1823 are cited. [Vol. VII, p. 1211.] "Stone-blue" is defined as a "compound of indigo with starch or whiting, used by laundresses" - examples cited from 1675-1841. An 1832 quotation mentions the "washerwoman's stone-blue bag." [Vol. X, p. 1013.] Although "blue" (probably powdered blue) was advertised for sale by Williamsburg merchants, it does not appear in our York County inventories - possibly neither starch nor bluing were considered worth inventorying in small quantities. If powdered, it was probably kept like starch, in a dry place in a jar or cannister, or in paper, and dissolved in the rinsing water used for white linen, etc.

Black soap, hard soap, Castile soap and Irish soap were advertised for sale in the Virginia Gazettes, and soap was manufactured in Williamsburg in the 1770's. Soft soap may have been used for laundering, although finer soap could have been used for fine laundering. According to Lord Botetourt's inventory, a "barrel & 2 Tubs of soft soap" were in the Smoke House. In the 1st Store Room at the Palace were "2 Boxes Bristol Soap 20 Cakes Soap in another Box." "Soap" was listed in a number of York County inventories - and occasionally hard soap or cakes of soap.

Chamber's Cyclopaedia:. . ., Vol. II (1752) describes the principal soaps as the soft, the hard, and the ball soap. It notes that soap, "sometimes hard and dry, and sometimes soft and liquid" was "much used in washing and whitening linens, and for various other purposes," and describes the making of two kinds of 8 soft soap (green and white), and of hard soap, and ball soap. The first American Encyclopaedia (Philadelphia: 1798) notes that in liquid soaps, green or black soaps, cheaper oils are employed" than are used in white soaps, and describes the processes for making the principal British soaps. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Soft soap" as a "smeary, semi-liquid soap, made with potash and lye" (examples cited 1643-1879). It also cites references to the various kinds of soap as follows [Vol. IX, p. 350, 373]:

"1728...Ball-soap, commonly used in the North, is made with Lyes from Ashes, and Tallow."...
"1704...Black soap, 'tis made with strong Lye... and Whale or Fish-Oil commonly called Train-Oil."...
"1753...Brick-soap, made in oblong pieces..." [probably usually referred to as cakes of soap].
"1704...Soft soap, such as are the common soap, so called, and black soap..."

To sum this up, a Williamsburg laundry or wash-house might contain benches for tubs, a few shelves, or a cupboard or press; washing and rinsing tubs, pails and piggins; a jar or jars for soft soap, cake soap; large boiler for heating water, smaller pots or pans for making starch, and a sieve or cullender for straining it; one or more ironing-tables and ironing-blankets (according to the size of the room); box and flat irons of various sizes, a clothes-horse, clothes-basket, and possibly one or two lines; a table and two or three chairs or stools; and anything else that might overflow into it from the kitchen or scullery.

I hope this will answer some of your immediate problems in furnishing the two laundries; Miss Neale's report will, I am sure, have much more to offer.

In order to bring the furnishings at Wetherburn's Tavern more in line with what is indicated by the 1760 inventory of Henry Wetherburn's estate, we would like to make the following changes within the building:

Room over the Bull Head — At present we have installed in this area two mahogany high-post beds made in Boston and intended for domestic rather than commercial use. In their place we would like to substitute two low-post beds which would be more in keeping with the inventory reference which calls for two beds with no hangings and worth only £2/10/0 and £3 apiece. With these changes this room will be brought into line with the furnishings called for by the inventory, i. e., a public sleeping area with inexpensive furnishings and no privacy.

Passage Chamber — We will be removing one bed from this area (referred to as the Porch Chamber in the inventory). While the bed is needed for the Room over the Bull Head, this deletion will mean that the number of beds for the room will be correct according to the inventory.

Middle Room — This room at present is interpreted as the private club room. After talking with Conny Graft, Pat Gibbs, Debbie Lundeen, and Mark R. Wenger today, we propose that the interpretive statement for this room be changed so as to present this room as it was more than likely used during Henry Wetherburn's tenure, that is, as the tavern's public dining room. As noted in our memo of November 9, 1984, this no doubt would have been how the room would have been used prior to the 1751 addition, and would have continued to serve such a function afterward. The Great Room would have been the space reserved for private gatherings given the high value of its furnishings.

No furnishing changes need to be made in this room (although some long-term acquisitions will be our goal to make the Middle Room more accurate). However, we do propose the installation of a tavern rate schedule on the wall as would have been required by law.

If these changes are agreeable with you, we will make these alterations on October 21 and 22 when the tavern is closed for the experiment set-up. We are both excited by this opportunity to correct several furnishings problems at Wetherburn's and look forward to hearing from you.

For a long time we have planned to move certain items from Wetherburn's Tavern (as inappropriate for a Williamsburg Tavern). The development of exhibition plans for the Wallace Gallery has provided us with the opportunity to proceed with this. This has prompted Ron Hurst and Betty Leviner to take another look at Henry Wetherburn's original estate inventory. They undertook this project in the hope that some of the blanks in the previous transcription could be filled in, consequently giving us a better overview of the tavern as it existed in 1760: I should add that they have done this work on their own time (in addition to the M.A. Theses they are both working on!)

