Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Raleigh Tavern - 1st Floor

Raleigh Tavern - 2nd Floor

Per your request, I have done some probing into the likely candidates for staying at the Raleigh Tavern and the types of services that would have been available. I have spoken to Pat Gibbs several times, scanned the Charlton account book, looked at numerous tavern scenes, read several secondary sources (including "The History of Salem Tavern" which was filled with primary references), and, as you know, read advertisements in the Virginia Gazette, all of this with the hope of finding some clues to help us. The following is what I have for now. Perhaps with more time, research into personal account books and diaries will expand on these ideas.

Summation of talks with Pat Gibbs

Who stayed at the Raleigh tavern?

Negative evidence suggests that the well-known figures, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc., did not stay over night at the Raleigh Tavern. While there is evidence that they came to the tavern to eat, drink, game or meet, they did not lodge there. Pat suggests that the Raleigh was too loud and busy to allow for a good night's sleep. There is also no evidence that students in the eighteenth century were staying at the Raleigh Tavern (however we do know that they stayed there in the nineteenth century).

She also believes that it is unlikely that merchants, burgesses, or any traveler who regularly frequented the town and was acquainted with the Raleigh (and therefore its noise) would have lodged there.

The people staying at the Raleigh Tavern were probably: 1) not repeat visitors 2) not staying for long periods 3) perhaps foreigners or non-Virginians who had heard about the Raleigh but did not know of its sleeping conditions and/or 4) first timers.

What types of special services were available for these visitors?

Hot water for shaving and bathing.
Clothes sent out to be laundered.
Private meals.

Charlton Account Book

While it is clear from the account book that Charlton was servicing out-of-towners, the account book gives no clues to the possibility of Charlton servicing these clients any place other than his shop.

Tavern Scenes

Graphics illustrating tavern bedchambers are of very little help. Those that were found were either nineteenth century, or suggested rented, long-term lodging rather than short-term lodging for travelers.

"History of Salem Tavern"

This summary of the establishment of a tavern in Salem, North Carolina is of some help. (of course, we must keep in mind the religious nature of this town.)

While special services such as hot water for bathing and shaving must have been available in many taverns, little actual documentation can be found. One reference found here is of interest:

"Day before yesterday two men arrived from Kentucky Settlement, going as Deputies to the Assembly. They spent the night in the Tavern, and yesterday as they were leaving they stole Br. Meyer's spectacles, and also stole a razor from Schober, who had shaved them..."

"Br. Meyer has spoken with Br. Graff and begged earnestly that we should make provision for their two oldest children as they cannot keep them longer without harm to their souls."

It is also interesting to note that the "Instructions for the Host of the Salem Tavern" specify:

"That the Host is allowed to take in traveling pedlars, but he is not allowed to give anyone, be he stranger or acquaintance, a separate room to sell his wares. They must remain in the guest room. If they do not wish to exhibit their wares there, they must go elsewhere..."

Virginia Gazette

It is clear from the advertisements that the Raleigh Tavern was definitely a meeting place for merchants, businessmen, and politicians. It is also evident that "the famous people" did come to the tavern for entertainment. Several advertisements give some indication of the types of people who were lodging at the tavern.

"This is to give notice that the executors of Colonel Charles Carter, deceased, will attend at Mr. Anthony Hay's in Williamsburg, from the 1st until the 6th day of May next, to receive the payments then due...(March 31, 1768)

"...He also stole and carried with him a pair of new leather boots...He has been traced as far as Mr Anthony Hay's in Williamsburg. where he quartered on the Thursday night following...(December 24, 1767)

"The Subscriber, who lodges at Mr. Finnie's in Williamsburg , teaches the Art of Fencing, Dancing, and French Tongue; and is ready to begin as soon as he can get a reasonable Number of Scholars."(March 20, 1752)

"The Subscriber, who has lately entered into the RALEIGH Tavern, begs Leave to solicit the Customers of that House for a Continuance of their Favours, and he hereby acquaints the Gentlemen who lodge there in publick Times that their Rooms will be still kept in Order to receive them ... "(March 7, 1771)

So what scenarios can be built from this? A Foreign or non-Virginia visitor may be difficult to show with accessories. There are subtle differences that the visitor may not pick up on. But we could try. Here are a few ideas:

Lodgers at the Tavern

• 1)French visitor, here to teach. Accessories to include a "fussy" silk hat complete with plume and a package very clearly addressed to him.
• 2)Father and son staying at the tavern while they await the son's entrance into William and Mary. (They could even be from the back country.)
• 3)Executors of an estate.
• 4)Painter staying at the Raleigh for a short period while he either arranges an exhibit or tries to sell his work.
• 5)Newly elected burgess from the back country.
• 6)Lodgers in Williamsburg for Publick Times.

Services at the Tavern

• 1)Shaving basin and bottle (listed in inventory) to indicate the extra service of hot water and the possibility that a servant could have been hired to shave you.
• 2)Clothes brush (listed in inventory) to indicate that laundry could have been sent out to be cleaned or even brushed there on the premises.
• 3)Private meal in upstairs room.

As you can see, the above notes and ideas are one step in determining how the second floor should be furnished. I would like to also suggest that we show at least one bed unmade to imply that beds were made up as needed.

Print - Bedroom at an Inn

Print

(5) That at all times, someone must be at hand to receive the guests and take care of them. Also the Host must look to the proper fencing in of the yard; must look after the different outhouses and such like buildings must prevent association of the guests with the inhabitants of the kitchen and house and seriously to prevent any games of cards or other games from being played in the tavern

(6) That he must adhere to the rate of charges as fixed by the law, and not overcharge, but that he sell the liquors and wines at the low prices that prevail in the settlement when they are fetched by the quart in the town and not drunk in the tavern. The above tavern rate, as well as the license, has been changed from time to time by the court, and the Host must never omit to procure the correct schedule of charges, and as soon as possible, according to law, and display it. Also he must pay the license tax, which has been, or maybe yet, put on liquors, and be punctual and faithful in the payment of it, and in this respect, as in all others, to follow the law of the land.

(7) That he keep correct books of account, in which he names of all debtors and creditors of the tavern are shown and that he is not allowed to write down any debts or drinking bills on the walls, but instead, write them on paper or into the books.

(8) That if by mistake he has collected counterfeit not spend it again, but keep it until he can return it to the one from whom he received it, but if the person in unknown, it must be destroyed and the deficit fall on the tavern.

(9) That he may allow members of the Congregation, who own businesses in the Place, to take a stranger into the tavern, and treat him according to circumstances, with food and drink, but he must not allow a company inhibitants of the place to set themselves together as guests, in order to drink and feast, which is seriously prohibited and the Host is permitted, and even commanded, to admonish and speak seriously to such inhabitants of Salem who come together for gossip, or loafing, or unnecessary acquaintance with strangers, or curiosity, when found around or inside the tavern, and to remind them to go to their business, or if it be Sunday, to go to their respective dwelling houses.

(10) That the Host is allowed to take in traveling pedlers, but he is not allowed to give anyone, be he stranger or acquaintance, a separate room to sell his wares. They must remain in the guest-room, If they do not wish to exhibit their wares there, they must go elsewhere, which anyway would be the wisest course, until once a proper law is fixed according to which one may act.

(11) That in purchasing supplies, fruits, and other current articles, he must not, of his own accord, change the prices fixed by the Board, until they themselves change it.

(12) He is not allowed to engage in any other business besides the keeping of the tavern. He his not allowed to buy any other articles of merchandise to sell it again, except things for the business of the tavern, he may take such things as barter, but he must be very careful from whom he takes such things in barter, which ought not to be done except in cases of necessity in order to avoid the bad appearance of injuring another's business.

(13) He must also in time look after all the repairs inside and outside the house but without undertaking anything new or abolishing anything old, for instance, altering existing arrangements, changing small or large buildings, new undertakings, borrowing or loaning money, fencing in land, haying land, or things of this kind. He must not undertake, without taking councel with those in authority but is in fact, expected to consult with the Warden of the Congregation about his business with open confidence and to let him know his requests in ample time.

(14) The Host is not permitted, without special permission, to receive anybody, be he healthy or sick, as a permanent lodger, but when persons of high rank or standing, to whom one is obliged to show deference come, or if he meets with suspicious persons, he should, in every such case, give notice to the officials of the Congrgation without delay.

Duly signed in the Assembly of the officers of the Salem Congregation January 26, 1775.

[signed]
Jno. George Wallis
Traugott Bagge
Jno. Casper Heinzman
Jno. Heinrich Herbst
Niels Peterson⁸

In addition to his regular Tavern duties the keeper frequently served on various boards of the community and held offices of trust. Jacob Meyer, for example, was, for a time, the Curator (business manager) of the Single Sisters Diacony.

HARDSHIPS

The tavernkeeper's job set him apart from the rest of the community in that his family life could be conducted in the usual manner. We find that in 1780:

Br. Meyer has spoken with Br. Graff and begged earnestly that we should make provision for their two oldest children as they cannot keep them longer without harm to their souls.⁹

This custom eventually became a requirement and the keeper had to place his children in other homes for supervision. When one looks back into the records it is easy to understand why it was necessary to take such precautions:

There is occasional talk about all the disorder that is going on in the Tavern, and it was desired that the untimely visit of Flex would stop for awhile, and that there shall be supervision so that the Single Brothers and Sisters to not have opportunity to be there together.¹⁰

Br. Meyer reports that he has suffered great loss when soldiers were stationed last week in the Tavern... It was stated that the Tavern saves our Brethern from being burdened with having the soldiers in their own homes, Therefore, it cannot be expected that the Tavern bear all the (financial) burden by itself... We take our fair share in the calamities of such times and we must never believe that the children of God should be free of such plagues...¹¹

He [Captain Paschke] left a very sick soldier here to be nursed, but it was necessary to move the man from the Tavern into the adjoining smoke-house, as the stench was intolerable.¹²

Br. Meyer's life was in danger. Several scamps aimed their weapons at him to force him to give them brandy, but the officers interfered and they went on, though they took various things with them on pretense of borrowing them.¹³

Day before yesterday, two men arrived from Kentucky Settlement, going as Deputies to the Assembly. They spent the night in the tavern, and yesterday as they were leaving they stole Br. Meyer's spectacles, and also stole a razor from Schober, who had shaved them. Schober rode after them and got back his razor, but he did not know of the loss of the spectacles, or he could probably have re-claimed them also.¹⁴

These hardships were perhaps too much for the keeper and his wife at times, and we find that they became lax in their management of the Tavern, only to be reprimanded by the leaders of the community.

RALEIGH TAVERN - 1771

VIRGINIA GAZETTE, Purdie and Dixon, ed., March 7, 1771, 3:1

"Advertisements.

WILLIAMSBURG, March 7, 1771.

"THE Subscriber, who has lately entered into the RALEIGH Tavern, begs Leave to solicit the Customers of that House for a Continuance of their Favours, and he hereby acquaints the Gentlemen who lodged there in publick Times that their Rooms will be still kept in Order to receive them. He flatters himself that he will be able to give Satisfaction; As no Pains, not Cost, shall be spared for that End.
JAMES SOUTHALL."

PAG

RALEIGH TAVERN - GABRIEL MAUPIN 1773

VIRGINIA GAZETTE, Purdie and Dixon ed., Mar. 25, 1773, 3:2

"Advertisements.

"BARTHOLOMEW LE PETIT
BEGS Leave to acquaint the Ladies and Gentlemen of Williamsburg that he has left Norfolk , and is now settled in this City; where he will continue to teach the FRENCH (that polite and agreeable Language so universally courted in the most genteel Companies) in its greatest Purity, attended with its Elegancies of Pronounciation, as well as the greatest Care taken to ground them in the Rudiments of Grammar. Those who will do him the Honour to become his Pupils will please to apply to, or leave a Line with, Mr. Gabriel Maupin , and they shall be punctually answered."

^{[at Market Sq. Tav. This date]}

PAG [This ad: also appears in the April 1 issue.]

RALEIGH TAVERN - Alexander Finnie 1752

VIRGINIA GAZETTE, Hunter ed., March 20, 1752 s, 1:2

"March 20, 1752.

"THE Subscriber, who lodges at Mr. Finnie 's, in Williamsburg , teaches the Art of Fencing, Dancing, and French Tongue; and is ready to begin as soon as he can get a reasonable number of Scholars.
Le Chevalier de Peyronny ."

PAG

RALEIGH TAVERN - Alexander Finnie 1752

VIRGINIA GAZETTE, Hunter ed., July 10, 1752, 3:2"ADVERTISMENTS.
"THE Subscriber takes this Opportunity of informing Gentlemen, and Others, That he proposes to teach Military Discipline, according to the new Way of Generals Bland and Bleckny . The best Instructions and Attendance will be given by
Their humble Servant,
Simon Fraser .
N.B. He will teach in either Town or Country, and is to be met with at Mr. Finnie's , in ^Williamsburg ."

The sleeping accommodations at any tavern had to be flexible to meet the needs of a given night's residents. Tavern keepers were required by law to have some fixed rate sleeping space available to travelers, but, of course, they made more money by renting more luxurious spaces with extra amenities.

What then was considered luxurious? The privacy afforded by a closable door or bed curtains? Or the warmth of a fireplace? A traveler's choice may have depended on whether he knew the occupants of the next room, or on the season. In other words, during the winter one may have preferred a room with a fireplace, albeit strange bedfellows, to a more private, but unheated chamber. It may have depended upon how many requests the tavern keeper had for the cheap public sleeping space as opposed to more expensive quarters.

The three east chambers (over the public dining room) at the Raleigh may have been rented on occasion as a private suite in the same way as the three rooms over the great room (Mr. Page's room, the end room, and the wheat room) at Wetherburn's. When necessary, any of these spaces could have been rented as public sleeping space. The rooms that served as passages were more likely used as public sleeping space on a regular basis.

After extensive research using print sources and period inventories, I have been able to conclude several things about the display of prints in the eighteenth century. Prints were displayed in a variety of ways. They could be framed and put under glass or framed with no glass. They could also be varnished and framed, then hung on the wall, or they could be simply nailed to the wall unframed. These methods apply to maps as well but quite often they were placed on rollers and hung on the wall instead of being framed. Many print sources show frames ranging in style from elaborate gilt ones to simple wooden ones with no ornament. Obviously, the prices of framed prints varied dramatically depending on the elaborateness of the frame and the expense of the materials used.

Glass also added several shillings to the price of a print while varnishing was much less expensive (see memo from Margaret Pritchard to Graham Hood and Wetherburn's Tavern File dated October 29, 1984). In inventories, prints may be referred to as "framed with glass" or "framed and glazed" or simply "glazed." According to The Oxford English Dictionary (1961) the term "glazed" could refer to glass or to a transparent coating applied to the surface of an object, such as a painting. The meaning of "glazed" is not always clear in inventories. The value of each item may or may not be helpful in determining whether glass or varnish was used. Robert and Thomas Kennedy advertised in the Pennsylvania Chronicle in 1768 that they could do "glazed pictures in the present English Taste," also they could "varnish maps of the world at five shillings, and all other pieces in proportion."

A variety of sources show unframed prints nailed directly to the walls of private residences and public buildings--specifically taverns. There is no evidence that elegantly furnished private rooms in taverns--ones like the Great Room at Wetherburn's Tavern--displayed prints in this way, but there is ample evidence that public dining rooms and spaces such as passages utilized a variety of decorating techniques (see Attachment 5).

By examining print catalogs, Sayer and Bennett's Catalogues specifically, a determination of print values can be made. An average print "finely" engraved cost approximately 1s or more or perhaps slightly less when in a set. Smaller prints could cost considerably less, averaging around 6d or more. For large prints the price varied considerably depending on the exact size and detail of the engraving. "Cheap prints" could cost as little as 6d each. Coloring prints could at least double their value. often framing added much more than double the price. As mentioned earlier, glass added at least several shillings to the cost of a print.

In addition to print sources, inventories offer substantial evidence that unframed prints were commonly used. Some inventories specify framed prints and unframed prints while others make no mention of framing at all. Some inventories include the description "framed" for some prints and make no specifications for other prints listed on the same inventory. It is logical to assume that when an inventory has a notation for framed prints and then leaves off any mention of frames for other prints that those with no mention of frames have no frames to note. Attachments 2-4 show situations such as this and give the corresponding values for the prints (entries for 1740 and 1767 in Attachment 2 contains listings for framed and unframed pictures). These lists were compiled from inventories and other accounts dating 1740-78. The items with an asterisk* are those which did not have any description for framed or unframed. By comparing the values for the framed and unframed prints it becomes apparent that many of the prints with no notation for framing were indeed unframed. Many of these values are compatible with the prices for unframed prints in the Sayer and Bennett's Catalogue (see Attachment 1).

Research by Ron Hurst in 1980 ("Prints as a Source for the Re-Creation of Eighteenth-Century Virginia Tavern Interiors") revealed that prints in private rooms in taverns were in every case framed. Public rooms and gaming rooms could have either framed prints or prints nailed directly to the walls. Subsequent research confirms those conclusions (see Attachments 5 and 6), thus providing a rationale for evaluating the print references listed in Wetherburn's Tavern and the Raleigh Tavern inventories. Wetherburn's inventory includes 8 Prints at 0.16.0 (2s each) in the Bull Head Room, 8 Large Pr[ints?] at 0.8.0 (ls each) in the Mid[dle Room], and 14 Small Prints at 3[illeg]O (assuming they are 3.0.0 the value for each would be approximately 4/3) in the Great Room. The Raleigh Tavern inventory lists 11 old prints the Ceasars 12/ (approximately 1/1 each) and 14 Coloured Prints 20/ (approximately 1/5 each).

Comparing these costs with those in Attachments 2-4 confirms that the 14 small prints in the Great Room at Wetherburn's Tavern were more than likely framed and probably had glass as well. The 8 prints in the Bull Head Room may have been framed but they may or may not have been under glass. As for the 8 large prints in the Middle Room, documentary evidence suggests they were unframed and nailed directly to the wall since 1s is a low value for a print specified as "large".

The Raleigh Tavern inventory can be interpreted similarly. The 14 colored prints are valued relatively low for unframed colored prints at 1/5 each (see Attachment 1). Therefore, it is unlikely that they were framed. As for the 11 Caesars, they may or may not have been framed since there is ample evidence to support either conclusion. According to Sayer and Bennett's Catalogue, portraits could be fairly expensive, whereas 1s was a fairly common price for an average uncolored print. This value is also common in inventories. Unless the portraits of the Caesars were in very poor condition, a price of 1/1 each probably would not be substantial enough to include a frame. The listings in Attachments 1-4 contain many examples to support this conclusion. on the other hand, listings for 1741, 1744, 1753, 1761, 1768, and 1775 in Attachment 2 have entries that are of similar value to the Caesars and they were framed, although some of the entries specifically stated that the glass was broken, or that the prints were small or in poor condition.

Size is an important determinant for the value of these prints. Small heads listed in Sayer and Bennett's Catalogues for 1766 & 1775 are on average worth approximately 6d. The average and larger sized portraits are worth much more. The Caesar prints earmarked for installation in the Raleigh Tavern are of an average size and would be appropriate for tavern decoration. There are two additional references to Caesar or Roman Emperor prints in inventories. John Burdett's 1746 inventory lists 12 Roman Emperor prints at 2/6. William Dudley in 1749 had 4 Caesar pictures in "the back room" at 30/0. Sayer & Bennett's Catalogue 1766 also has a listing for Roman Emperors and Empresses on Royal Paper (pages 158-159), although, unfortunately, it does not contain prices for the prints. Royal Paper varied in size from 22 ¼" X 18" to 26" X 20" with the standard size being 25" X 20" and its multiples (Dictionary and Encyclopaedia of Paper and Paper-making). A 1763 advertisement included in Attachment 4 of a Southwest Prospect of the German Lutheran Schoolhouse in the City of Philadelphia gives an idea of price for prints on Royal Paper. The unframed Prospect cost 1/6 which is 5d more than the Caesars in the Raleigh Tavern inventory. This comparison supports the conclusion that the Caesars could have been unframed.

The location of prints within a tavern is of primary importance when evaluating the elegance (or lack of it) of their display. The Great Room at Wetherburn's was used for elegant private functions and the 14 small prints reflect that in their value. The Middle Room, presumably used as a public dining room, contained prints of low value. At the Raleigh Tavern, neither of the two listings for prints show a great deal of expense. The prints also do not appear to have been in private spaces used by the public for special functions. The new interpretation of the Raleigh inventory and its relationship to room locations (see memo from Betty Leviner to Dennis O'Toole dated November 13, 1989), suggests that the 11 Caesars were probably located in a passage upstairs. The 14 colored prints may have been located in a domestic room downstairs that was used by the tavernkeeper or his family (see memo from Margaret Beck to Eleanor Duncan and Anne Gray dated February 12, 1982). The close proximity of the two listings for prints to items indicating bedchambers or sleeping spaces supports these conclusions. Furthermore, while the Raleigh Tavern was supposedly an upscale tavern where important people congregated and socialized, the upstairs appears to have been furnished for sleeping and little else which suggests a setting that was clearly secondary to the downstairs.