The results of their labors are contained not only in the updated transcription of the 18th century inventory, which you will find attached, but also in their accompanying memo which gives a room-by-room analysis of the conclusions they have reached about Henry Wetherburn's establishment. I think there emerges from their research a clearer understanding of the hierarchy of rooms within the tavern and a better grasp of their appearance.

I will be interested in your reactions to the attached memo and transcription and wonder if some of you might be interested in meeting in a month or so to discuss both of these items.

On January 3, 1985, we will be making several changes to the furnishings at Wetherburn's Tavern. Some of these alterations have to do with planning for the Wallace Gallery, but primarily we are taking this opportunity to bring the furnishings of several rooms more closely in line with Henry Wetherburn's 1760 inventory.

To begin, we attach a copy of Margaret's October 29 memo describing her conclusions regarding the types of prints that would have been at Wether-burn's establishment at the time of his death (a copy of the memo with all its appendices will be placed in the tavern for your reference). As you will note, there were no prints upstairs, and the only first-floor rooms that contained prints were the Bullhead, the Middle Room, and the Great Room. Within these three spaces there was an obvious hierarchy of furnishings which is reflected in the prints' descriptions and valuations. Consequently, Margaret has decided to remove all the prints from the second floor and install appropriate prints in the three rooms mentioned on the first floor. Her memo describes in detail how she arrived at her conclusions regarding the types and framing methods appropriate for these objects. It should be noted that eighteenth-century taverns rarely, if ever, furnished the upstairs rooms with prints.

The other changes that will be made at the tavern will involve the three, principal, first-floor rooms. In the Middle Room we will be replacing the small corner cupboard with a much larger one. Recent study of the inventory has made it clear that there were no cupboards in any of the other rooms, but a damaged entry for the Middle Room ("1 Large Blackwal[nut] [torn]" valued at "4/0/0") was for a large piece of case furniture, quite possibly the cupboard where Wetherburn stored his ceramics and glass. Since no cupboard is listed for the Great Room, we have decided to incorporate the contents of the casepiece currently in that room with the contents of the cupboard in the Middle Room. Also, four chairs will be removed from the Great Room and installed in the Middle Room to bring the number of chairs in both spaces in line with the inventory.

In the west front entrance, we will be removing the wall cupboard now installed there. No mention is made of this piece in the inventory, and we assume that the space was indeed empty in the eighteenth century. Actually Page 2 it makes little sense to store valuable silver next to a street-front door where it would have been vulnerable to theft. The silver will be transferred to the glazed desk and bookcase in the Bullhead Room where it may well have been in the first place and where it can still be seen by the public. The removal of the cupboard from the west front entrance will also allow for the west door of the Middle Room to be opened and closed as needed; the presence of the cupboard now makes the door inoperable.

The Great Room will also be brought more in line with the inventory through the changes that we will be making. The number and size of the dining tables will be changed to match the two large and six small examples listed in the inventory. Also, as mentioned above, four of the side chairs will be put in to the Middle Room. One of the small tables will be set up with a cloth and place setting for one diner to illustrate the room's interpretation as the public dining room for the tavern.

We believe that these changes will give the tavern a more believable appearance. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact one of us.

The inventory of Henry Wetherburn, taken in December of 1760, indicates prints in three locations. In the "Bull head" room, there were "8 Prints" at 0.16.0, in the "Mid" [dle Room] there were "8 Large Prints" at 0.8.0, and in the "Great Room" there were "14 Small Prints" at 3.0.0 and "10 Maps" at 1.0.0. Ron Hurst and Betty Leviner have recently examined the inventory and have confirmed the previously illegible entries. When divided up, the prints in the Bull head room were valued at 2/ each, the prints in the middle Room at 1/ each, and the prints in the Great Room at 4/ each. The difference in value of the prints also corresponds to the differences in the value of the other furnishings within these rooms as well.

In order to help me determine what created the variables, I went through all of the references that I could lay my hands on and that gave any specifics and then charted them in the following attachment. Of course, there are the usual risks in dealing with inventories, and many of these references are from inventories which give no idea of the age or condition of the objects and rarely are they specific as to titles. In addition, there is the problem of how objects were valued. Nonetheless, from my evaluation of all these references, I am led to believe that coloring a plain print increased its value by ¼ to ½, and framing, when glass is specified, at the minimum doubled the cost.

We have ample evidence for framing with no glass. Nicholas Flood's inventory of 1776 lists "5 prints in frames without Glasses—.1.—". William Burnett, Esquire, who was Governor of Massachusetts and died in 1729, had in his home "17 Masentinto prints in frames 4/: 3DO. that are glazed 10/." In a 1775 advertisement for his looking glass store (printed in the New York Journal or the General Advertiser), Minshull states that he sells "an elegant assortment of frames, without Glass." In 1941 we acquired from Joe Kindig 5 battle scenes, all of which had been attached to boards and varnished. Wallace Gusler indicated that there was evidence that these had been placed directly into the frames with no glass. Finally, print sources such as "La Gazette de Londre" (attachment 2) occasionally illustrate a torn print which is framed.