Another issue surrounding display styles for prints that needs to be addressed is the pattern of hanging them on the wall. Print sources indicate that prints and paintings were hung, framed or unframed, in more than one way. Often they were hung across the wall singly and were of similar sizes or at least presented a nice pattern of different sizes (see Attachment 6). This way of hanging objects on the walls was common in elegant rooms. Prints and paintings of different sizes were also hung at more than one level, creating patterns on the wall. On the other hand, print sources also indicate that objects were hung on walls randomly. Prints of all sizes could be hung or nailed to the walls interspersed in no clear aesthetic or geometric pattern. One print even showed them overlapping and crooked on the wall. Framed and unframed prints and paintings could be interspersed as well. Sometimes they are shown displayed at eye level, other times hung high on the wall or above doorways. These techniques of display could be utilized in the historic buildings as interpretive devices for the public.

If you have any questions about any of the above I will be glad to discuss them with you at your convenience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS

SAYER & BENNETT'S CATALOGUE OF PRINTS

PRINTS/PICTURES LISTED IN INVENTORIES

Entries grouped by year are from the same inventory or source. Entries for "pictures" could mean prints or paintings since that term was often used to refer to both. If the writers used "picture" to mean painting then the value would be higher than that for a print. Due to the range of prices for prints it is difficult to determine whether "picture" refers to an expensive print or an inexpensive painting. Those entries with an asterisk do not have any references indicating whether or not they were framed.

1740

1741

1743

1744

1744

1745

1746

1749

1749

1750

1750

1751

1751

1752

1753

1755

1757

1757

1758

1760

1761

1762

1762

1763

1763

1764

1766

1766

1767

1767

1768

1768

1769

1769

1772

1772

1772

1772

1774

1774

1775

1775

1775

1776

PRINTS/PICTURES LISTED IN TAVERN INVENTORIES

Entries grouped by year are from the same inventory or source. Entries for "pictures" could mean prints or paintings since that term was often used to refer to both. If the writers used "picture" to mean painting then the value would be higher than that for a print. Due to the range of prices for prints it is difficult to determine whether "picture" refers to an expensive print or an inexpensive painting. Those entries with an asterisk do not have any references indicating whether or not they were framed.

1742

1745

1746

1748

1760

1761

1761

1770

1771

1772

1773

1777

NO DATE

PRINT REFERENCES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN INVENTORIES

Entries grouped by year are from the same inventory or source. Entries for "pictures" could mean prints or paintings since that term was often used to refer to both. If the writers used "picture" to mean painting then the value would be higher than that for a print. Due to the range of prices for prints it is difficult to determine whether "picture" refers to an expensive print or an inexpensive painting. Those entries with an asterisk do not have any references indicating whether or not they were framed.

1751

1753

1763

1765

1769

c. 1770

1770-71

1772

1775

1775

1777

The Drunkard's Progress
C-78-No. 000.8

The Merrymakers

Tavern Life - The Boxing Fraternity

Tavern Scene
from Tavern Scenes folder in Taverns & Clubs file, Dept. of Collections

Fig. 361. The parlour of the White Bear, Piccadilly. From the Broadley Collection.

272
APPENDIX II
(Continued from page 83)

The Piccadilly Inns

THE WHITE BEAR was the tenth house west of the Haymarket, turning on the south side of Piccadilly. It had a back entrance to Jermyn Street ^[197] . To-day the Piccadilly Underground RAilway main entrance covers the site of the old inn and stable yard. Pictures of its front, yard and bar parlour are seen in Figs. 98, 361 and 362.

It is mentioned in the St. Martin's rate books in 1685. The proprietress in 1721 was Anne Roker, followed by Andrew Rooker, presumably her son, from 1724-28. William Miller then took over and made the White Bear the starting and arrival point of the coach line to Bath. It seems to have expanded his business considerably for in 1739 he was rated for two houses as well as the stable yard. He died in 1755, but his widow carried on until 1759. In 1760 Mr. Robert Ireland acquired the inn ^[138] .

The coach line to Bath belonged to William Mullins, proprietor of the Greyhound in that city. He advertises in the 'Daily Post,' in May, July, October and De ember, 1728. Typical announcements read: 'A handsome two-end coach and six able horses will set out from the White Bear in Piccadilly on Thursday next, where passengers may be carried at reasonable rates by me, Henry Mullins.' Mullins also advertises a 'Three-end coach-and-six,' and 'A chariot-and-six.' In addition he sent up bottled medicinal waters from Bath, to be sold by William Miller, proprietor of the White Bear.

Another coach service, starting from the Belle Sauvage in Ludgate Hill in 1740, stopped at the White Bear to pick up passengers for Gosport and Cirencester ^[198] .

Miller also acted as London agent for county postmasters. In the 'Daily Post' of October, 1742, he advertised:

'This is to acquaint the public that several postmasers on the road between Piccadilly and Bath are ready to furnish gentlemen or others with post chaises, easy and well secured from the weather, with a lamp that gives sufficient light on dark nights, at any time by day or night. Gentlemen who desire to go post are desirr'd to apply to Mr. Miller at the White Bear, Piccadilly.'

At the White Bear occurred the deaths of two noted artists, Luke Sullivan, engraver of Hogarth's 'March to Finchley' (Fig. 305) and Chatelain, who drew Figs. 82 and 339. Chatelain had taken lodgings there the previous night. He was so much reduced in circumstances that his burial in the poor ground of St. James' Workhouse in Poland Street was paid for by Mr. Vivares, the engraver who had employed him in the past and by Mr. Panton, a silversmith in Old Compton Street. McArdell also attended his funeral ^[38] .

THTE BLACK BEAR was situated on the north side of Piccadilly, almost opposite the White Bear, but slightly west. The fountain in Piccadilly Circus to-day approximately stands on its former stable yard. The front of the house faced what is now the south-eastern quadrant of Regent Circus. It was demolished in order to make room for the north-eastern quadrant (See Fig. 100).

The Black Bear did not run a line of coaches to anywhere, but derived much benefit from the crowds attending the arrival and departure of coaches run by its rival, the White Bear, across the road. This caused some friction, as we shall see. Those to benefit were William Biddell, proprietor in 1748, William Doleman, who followed him and Thomas Read, who took over the business in 1756. Three months later, in July of that year, he advertises:

'Thomas Read, from the White Hart, White-chapel, having taken the above inn [i.e., the Black Bear] humbly hopes for the favour of his friends and customers, who may depend on the best accommodation n every respect and the most courteous usage. He is induced to take this method, as every malicious and unjust contrivance has been made to prejudice him in his business, after he had been at considerable expense to come into the house.

'All the coaches and wagons call as usual to take up goods and passengers, though his enemies have reported to the contrary, to serve their own private ends, but he will continuously endeavor to

Smithfield Sharpers
1941-172

Sportsman's Hall
1956-286

Billiards
1950-709

Bachelors Hall
1961-205

The Xmas Academics
A Combination Game at Whist

Venus turn'd Proctor, anon.
The Rake's Progress at the University

The Sailors Fleet Wedding Entertainment
1952-88

The Dinner
1954-698

Plate 93A. Richard Newton, Soulagement en Prison. London c. 1793. Watercolour drawing on paper; H. 14 ½ ins, W. 22 ½ ins (sight) (The Lewis Walpole Library, Farmington, Connecticut)

Plate 93B. Engraving of single-bow Windsor side chair. From J. C. Loudon, An Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm and Villa Architecture and Furniture, 1833 (Downs Library, Winterhur)

Sotheby's 24 October, 1984
Old Master Paintings and [illegible]

Boitard, Louis Phillippe, Artist at Home

[Print]

The Free Masons Surpriz'd; or, the Secret Discover'd!
from Tavern Scenes folder in Tavern & Clubs file, Dept. of Collections

The Country Man in London
1946-105

Bacheolors Fare or Bread and Cheese with Kisses
1962-204

[illegible] City Meeting
1958-420

Introduction

Acting on a request from the Department of Collections, several members of the Architectural Research staff convened to consider the eighteenth-century construction sequence at Raleigh Tavern. Our deliberations were limited to the main building as it appeared in the eighteenth century, except when exceeding those bounds promised to illuminate earlier events. Preliminary conclusions were afterward relayed verbally to the curatorial staff, anticipating the preparation of a formal report when time permitted. This written report incorporates certain changes in our thinking which have developed since that time. These changes should not materially affect the furnishing scheme previously proposed by the Department of Collections on the basis of our preliminary information.

The Archaeology

The archaeological evidence is of central importance to this discussion, but because no archaeological report was completed for the main building, we were obliged to rely on Rutherford Goodwin's 1936 guidebook, The Raleigh Tavern, for an overview of the archaeology and how it was interpreted at the time of reconstruction (Figure 1). According to Goodwin, the east end of the Raleigh--the present passage and billiard room--was the earliest portion to be built. Second in the sequence was that unit which now encompasses the two front rooms on the west side of the passage. Next, by Goodwin's account, came the Apollo/Daphne Room 2 wing, and last of all came the large room appended to the north end of this wing.¹

The actual building sequence may have been somewhat different. We believe that the western portion of the tavern--not the east--constituted the initial phase of construction. The evidence for this conclusion is laid out below.

Period I

The foundation wall which once separated the east and west parts of the building constitutes a critical piece of archaeological evidence, since it once served as an end wall of the period I structure. Was this first-period wall bonded into the east or west portion of the foundation? The archaeological plan is inexplicably silent with regard to this crucial question (Figure 2). Although much of the original brickwork was retained in the reconstructed cellar walls, remaining fragments of the cross wall were dismantled. As a result, our conclusions must be drawn from photographs of the excavations. While the evidence cannot be regarded as conclusive, detailed examination of these photos persuades us that the all-important wall belonged to the west end of the building. The cellar walls were 1-½ bricks thick, laid in English bond. If the corners were built with a ¾ bat backing up the closure, a toothing of about 2" would have resulted on the 3 interior angle of the intersecting walls--precisely the condition visible in the photograph where the cross wall meets the western section of the north foundation wall.² It follows, then, that this western portion of the tavern constituted the first phase of construction, and that the eastern half of the building was a period II addition.

But even if the photographic evidence is discounted, there is still cause to question Goodwin's explanation of how the Raleigh developed. Since the west section of the building was the deeper of the two components, the east structure could have butted cleanly to it. The west building, on the other hand, makes little sense as an addition, since it would have joined awkwardly to the narrower east building. Again, the west section seems to be the earlier of the two structures.³

The reconstructed interior layout of the Raleigh offers further support for this conclusion. York County records indicate that Henry Bowcock was keeping tavern on this site by 1717. At this early date, the tavern had not yet emerged as a distinct building type. Architecturally speaking, there would have been little to 3 distinguish Bowcock's public house from a dwelling house. Regardless of how it was used, the period I section of the Raleigh was almost certainly domestic in character. In the context of what we know about domestic building in this period, the eastern half of the building--the passage and billiard room unit--makes little sense as a stand-alone element. Though several one-room houses with side passages are now extant in Williamsburg, only two of these date from the eighteenth century. The earliest of these was probably the Benjamin Waller house--the result of an eighteenth century addition. Only the Lewis House appears to have been built as a side-passage, single-room dwelling. It may date from the middle of the eighteenth century.⁴ Significantly, none of the early 4 eighteenth-century inventories known to us describes a house of this kind. The elongated plan of the billiard room, moreover, deviates considerably from the nearly square proportion observed in the main room of most eighteenth-century Virginia houses. Even the usually long first-period room of the Waller house falls considerably short of the Raleigh's present billiard room in terms of length/width ratio.⁵ The first phase of the Raleigh must make sense as a discreet building. The eastern portion of the structure fails to meet this test convincingly.

The western end of the building, embracing the two front rooms on the west side of the passage, does meet the test. The westernmost room is roughly square in proportion--the other is a 5 fraction less than square. This accords perfectly the proportioning typically observed in hall/chamber dwellings of the period. As in some earlier houses of this sort, these two rooms were served by a single, centrally-located chimney. Here, archaeological evidence clearly indicated the existence of corner fireplaces in each room. In the context of local house-planning tradition, this unit makes complete sense, being a center-chimney, hall/chamber building, later expanded by the addition of a passage and a large public room--a process of extension similar to that later carried out at the house of Peyton Randolph.⁶

Period II

If the period I status of the Raleigh's west end is granted, the consequent building sequence accounts in a historically coherent way for the entire street-front portion of the building, stretching a single file of rooms across the entire width of the lot in two successive periods of construction.

The tavern may have reached this period II form in 1733-35 when house carpenter James Wray completed carpentry work valued at more than £47. (That this sum involved a substantial building is clear when we consider that in 1708 Jean Marot paid only £50 for 6 what is now the west end of Shields Tavern). Other work performed by Wray at the Raleigh included 30 squares of shingling and 780 yards of interior painting.⁷

To cover the interior wall surfaces of the period I and II structures would have required approximately 743 yards of painting--a figure that correlates closely with Wray's account. Assuming a roof slope of 45 degrees, though, only about 17 squares of shingles would have been required to cover both the east and west ends of the building.'⁸ The remainder might have been used to cover outbuildings or perhaps the northernmost room of the tavern which may have once existed as a detached structure. (See discussion of North Room below). This latter structure would have required about 10 additional squares of shingling, bringing the total to 27 squares--about 3 short of the 30 squares mentioned in the Wray account.

In any event, it is clear that the period I west structure alone cannot account for the work completed by Wray 7 between 1733 and 1735. In all likelihood, this period saw construction of the tavern's east end.

Period III

Next in the sequence came the rear wing which embraced the Apollo room (along with its adjoining passage) and perhaps the space known as the "Daphne room."⁹ Significantly, the first known reference to the Apollo Room appears in the 1751 diary of John Blair--just prior to the first indications of a "Great Room" at Wetherburn's tavern in 1752.¹⁰ It may be that the wing was built shortly after Alexander Finnie's purchase of the property in 1749. Together with construction of the Governor's ballroom wing early in the 1750s, the addition of these public rooms to the town's two largest taverns, marked a mid-century "building boom" which coincided with the decision to rebuild the burned-out Capitol after its destruction by fire in 1747.¹¹

The Problem of the North Room

The large room at the north end of the rear wing poses a special problem in regard to the construction chronology. Archaeological documentation in the form of a clean corner shown on the Knight plan suggests that the north end of this rear wing was built against an existing structure , which was about 8 inches wider than the addition. However, photos of the excavation show only a void in the foundation wall where one would expect to see this corner. It is possible that remaining fragments of this corner were pulled out after being recorded, or that Knight's drawing represents his reconstruction of earlier conditions, based on decayed physical evidence. Because the photographs are inconclusive, it seems best--in the absence of other evidence--to accept Knight's interpretation of the physical remains and all it implies for the construction sequence and interpretation of the building.¹²

Granting Knight's depiction of the foundation, it is difficult to establish the construction date of this space other than to suggest it was built prior to period III, when the foundations of the rear wing were laid against it. The space may have functioned as a tenement or perhaps as a billiard house.¹³

Period IIIA

During or soon after construction of the Apollo/Daphne extension, a shed was added across the back of the tavern, adjoining the east wall of the new rear wing. This shed was almost certainly in place by 1770 when appraisers inventoried the contents of Anthony Hay's estate. Although individual rooms were not called out by the appraisers, discreet spaces are implicit in the pattern of listing the building's contents. The curatorial staff suggests that there were at least three rooms in this shed, and that the 10 present porch was, in fact, an enclosed space. Architecturally, this would be more in keeping with the sorts of additions typically made to the rear of early buildings in this region.

Period IV

The chronological relationship of this new shed to the small room situated off the northeast corner of the building is problematic, as the junction of the two foundations was destroyed by construction of the nineteenth-century commercial building that succeeded the Raleigh on this site. Though Mrs. Timberlake appears to have mentioned no shed rooms in her recollections of the building, she did refer to the northeast extension as a "ladies' withdrawing room."¹⁴ And though the shed foundation was almost entirely obliterated, the underpinnings for this added room, intruding into the shed space, remained nearly all intact. Moreover, the Frenchman's Map seems to include the northeast room, but not the rear shed, in its depiction of the tavern (Figure 3). In the light of these facts, it would at first appear that the northeast extension post-dated demolition of the shed.

But plats of the property and buildings made in 1796 and 1806 by the Mutual Assurance Society offer some interesting clues 11 of the shed's exact nature and continued existence. (Figures 4 & 5). The Mutual Assurance plats are notorious for their inaccuracy, but in the case of the 1796 document, the agent seems to have measured his building with a remarkable degree of accuracy. The dimensions given for the rear wing of the structure--106 x 24 accord exactly with the actual building, if the depth is measured across the north end of the wing (Figure 6). This exactitude suggests that remaining measurements should accord with the building as well. From the markings of the plat, it is clear that the front portion of the building was measured from the east wall of the rear wing to building's eastern extremity. Significantly, the agent's dimension of 56 ft. makes sense only if the northeast extension is included. The actual measurement is 56 ft. 6 in. Again, the accuracy of the agent's measurements is remarkable. More revealing, though, is the measured depth of this front portion of the building. The agent's dimension of 23 ft. is 4 feet off the mark if measured from the street facade to the rear of the shed. It fits perfectly if the measurement is taken from the back wall of the billiard room to the front face of the nineteenth-century porch piers shown on Knight's archaeological drawing. (The inclusion of this structure in the agent's dimension may indicate that it was at least partly enclosed at the time.)¹⁵ The apparent 12 exclusion of the rear shed in this measurement suggests that it was either gone or that it had become, by this time, an open structure.

The latter was probably the case, for the second plat, made in 1806, suggests that the shed did survive in some form. In this instance, the agent's dimension for the length of the rear wing--75 ft.--seems to make sense only if the measurement is taken along the east side of the wing, beginning at the rear shed. (The actual measurement is 78 ft. 6 in.)¹⁶

The shed seems to have existed as an enclosed space as late as 1770 when the Hay inventory was made.¹⁷ It is likely that the northeast room was erected sometime between that date and 1782 when the room appears on the Frenchman's Map. This may be the "New Room" referred in Humphrey Harwood's 1786 account for work 13 performed at the Raleigh.¹⁸ The closed shed evident in the 1770 listing of Anthony Hay's estate, may have been opened up to create a porch at the time this room was added. As a result, the present arrangement seems plausible for the period of the 1780s.

In 1782, the Frenchman's map also depicted a sizable porch running across the front of the tavern. This too was a late eighteenth century addition, predating the enclosed porch later measured by the agent. A second line of square piers, aligning perfectly with the front of the stoop foundation, was probably associated with this earlier structure.

Additional Observations - The Second Floor

As reconstructed, the roof framing of the billiard room and the back porch is an integral unit, spanning from the front 14 facade of the building to the rear plate of the porch. When we consider that the shed (or porch) was probably built about 15 years after the tavern's east end, it becomes clear that the roof over the front portion of the tavern would have constituted an independent unit, with the shed rafters framed against its rear slope in the typical manner. This observation would at first seem to invalidate the reconstructed second-floor plan for the front section of the building. This reconstructed arrangement almost certainly reflects the following considerations:

• 1)A desire to avoid having the roof of the wider rear wing show awkwardly above that of the front.
• 2)A desire to eliminate the problematic junction of chimney and roof planes which would otherwise have resulted where the rear wing joins the front of the building.
• 3)The need for a usable second floor. Owing to the unusually short depth of the building, the original ceilings seem to have been scarcely six feet in height. Such rooms seem incomprehensible, but at Pine Slash, in Hanover County, a person 6 feet or more in height cannot stand up straight in the well-finished second-floor room of c. 1800.

One might defend the current arrangement by suggesting that construction of the Apollo/Daphne wing and the rear shed prompted Finnie to expand the second floor of the tavern as a means of resolving the very difficulties enumerated above. Significantly, the curators, having studied the sequence of the Hay inventory, suggest that nine curtained bedsteads were located on the upper floor--a fact with clear architectural implications. Further 15 analysis of the Lossing view and Humphrey Harwood's accounts for whitewashing the Tavern--exercises which fall outside the scope of this brief paper--might assist in resolving the question.

Summary Chronology

Tentatively, then, we would summarize the eighteenth century construction chronology of Raleigh Tavern as follows:

FIGURES

[Figure 1]
Archaeological Plan of the Foundations of Raleigh Tavern After excavation of site in 1928

[See Figure 2 in attached envelope (No Digital Image Available)]

[Figure 3]

[Figure 4 - Insurance Book, Policy 126, p. 54, April, 1796]

[Figure 5 - Insurance Book, Policy 666, May 27, 1806, p. 40]

Figure 6
Dimensions from Mutual Assurance Soc. Plats 1796/1806

[This drawing has been enlarged.]