What I have attempted to do in this survey is to find ways to represent the different print values in the tavern. Raleigh and Wetherburn's are the only two exhibition buildings in town which list prints 2 with a valuation. Many of the techniques used in the eighteenth century to hang prints affect their monetary value. However, given the fact that we are generally dealing with antiques, many of these techniques have to be ruled out. Program Planning has approved the direct nailing of reproduction prints to the walls. We are compiling suitable maps and prints now, but the process is slow. The Wetherburn's entries list prints in numbers that suggest sets; therefore, for at least the two most expensive rooms I would like to use antiques.

To illustrate the "14 Small Prints" in the Great Room (more than 4 s. ea), the room where the most expensive furniture in the tavern is located, I am recommending a set of small horse prints (attachment #3). Given the emphasis on horse-racing in Virginia, and the fact that print sources indicate that horse prints were popular in taverns, I feel that these are our best alternatives. I have included 2 sources that illustrate that this type of horse print was hung on the wall (attachments 4 & 5). To indicate the higher value even though they are small, I think that they should be framed in simple gilt frames with glass.

For the 8 prints in the Bull head room valued at 2/ each, I am recommending that we use heads. After horses and maps, the third most popular subject matter for taverns that I have been able to ascertain is portraits. The ones that I have selected (attachment #6) are of medium to small size and by 1760 would have been relatively old (c. 1740). These particular heads, engraved in England, are a type likely to have been exported to the colonies. Thomas Smyth, for example, was the first governor of the East India Company and obtained the charter for the Virginia Company in 1609. I would frame these in plain black frames to indicate, along with the fact that they are older, a less expensive object than the giltframed horses.

To illustrate the inexpensive prints listed in the Middle Room, at 1/ each, I am recommending varnished prints in frames. They are referred to as "Large" in the inventory. The following reference, involving an order of John Overlove through Norton & Son, gives an idea of what was termed "large":

Anything varnished would, of course, have to be a reproduction, which has previously been approved for these purposes. I would like to suggest Hogarth's "Four Times of the Day," "Strolling Actresses in a Barn," and "Before and After." You will notice from the following advertisement in the London Daily Post that these prints were also referred to as "large."

"Mr. HOGARTH Proposes to Publish by Subscription, FIVE large Prints from Copper-Plates, now engraving (and in great forwardness) after his own Paintings, viz. four representing, in a humerous Manner, Morning, Noon, Evening, and Night; and the fifth, a Company of Strolling Actresses dressing themselves for the Play in a Barn. Half a Guinea to be paid at the Time of Subscribing, and Half a Guinea more on the Delivery of the Prints. The Pictures, and those Prints already engrav'd, may be view'd at the Golden Head in Leicester Fields, where Subscriptions are taken in. - Note, After the Subscription is over, the Price will be rais'd to five Schillings each Print, and no copies will be made of them."

As I stated previously, anything large, representing 1 s. would have to be uncolored. Hogarth prints were rarely colored in the eighteenth century. Varnished reproductions would also make a good interpretive device.

When all three rooms are considered jointly, the prints and the differences in their appearance will provide a good basis for comparison for the interpreters in explaining how prints were displayed in the eighteenth century. With the changes I have proposed in this memo, not only will the tavern be made more authentic in terms of the number of prints that would have been at Wetherburn's in December of 1760, but also it will be more authentic in terms of the values assigned to these prints by the inventory. I will be quite interested in hearing your reaction to the changes I have outlined above.

Having discussed for some time the need to re-examine the original court copy of Henry Wetherburn's estate inventory, we visited the York County courthouse on September 11 and went over the document thoroughly. Using a magnifying glass to help identify fragmentary letters and words on the sometimes heavily damaged original, we found that we were able to fill in a number of the areas that have been labeled "torn" or "illegible" in past transcriptions. Often identification was simply a matter of analyzing fragmentary pen strokes and comparing them with undamaged examples elsewhere in the text.

As part of our subsequent analysis, we have also realized that the four men who compiled Wetherburn's inventory were quite consistent in the way they listed his goods. In each room they grouped like objects together: all tables, all chairs, all wall ornaments, etc. Consequently, we have been able to make educated guesses about several of the torn-out entries by examining the listing context and the entries' values (which usually survive).

As a result of all this, we have prepared a new transcription of Wetherburn's inventory, a copy of which is attached. Note that letters which appear in normal type were clearly legible, while those in italics were fragmentary but definitely decipherable with the magnifying glass. Letters or words that appear in brackets alone represent those which were completely missing or illegible but whose identity was extremely obvious from context (for example, cha[i]rs). Entries that appear in brackets with a question mark represent the educated guesses mentioned above which are based on an understanding of the appraisers' listing practices and the surviving values.

This exercise has given us a new understanding of Wetherburn's Tavern and pointed up some significant room hierarchies which, we believe, have been unnoticed until now. We also believe that several of the rooms are incorrectly located as the tavern is now exhibited. To explain these points, a room-by-room discussion follows.