James Southall had extensive accounts for repairs with Humphrey Harwood carpenter, between 1778-1794. Unquestionably, much of this repair work was done on the Raleigh:

Carried to folio 59

Per Contra

February 28th By 2 hhds Shells, (May 3rd) by 2 Do

See this within ye Crotchet charged in Ledg. C. fol. 8.

[deleted]ood's Ledger]

In a notice in the Virginia Gazette and General Advertiser (Augustine ), Southall offered to lease the Raleigh:

January 17, 1793

The Raleigh Tavern and two lots will be leased for one year. . . the said lots contain an ice house and every other house necessary for the entertainment of man and horse.

APPENDIX 1
Raleigh Tavern Inventory 1771 Identifiable Ceramic and Glass Listings by Entry Order

APPENDIX 2
Ceramic and Glass Objects Currently Displayed Raleigh Tavern by Room Location

Billard Room

• Stoneware mug-repro

Innkeeper's Room

• Stoneware mugs-repro 2

Gentlemen's Reception Room

• Delft Snuff Jar 1932, a-b

Bar Room
Table between Windows

• Wine Bottles -repro 2
• Stoneware Mugs-repro 2

Center Table

• Mug, saltglaze 1952-192
• Mug, saltglaze 1954-900

Bar Shelf #1

• Stoneware Mugs - repro
• R1979 2-5,7,8,14-16,21,23,24,26-28,32,34,36,38,39,46 (20)
• R1978-42, 13,42,53,57,65,68,70,74,80,83,84,88,93,94,97 (15)
• Mug, white salt glazed 1957-179

Bar Shelf #2

• Wine Bottle 1932-48
• Wine Bottle, green,stamped "WB 1796"
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1952-76
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1952-78
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1952-196
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1952-200
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1953-1045
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1955-225
• Mug, delft, 1958-505
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1959-344
• Jug, "Ale" white saltglazed 1959-372
• Jug, saltglazed, Rhenish 1962-237
• Tankard (Mug) delft 1966-373
• Mug, "GRII, Saltglazed, Rhenish 1966-504
• Mug, "GRII, Saltglazed, Rhenish 1977-382

Bar Shelf #3

• Wine glasses-repros 5
• Wine-Bottles 1932-84,85,86
• Wine Glass 1938-222,6
• Wine Bottle, green,stamped "WB 1796"
• Wine Bottle, 1955-271
• Wine Bottle 1956-204
• Wine Bottle 1956-207
• Wine Bottle 1956-392
• Wine Glass, 1960-609
• Wine Glass, 1960-610
• Wine Glass, 1960-620
• Wine Bottle, 1967-265
• Wine Bottle, 1971-46
• Glass teardrop 1971-74
• Wine Glass, 1971-3333
• Wine Glass 1972-50
• Wine Glass, 1972-53
• Wine Glass 1972-55
• Wine Glasses, 1973-88,1-6
• Wine Glass 1973-306
• Wine Glass 1975-24
• Wine Glasses, 1975-360, 3 & 4
• Wine Glasses 1975-378, 1-2
• Wine Glass, 1979-25
• Wine Glass, 1979-403
• Wine Glass 1979-406

Bar Shelf #4

• Case Bottle 1941-201
• Case Bottle 1941-202
• Case Bottle 1941-203
• Wine Bottle 1947,119
• Bottle with Stopper 1953-299, A&B
• Bottle with Stopper 1953-300, A&B
• Bowl, pearlware, 1954-348
• Bottle, Case (gin) 1954-755
• Bowl, punch, Delft, 1954-903
• Bowl, delft 1961-298
• Bowl, Punch, Delft, 1970-170
• Wine Bottle 1971-48
• Wine Bottle 1971-57
• Wine Glass 1972-47
• Wine Glass 1972-51
• Wine Glass 1975-25
• Bowl, Creamware 1975-104
• Bowl, Chinese porcelain 1978-101
• Bowl, Chinese porcelain 1978-102
• Bowl, punch, Chinese Porcelain 1981-79

Counter

• Wine Bottle, 1932-36
• Wine Bottle, 1932-73
• Wine Bottle, 1947-608 (repro)
• Wine Bottles, 1935- 88,89,80

Public Dinning Room
Bottom Shelf

• Mug, saltglazed 1972-444

Ceramics and Glass

• Wine Bottles 1947-608,113-124 & 138
• Plate, creamware, royal shape 1950-27
• Plate, creamware, royal shape 1950-28
• Plate, saltglazed, 1950-585
• Mug, saltglazed, 1952-190
• Wine Bottle 1956-202
• Mug, saltglazed 1960-411
• Wine Bottle, 1960-902
• Dish, saltglazed 1968-626
• Dish, Creamware 1971-39
• Dish, Creamware 1971-40 feather-edge
• Dish, Creamware 1971-42
• Plates, Creamware,,1972-114, 1-12 #4
• Plates, creamware, 1972-161, 1-14
• Plates, saltglazed, 1972-214,1-5
• Plate, saltglazed, 1972-262
• Dish, saltglaze 1972-277
• Platter, saltglazed, 1972-278
• Plate, saltglazed, 1972-282
• Plate, saltglazed 1972-283
• Plate, saltglazed 1972-284
• Plate, saltglazed 1972-285
• Dish, saltglazed 1972-288
• Dish, saltglazed, 1972-289
• Dish, saltglazed, 1972-290
• Plate, saltglazed 1972-337
• Plate, saltglazed 1972-339
• Mug, saltglazed, 1972-445
• Plates, saltglazed 1974-682,1
• Plates, 1976-110, 1-26
• Plates, 1976-112, 7

East Cupboard

• Tea Caddy, saltglazed 1956-381
• Punchpot, saltglazed, 1958-618

Second Shelf

• Teapot & Cover, Littler's blue, 1954-800, A&B
• Teapot & Cover, saltglazed, 1959-30
• Teabowls & Saucers, 1979-112,1-12
• Wine Bottles, 1947-608,113-124 &138
• Wine Bottles, stamped "Prentis" 2
• Bottle preserve? 1932-79
• Wine Bottles 1932-85
• Wine Bottle 1951-144
• Wine Bottle, 1951-145
• Wine Bottle, 1951-146
• Wine Bottle, 1951-147
• Wine Bottle, 1951-148
• Wine Bottle, 1951-149
• Wine Bottle, 1951-158
• Wine Bottle, 1951-159
• Wine Bottle, 1954-663
• Wine Bottle, 1955-263
• Wine Bottle, 1957-7
• Wine Bottle, 1957-8
• Wine Bottle, 1958-249
• Wine Bottle, 1967-268
• Wine Bottle, 1971-47

Apollo Room

• Dishes, saltgalzed 1976,1-5

Daphne Room

• Decanter, repro from 1953-300
• Figures 1936-629,1-2
• Glass, sweetmeat, 1952-439
• Wine Bottle, 1956-205
• Figure, Squirrel, green 1963269
• Figure, Woman, autumn 1963-273
• Figure, Man, Summer 1963-274
• Figure, Man, yellow, 1963-363
• Figure, Man, cavalry 1963-485
• Figure, Man, yellow 1963-533
• Figure, Lion, yellow 1963-534
• Figure, Pigeon, yellow 1963-535
• Figure, Woman, yellow 1963-536
• Figure, Woman, yellow 1963-543
• Figure, Swan, yellow 1963-559
• Figure, Man, The Lost Sheep 1963-581
• Glasses, Syllabub, 1966-520, 1-12
• Dish, saltglazed, 1969-20
• Glass, Wine 1971,1,3, and 4
• Dish, saltglazed, 1972-260
• Plates, saltglazed, 1972-263,1-2
• Stand, glass, 1973-24
• Plate, saltglazed, 1976, 6
• Glasses, wine, 1979 1,2,4,5,6
• Wine Wine 1979-405
• Stands, set of 3 1983-336
• Glasses, syllabub, 1986,1-4

Bottom Shelf

• Plate, delft 1960-302
• Ewer & Basin, delft, 1961-101,1-2
• Teapot & cover, Chinese porcelain 1970-158
• Teabowl & Saucer, Chinese porcelain 1971-36,A&B
• Teabowl & Saucer, Chinese porcelain 1971-37,A&B
• Teabowl & Saucer, Chinese porcelain 1971-38,A&B

West Cupboard
Top Shelf

• Vase, fluted, 1952-450
• Glass, 1962-201,1
• Glasses, Jelly (2) 1979-409,1-6, 1979-410,1-6

Middle Shelf

• Wine glasses 13 - repro
• Glass, wine 1960-619
• Glass sweetmeat dish, 1960-864
• Wine Glass, 1973-304
• Wine Glass, 1975-359
• Wine Glass, 1975-360,1-4
• Wine Glass, 1976-402
• Wine Glass, 1976-403
• Wine Glass, 1976-404
• Wine Glasses, 1979-24,2
• Wine Glass, 1979-26
• Wine Glass, 1979-27

Bottom Shelf

• Wine Rinsers (2) repro
• Wine Rinser 1936-539
• Glass, sweetmeat, 1952-443
• Basket, glass, sweetmeat 1962-165
• Stand, 15 glasses, 1962-201,1-16
• Tazza, glass, 1963-24
• Tazza, glass, 1969-256
• Patty Pan, Glass 1972-57
• Patty Pan, glass 1972-58
• Patty Pan, glass 1972-59
• Stand, glass, 1972-327,1
• Patty Pans, glass, 1972-431,1-6
• Stand, glass 1976-398,2
• Wine Rinsers, 1979-56,1-6
• Decanter 1979-200

West Hall - Back

• Plates, creamware, 6 repro
• Plates, saltglazed 1936-468,1-3
• Cups, coffee, Caughley 1937-191,1-10
• Tea bowls, Caughley, 1937-192,1-8
• Saucers, Caughley 1937-193,1-10
• Plate, saltglazed, 1950-321
• Plate, saltglazed, 1951-71
• Tureen & Cover, saltglazed, 1952-400
• Plates, creamware, shell-edge 1953-434,1-2
• Dish, Wieldon, 1954-490
• Brandy warmer, saltglazed, 1954-784
• Dish, French faience, 1958-635
• Casters, saltglazed, 1960-876, 1-2
• Dish, cover & stand, saltglazed, 1963-140,a-c
• Figure, Lion, green, 1963-292
• Teapot, Chinese Porcelain, 1964-333,A&B
• Cream Jug & Cover, Chinese Porcelain, 1964-351, A&B
• Dish, saltglazed, 1965-147
• Tureen Stand, white saltglazed, 1965-190,c
• Caster, saltglazed, 1967-711
• Dish and stand, saltglazed, 1967-722,A&B
• Plates, Chinese Export 1971,1-7
• Basket & Stand, pearlware, 1971-665,a&b
• Gravy boat, saltglazed 1971-3338
• Plates, creamware, shell-edge, 1972-33,1-4
• Plates, creamware, 1972-161,1-14
• Plates, creamware, 1972-162,1-7
• Platter (dish), creamware, 1972-164
• Dishes, pair, creamware, 1972-226,1-2
• Plate, creamware, 1972-239
• Plates, creamware, 1972-241,1-6
• Plates, creamware, 1972-242,1-9
• Plates, saltglazed, 1972-261,1-2
• Plate, saltglazed,1972-264
• Plates, saltglazed, 1972,1-2
• Platter (dish), saltglazed, 1972-266
• Dish & cover, creamware, 1972-267,A&B
• Platter (dish), saltglazed, 1972-279
• Platter (dish), saltglazed, 1972-280
• Plate, saltglazed, 1972-281
• Soup Plate, saltglaze, 1972-338
• Soup Plate, saltglazed,1973-44
• Dish, saltglazed, 1973-170
• Butter tub w\cover and stand, saltglazed, 1974,a-c
• Soup plates, saltglazed, 1975-76,1-6
• Mustard pot, saltglazed 1975-109
• Baskets & Stands, (2) 1975-137,1-2,a,b
• Plates, creamware, Royal Shape,1976-70,1-10
• Dishes, salt-glaze, 1976-115, 3,5, & 6
• Dishes, saltglazed, 1976-116, #2&5
• Salt, saltglazed, 1977-386
• Sauceboat, saltglazed, stoneware

By Order of Court held in the County of Norfolk, Octr. 16th, 1760, to us directed we whose names are hereunto subscribed, being first Sworn have appraised the Estate of Alexander Ross deceased

Nicholas Scully
Geo: Chamberlaine
Richd. Scott

April Court 1761. The above Appraismt. returned as P Order Book
/Examd. /
Test Sam Bush C. Cl.

I have no real problem with changing the color of the woodwork in the small northeast room off the Billiard Room, nor do I feel that retaining the 1930's interior colors is sacred. After all, they were part and parcel of a total furnishing and decorating scheme that no longer exists in the building. They are yet another example of the anachronisms that surround us -- a new generation's philosophy displayed within the confines of a previous one's.

Betty's suggestion about using Spanish Brown is a reasonable one. As the bar keeper's living quarters, it must have been considered an inferior space and may not have been painted at all.

My major concern is that changes such as this are occurring piecemeal. This is not what we should be doing. In the future, color changes in reconstructed exhibition buildings should be done only after thorough research and investigation to find colors that were used on comparible buildings in the Tidewater area of the time period exhibited. This will undoubtedly require paint analysis of original buildings both here and in the area. Needless to say, the entire interpreted interior should be restudied, not just one portion of the building. It is something we should seriously consider and start working on. The Palace and the Capitol as well as the Raleigh Tavern come immediately to mind. Why don't we sit down and talk about it and determine what will be required so that we work up a cost estimate and start now trying to get funding.

In a recent re-examination of the photographs relating to archaeological excavations at the Raleigh Tavern, architectural historians noted that the south foundation wall of the room that has been designated the Public Dining Room appear to have been finished off. The conclusion that they arrived at from this observation was that the room had been a separate, preexisting structure prior to the addition of the Apollo and Daphne rooms at the Raleigh. When I mentioned this to John Sands, he called to my attention that there had been a separate billiard house at the Smithfield Tavern during the eighteenth century. This, in turn, prompted me to take a look at billiard table locations in general within tavern contexts.

While it is hard to discern where billiard rooms are located (either inside or outside of taverns) from the inventory evidence (see attached inventories), newspaper advertisements are another matter. Jan Gilliam examined copies of the Virginia Gazette and found four references to billiard houses (see attached). While we cannot determine how long a billiard table had been at the Raleigh when Hay's inventory was taken, there is certainly evidence for a separate building set aside for billiards in other taverns. By having three, first-floor rooms in the north wing of the tavern, all the furnishings isolated for this part of the Raleigh would certainly fit much better. Please let me know when you have had a chance to cogitate on this matter so we can set up a meeting to discuss how we want to proceed.

[Marot Inventory] 1717

IN OBEDIENCE to an order of York Couty Court Dated February 1745 We whose Names are underwritten being first duly sworn did Appriase the Estate of John Butterworth decd. Vizt.

John Burdett - 3

Ishmael Moody cont. p.2

Marot's or The English Coffee House [Shields Inv.] 2 1755

IN THE CHAMBER & KITCHEN

• 2 Beds and furniture 2 tables 1 Brass Candlestick 1 old Trunk
• 1 Pair Dogs 2 Quart Decanters 7 pair Snuffers 5 Glass Salts 1 Wine Glass
• 1 pair old Money Scales 1 pair large brass Scales 1 Chafing Dish 4 Chairs
• 3 Earthen Bowles 2 Coffee Pots 1 Chocolate Pot 1 Pewter Bason 1 Turene
• 1 Tin dish Cover 24 Pewter Dishes 1 dozen Deep Plates 4½ dozen flat Do
• 3 Earthen Dishes 1 Tea Kettle 1 Trivet 2 Box Irons &c 1 Grater
• 1 Silver Punch Strainer 1 Silver Punch Spoon 2 Sugar Boxes 1 Tea Board
• a Parcel China 5 Silver tea Spoons
• 1 Marble Mortar &c 1 Bell Metal Mortar & Dutch Oven
• 2 Dozen Candle Moulds 2 Stewpans and Stoppers 3 Iron Pots
• 1 Bell Metal Skillet 1 large Copper - 1 Brass Kettle
• 1 Jack 1 Coffee Mill 1 Silver Watch 2 Iron Spits 1 pair Dogs
• 4 Pails 4 Tubs 2 large Butter pots 2 frying Pans 1 fish Kettle
• 3 Potracks 1 Grid Iron 1 Dripping Pan 2 old Pewter Dishes
• 7 old Ivory handle Knives &c 1 Warming Pan 2 old Square Tables
• 3 Butter pots

UPSTAIRS

• 6 Beds and furniture 1 square Table 1 Looking Glass
• 1 Chair 2 Rush Chairs 1 Elbow Chair 2 Trunks and 1 Screen

IN THE CLOSET

• 1 old Cupboard 1 large Jugg 1 pair Lime Squeezers
• 1 pint 1 ½ pint and 1 Gill Pot
• 1 Gallon Pot 2 pair New Shoes 1 Chair 8 Potting Pots 1 beer Cask
• 1 Brass Cock

IN THE CELLAR &C

• 41 Rennish 6 Brass Cocks 1 Powdering Tub 2 old Pewter Dishes
• 11 Table Cloths 32 Napkins 2 dozen Towels 11 pair Sheets 12 Pillowbeers
• 3 pr Window Curtains
• 4 Milk Pans
• 1 Billiard Table and balls 1 New Cloth for Do
• 3 half pint Decanters & 1 pint Do
• 69 Wine Glasses 82 Jelly Do 6 Sweet meat Do 29 Sullibub Do
• 17 Earthen Dishes 3 China Do 3 China Butter Plates 22 Pye moulds
• 1 Wood Tea Board 11 Quizes Paper
• Parcel old brass 1 Box Pipes 6 Glass Servers
• 2 new Narrow Hoes 1 New Spade
• 10 Groce Quart Bottles 3 jars 1 Waggon 1 Cart 2 Chairs 1 Wheel Barrow
• And 8 Horses

AT THE QUARTER

• 45 Heads of old Cattle 13 Yearlings and 5 calves
• 10 Heads of Hogs
• A Parcel of Carpenters tools
• 1 Bed & furniture 6 Dishes 1 Iron Pot
• 2 Mares and 2 Colts 1 Whip Saw 1 Cross cut Do 1 Gun 1 Wheat Sifter
• 5 Milk Pans 1 Grindstone a parcel of Copper Tools
• 1 Case & 11 Bottles for Do
• 25 Negros
• A Parcel of Corn Tobacco and Pease

ANN SHIELDS Exx

Returned into York County Court the 21st day of January 1750[/51] and [deleted]

James Mitchell cont. p. 2 1772

John Gibbons cont. p. 5

Virginia Gazette (Hunter) August 1, 1751To be SOLD, at Auction, on Thursday the 26th Day of September next, in the Town of Port-Royal, on Rappahanock River,
Two lots, with convenient Houses, one built for a Taver, 46 feet long, by 28, and large cellars under it; one other House, fit for a merchant, a Billiard Room and Table, Kitchen, Stable, and a large Garden. Six months Credit will be allow'd, the Purchaser giving Bond and Security, as usual to
John Micou,
N.B. If the Purchaser has a Mind to pay any Part of the Money down, the Interest shall be discounted.

Virginia Gazette (Rind) December 25, 1766

To be SOLD at private SALE, TWO LOTS in the Town of Rapahannock River, on which stands a genteel Two Story House, four rooms on each Floor, and seven Fireplaces, a good Stable for thirty horses, a Billiard House and Table, and all other convenient Houses. Two or three years Credit will be given, if the Purchaser or Purchasers give Bond and Security
WILLIAM FOX

N.B. A Stock of choice Liquors, and ever Kind of Furniture necessary, may be had with the House, if agreed for.

Virginia Gazette (Puride & Dixon) March 23, 1769[As part of a lottery in Portsmouth the following item was mentioned with value listed as £60]
"A lot or parcel of land at the Great Bridge, with a good billiard house upon it, opposite the Three Tun tavern."

Virginia Gazette (Purdie & Dixon) July 9, 1772

To be SOLD by the Subscriber, in HALIFAX Town, NORTH CAROLINA, Two lots in the said Town, adjoining the Courthouse and Jail, well situated for Tavern Keeping. There is one House forty four Feet long and twenty Feet wide, with three large Lodging Rooms up Stairs, and four Closets to the House, a Piazza the Length of the House ten Feet wide, with a large Bar Room at one End, and a Cellar underneath; also a Dwellinghouse adjoining, thirty two Feet long and sixteen Feet wide, with three Rooms below and two above and a Piazza on the Front side with Glass Windows above and below, well finished off; also a Billiard House twenty eight Feet long and eighteen Feet wide, with two good Lodging Rooms above, and a good Billiard Table; likewise a Kitchen sixteen Feet square, and a good Smokehouse, Stable, House Lots, &c. a large Garden in good Order, wherein are many Fruits and Herbs all well paled in, Any Person inclinable to purchase may know the Terms by applying to the Subscriber, now on the Premises
CHRISTOPHER DUDLEY

N.B. All the Houses have good Brick Chimnies, and are well plaistered and whitewashed.

James Shields cont. p. 3

Ann Shields Exx.

Returned into York County Court the 21st day of January 1750 and Ordered to be recorded

Examd. Teste
Thos. Everard Cl. Cur.

Will of Anthony Hay YCR WI 21, p. 529-30

In the Name of God Amen I Anthony Hay of the City of Williamsburgh, being Weak in Body, but of sound and Perfect Mind and Memory (blessed be God) do this twentieth day of January one Thousand Seven hundred and Seventy, make and Publish this My last Will and Testament in Manner and form following viz! - First I Desire that my Body may be buried in a Plain black Pine Coffin that my funeral be attended with no Expence, and that none of my Family put on Mourning, unless my Dearly beloved Wife should insist upon it as to herself --
Secondly Whereas my Eldest Son Thomas Hay is more amply provided for by the Will of his Grandfather Thomas Penman late of this City, than I can Provide for any of the rest of my Children, I do give unto my said Son Thomas, the sum of Ten Pounds, as a Pledge of my Paternal Affection for him Assuring him [ ] that tho' he receives no further part of my Estate, he shares my Affections equallly with the rest of all my Children - Thirdly I do give unto my Executros (hereafter to be named) all my Estate both real and Personal of every kind for the sole purpose of paying my [ ] debts and trust they will Discharge those in the most Effectual Manner for the benefit of [my] Estate, and the Interest of my Children --
Fourthly I do give unto my Affectionate and beloved Wife Elizabeth Hay, the whole of my Estate of every kind (after the payment of my Debts) for her life to use and Dispose of as she shall think most Prudent for the sole purposes of [ ] support and the maintaining and Educating the Children I have by [her] and after her Death I direct that my whole Estate be divided between the Children I have by her Share and Share Alike, I have given the whole of my Estate to my Wife, for her Life in trust and Confidence, that she will never Marry again but employ her time and her Estate so left her wholly in bringing up her Child[ren] and Maintaining and Educating them in the best Ma[nn]er [about three words missing] the Circumstances of my Estate. If she should Mar[ry] [about four words missing] Estate to be Divided [be]tween [about four words missing] by Equally. [About eight words missing or illegible] and worthy friends John Greenhow, Matthew Davenport, William Trebell and Robert Nicholson Executors of this my last Will and Testament hoping that they jointly with my Wife will and or [ ]ke the Execution of it and aid and Assist her with their best advice and most friendly endeavours. In Testimony whereof I have subscribed my hand and Affixed my seal the day and year above Mentioned. --

Anthony Hay

Signed sealed and published in presence of
Fred Bryan
Tho. Skinner
James Hubard

At a Court held for York County the 17th day of December 1770 This will was proved according to Law by the Oaths of Frederick Bryan and James Hubard witnesses thereto and [ ] to be recorded and at a Court held for the said County the 21st day of January 1771. William Trebell and Robert Nicholoson two of the Executors in the said Will Named took the Oath of Executors and together with Peyton Randolph Esq. and Benjamin Powell their Securities entered into an Acknowledged Bond to the Law and Certificate was granted the said Executors Obtaining in due form Liberty being reserved for the other [Exectors] to Join in the Probat when they shall think fit

Teste
Thos. Everard Co. Cur.

James Southall Receipt Book 1771-1776

30 June 1771 [paid £2.12.6 for 6 P Billiard Balls.]
[J T] Woodford

23 July 1771 red from Mr James Southall the sum of Ten pounds for Joseph Kidd's order on you
Jacob Allan

6 Nov 1771 Recd the 6th of Mr James Southall one Hundd: & one pounds in full for a Negro Fellow purchased at the Sales of Anto Hay Deceased
Wm. Trebell

Decr. 31st 1771 Recd of Mr James Southall ten pounds Currt Money in part of his Debt to Dinner & Club on 21 Instt

Jany 15 1772 Recd of Mr Jas. Southall Seven Pounds for a Chair bought at the Sale at Colo. Burwell's
Will Spratley

Received Feby 21 1772 of Mr James Southall the sum of four pounds for the Hire of a Negro Winch Fillis till Christmass last [sic]
Jno Earnshaw

8 April 1772 [paid £3.15.0 for "a Bagg of Conks & 3 Cheeses"]

May 14th 1772 Received of Mr James Southall Six Pounds Seven Shillings & 4d: in full for a large Chimney Back bought of Mr Anth Hay's Estate
Jos Pennell

18 May 1772 [£8.14.9 ½ for nails etc for repairs of his house in Richmond; paid to James McDowall

Recvd May 19 1772 of James Southall seven pounds Fifteen shilling in part for a se[at?] of Black Smith T[crossed out]ls [tools?] which Mr Peter Powell Bought of the Honbl Phillip Ludwells Estate
Gary Wilkinson

Recvd May 22 1772 of James Southall Sixteen pounds Two Shillings in full for the yous of the play Hous
Pr D.B. Roberts

Recvd Novr 26 1772 of James Southall Nine pounds Seven Shillings and three pence for Candles and Cranberys in full to this Day
Philip Carbery

May 10th 1773 Received of Mr James Southall Sixty six pounds Virginia Currency in full for a negroe man, nam'd Juba, sold at publick sale for Maurice Langhorne of Cumberland County: I am [toall] that Mr Langhorne gives a bill of sale for sd. negroe
Robert Burton for Alexr Banks

Reced May 13th: 1773 of James Southall -- Eighty Pounds Current Money for Mr: John Earnshaw, for his Negro Woman -- Phyllis sold him by Mr: Earnshaw's order
Ben: Waller

Aug 18th -73, Recd of Mr James Southall four Pounds, being the Balance for the Rent of the Hose lately occupied by him in the back Street, and which was the Property of my Wife Peachy
A Purdie

Recd. Decr. 8th [17731 two pounds. nine shilligs for 10 dozen Wine Glasses
Wm Page

May 1774 Recd of Mr James Southall the Sum of Eight pounds for two Pinch Back Watches
P. E. Curtis

Bought by Mr. John [Russell)

Recd. Feby 6th 1775 of Mr Southall Forty Shillings for a Licence for his Billiard Table begining fm. Decr. 31st last
John Carter C.C.W.

Recd. July 2nd 1775 of Mr Jas Southall five pounds for Two ps. Negrs Cotton
Wm Goodson

Recvd Novr 3 1775 of James Southall Two pounds for one Muskit
William Lively

Revd Jany 1 1776 of James Southall thirty Five shillings in full for a gun bought of me
Thos. Pearman

[Throughout the book are numerous receipts for purchases of lemons, limes, bread, beef, pork, butter, arrack, gin, rum, beer, wine, tea, oats, corn, flour, veal, mutton, and sweetmeats.)

Ever since the reconstruction of the Raleigh the room containing the bar has been called the taproom. "Taproom" is a nineteenth-century English term which I hope we can drop in our efforts to more accurately interpret eighteenth-century Williamsburg. Pages from the Oxford English Dictionary which define "barroom" and "taproom" are attached.

There was a barroom, billiard room, and two other rooms downstairs - as well as three rooms upstairs- at Ishmael Moody's tavern in Yorktown in 1748. Since we do not have any information which gives a specific name to the room at the Raleigh where drinks were served, I recommend that we call it the "barroom" - as the bar is located in the room. Except for the "Apollo," assigning names to specific rooms at the Raleigh is conjectural. References to names for rooms at the tavern were included in the attached "Information Regarding Rooms at the Raleigh Tavern" which was part of a long memo I sent to Carol Burk on June 3, 1974, RE: Answers to Questions about the Taverns Raised by Hosts and Hostesses.

I feel that now is a good time to change the name from taproom to barroom since the pamphlets on the exhibition buildings prepared by Stephen Rowe are about to be published for use this summer. Dr. Riley also agrees with this change. Therefore I have recommended this change in the text of the pamphlet on the Raleigh and hope it will be approved.

Excavation of the site began in 1928 and reconstruction of the Raleigh Tavern began in 1929. Though intended as a dining facility with lodging rooms on the second floor and several ground-floor rooms on the front used for exhibition purposes, the original purpose was not carried out.

After the reconstruction was completed in February 1932 but before all of the equipment needed for serving meals was installed, the building was occasionally exhibited to special groups. Visitor interest to view the interior prompted Colonial Williamsburg to open the tavern as an experiment while awaiting the arrival of final items for cooking and serving meals. Thus, interpretation of Colonial Williamsburg's first exhibition building began, not as a planned occurrence, but as an interim measure taken somewhat reluctantly to satisfy visitor demand. Favorable reception of the experimental opening on 16 September 1932 and continued visitation caused abandonment of the original intention to serve meals and lodge visitors at the Raleigh.

Late in 1950 the modern kitchen built onto the north end of the tavern was removed, moved to Goodwin Street, and converted to a residence. The reconstructed exhibition kitchen was completed in 1953.

Names assigned to rooms at the newly reconstructed tavern were based on reminiscences (late 1850's) by Mrs. Missouri Timberlake whose father, Robert Blassingham, was keeper when the tavern burned in December 1859. Room names then and now follow:

Note: Except for the Apollo, assigning names to specific rooms at the Raleigh is conjectural. See also my May 1974 memo, "Information Regarding Rooms at the Raleigh Tavern," located in the NEW TAVERN INFORMATION folders.

Guests and some townspeople remember eating at and attending parties at the Raleigh. Through the years and occasionally today special parties are held at the tavern. And until recent years, persons occasionally lodged in 2 the bedrooms off the back hall upstairs. But most visitors who remember dining at the Raleigh probably ate at the Travis House which served meals between 1930 and 1951 when it was located on the present site of the Greenhow house and store. Or if they are really old-timers, they may remember eating at the Raleigh Hotel, a hostelry located across from the Colonial Inn on Market Square from around 1900 until about 1930.

Relying heavily upon the Anthony Hay inventory of the Raleigh Tavern and what we have pieced together concerning available 18th, 19th and 20th century documentation relating to the Raleigh Tavern, we have attempted to once again update the surviving evidence into a new interpretive scheme. We believe that many of the points raised in this study, more effectively explain the sequence of the Hay inventory.

Two important facts must be considered initially. The most essential to understanding the inventory is that the Public Dining Room in the rear of the tavern was added after the inventory. It was a separate building that was moved to that location and added to the building during the time of the Southall occupancy.¹ The second is the fact that among the liberties that the architects took in reconstruction, was the center staircase between the bar area and the Apollo Room. As stated in May Hoffschwelle's memo (September 20, 1979) only two of the staircases were indicated by the foundations, but the third was added for circulation convenience. Further documentation for this is found in the archival material, the archaeological map, and it is indicated from the Harewood/Southall accounts that there are only two staircases. Mary was misled in her statement however, that "The archaeological excavation on this site uncovered foundations for all the rooms on the first floor as reconstructed with the exception of the hostess room at the porch door." See archaeological plan of the foundation, attached.² The room presently used by the hostesses was actually one of the few surviving walls uncovered by archaeology.

According to Pat Gibbs, the original building was altered three or four times. The original structure (C ) consisted of what is currently the bar and gentleman's room.³ A second addition was what is currently the hall and billiards room.⁴ The Apollo and Daphne were later additions (probably under the time of Alexander Finnie in the 1950's) and it is possible through uncertain whether the Innkeepers Room (off of the "Billiards Room") was also added at this time. Finally the "Public Dining Room" or "New Room" was added after the inventory of Anthony Hay. These alterations would seem to account for the unsymmetrical appearance of the Raleigh, not inaccurate information supplied to Benson Lossing as Walter Macomber assumed.

"The design of Raleigh Tavern exterior was controlled by a crude sketch made in 1848 by Benson J. Lossing to illustrate his "Pictorial Field Book of the American Revolution." The building had partially been destroyed when he __________ Williamsburg, and the west front only was standing when he drew it, consequently the south elevation in his sketch was based on the description furnished him by the men who were at work altering the building, who in round terms staled the south front was identical with the west side. This accounts for the unsymmetrical arrangements of windows in the sketch, and the entrance door being off center."⁶

Not pertaining to this study but of general interest concerning alterations to the Raleigh Tavern was the addition of a gallery in the Apollo Room by 1859.⁷ Another interesting 19th century addition to this building was a bowling alley.⁸

Before we discuss the breakdown of rooms as we see them, there are a few points concerning tavern functions which are essential to our conceptions of this building. The idea of an office and tavern accounting is underdeveloped as we interpret the tavern today. As we learn more about 18th century accounting and specifically the needs for certain records relating to tavern functions, it was definitely a most integral aspect of tavern life. There are two desks listed in the downstairs of the Anthony Hay inventory. In a 1766 Virginia Gazette, tavernkeeper tavernkeeper James Southall advertises for a barkeeper who knows something of accounts.⁹ In our interpretation of the inventory, one of the desks is located in the barkeepers room, and one in the tavernkeepers room. "Those who advertised often specified that the keeper be 'a sober person, of good capacity;' that he be 'well qualified for keeping a good ordinary' and 'recommended as such by persons' who can be depended on; and that he 'can write a good hand'."¹⁰

Pat Gibbs has stated that at taverns drinks were purchased separately as well as with meals. We see this in a few surviving accounts of tavernkeepers with guests. They are charged separately for rooms, meals, stable help, and drinks. This accumulates into a vast quantity of paperwork considering the size of the Raleigh Tavern. Not only did they have to keep good accounts but they had to maintain good sources and inventories of food supplies and liquor.

Bearing these activities in mind, the logical location for the barkeepers quarters is within close proximity to the bar where he could watch the cash flow. We suspect that such was also the case at Wetherburn's Tavern in that the barkeepers or innkeepers room was located where the hostess room is now, lending him complete access to the bar.

Finally, we feel that it is reasonable to assume that public rooms were located at the front of the building and private rooms were located away from the front and the cashier. Therefore, we feel that it is logical to assume that since billiards was considered a private game, the billiards table would not have been located at the front of the building. This was most likely a public dining area. It makes more sense to have the bar located where it is more accessible to public dining areas than have to walk through more private areas to get from one to another.

Three downstairs bed chambers are clearly indicated in the Hay inventory. This is further substantiated by James Southall accounts with Humphrey Harewood where the presence of several downstairs chambers is also indicated. Harewood charges Southall on May 11, 1780 "To repairing steps at Chamr door, and do corner of the underpining 152/... 4... 10."¹¹ Two years later he charges Southall again (April 29, 1782) "To repairing stove in kitching and steps to Chamr door 3/9... 3.9"¹² On April 23, 1785 the Harewood/Southall account reads "To building a pair of steps to Mrs Southall Room door 7/6".¹³

The apparent presence of Mrs. Southall in the Raleigh Tavern brings up the aspect of women in the tavern life, Pat Gibbs states in her tavern report that "besides the duties of running her house and raising a family she was often responsible for supervising the cooks and other tavern servants. In an advertisement for his small tavern in Williamsburg, Christopher Ayscough noted that "Mrs. Ayscough very well understands the COOKERY part."¹¹ He could justly praise his wife's cooking since Anne Ayscough had been Governor Fauquier's cook at the Palace."¹⁴

Many of these points are confirmed by the Raleigh inventory. It is obvious that the inventory takers began on the second floor. There appear to be 12 bedrooms with two closets, one with chamberpots and one with linens. Only two of these bedchambers have fireplace equipment but considering the fact that there is evidence for eight fireplaces downstairs it is possible that there were grates. There are numerous references to setting up and repairing grates in the Harewood/Southall accounts.^[15]

The entry "1 Glass lanthern at the stair foot" clearly indicates that the inventory takers had begun with the downstairs rooms. We have divided these into eight rooms with eight fireplaces. Immediately the inventory takers began listing the bar equipment indicating that they came down the front staircase since the only other staircase was the one between the Apollo and Daphne Rooms. Logically the bar was in the general vicinity of the front entrance in the general area of where the "Gentlemen's Room" is now. There was no archaeological evidence for the bar being where it is currently located. It is rumored that the reason for placing the bar in the Southwest corner of the building was because it was felt that for convenience the bar was located over the cellar. The cellar however extended at least as far as under the "Gentleman's Room" and under the Apollo.¹⁶

This location for the bar makes more sense for several reasons. As we will suggest later, the barkeeper would have access to the bar as well as his own private quarters. It would enable him to monitor the front entrance and gives the bar the greatest accessibility to all the various rooms in the tavern. Immediately following the bar equipment is furniture suitable to a bar area.

Two separate groups of dining related furniture follow the bar and gaming furniture. The smaller group we believe was located in what is now the Tap Room and the larger group would likely have been located in what is now the Billiard Room. Not only does this make sense in conjunction with the inventory sequence, but it also makes sense when one considers each room as a functional unit in relation to the entrance and, bar area. Upon entering the tavern, the public dining area would appear to have been to the right, located conveniently next to the bar. The smaller dining room was probably slightly more private in nature and shares the same close proximity to the bar. This arrangement seems to be more practical than having to walk through one dining area to get to another. As previously mentioned, we feel that more public rooms were towards the front and entrance to taverns. Billiards was more of a private game and most likely found in the rear of the tavern. It is interesting to note that this is the only room in which cloak pins are mentioned.

Proceeding through the inventory the next room is a downstairs bed chamber. Judging from the quality and nature of the furnishings, this was probably the innkeepers room. The furniture was elaborate for what one would expect to find in a tavern, the bed valued at £16 (coincidentally there is the reference to Dickenson repairing Mrs. Hay's pulley bed after the death of her husband.¹⁷) We expect that this room was located off the public dining area (currently Billiards Room). After mealtime, this area of the tavern would not be frequented by guests making it a more private area. The innkeepers would have had to have a desk and bookcase, in addition, this is the only room which has the more personal entry of a gun lock.

The next group of furniture appears to be that associated with the barkeeper, and the next available space in the layout of the building is where the hostess room is currently located. As previously mentioned, the foundations under this room date to the 18th century. The press bedstead and large Scale Box, Scales and Weights one would expect to find in an area designated for the barkeeper. From this location he would have easy access to the outbuildings. In many instances, we presume that the barkeeper acted as somewhat of a butler. There is a _________ listed with this group in which items relating to the bar are evidenced in addition to numerous brass candlesticks. It is logical to assume that the barkeeper was responsible for checking in and out candlesticks. Some of these items were probably stored in a closet since the entry of a Fender generally concludes a particular listing.

Of one thing is certain, Anthony Hay was too ill during the last part of his life to conduct business at the Raleigh Tavern without the assistance of a reliable barkeeper. Due to his financial situation, he most likely spent as much time as possible at the tavern. In summarizing the Raleigh furnishings, Ron Hurst gives a good indication of the vast quantities of equipment available for use. Much of this would likely have been supervised by the barkeeper.

"Hay's food and beverage equipment denoted an operation of enormous proportions. Included in the £37 worth of silver he possessed were six punch ladles, twenty-two tablespoons, and twenty-eight teaspoons. The kitchen was well equipped with several dozen kettles, pots, and pans, and in addition to the normal accoutrements, there were ten brass chafing dishes, two Dutch ovens, and a number of other specialized pieces.

In the dining rooms, Hay's utensils were not only numerous, but expensive as well. Among other things, the appraisers listed 139 "Queens China" plates, 122 other china plates, and an incredible "412 Pieces of Glass ware for Pyramids &c." In all Hay owned £173 worth of food and beverage equipment, including silver. Table linen was equally extensive. Hay's thirty-seven tablecloths and twenty-six napkins were valued at £53.¹⁸

The next group of objects indicated by the inventory is another downstairs chamber. There is a nice walnut bedstead with curtains and we suspect a trundle bed. It is entirely possible that Mrs. Hay used this room as her own at the time when her husband owned the Raleigh. We know from the Harewood/Southall accounts that there were definitely two sets of exterior stairs leading to chambers mentioned, and one is specifically referred to as "Mrs Southall Room door". The location of this room would logically be where the inaccurate stair hall is currently located. We can see from the Lossing drawing that there is a door leading into the area that we propose as a bed chamber. We also know from Lossing's written accounts that there was an exterior entrance door into the Apollo from the east elevation of the room in addition to interior entrances from both sides. (See Lossing drawing.) It seems logical that the exterior entrance to the Apollo would be accessible to the outbuildings while also visible from the barkeepers vantage point. The evidence strongly supports the presence of this exterior door into the room modified as a hallway and considering the fact that reference is made to exterior doorways into two bedchambers, this is a likely candidate.

The Hay inventory is consistent with other tavern inventories in the presence of these downstairs bedchambers. We suspect that as more research is compiled from inventories, what will emerge is that these bedchambers were primarily used by people associated with the tavern, or by special customers. The bedchamber which we suspect was located where the stair hall is now, would have been a convenient room for the wife of a tavernkeeper. There is no mention of record keeping equipment found here and it is possible that this was the location of the "14 colored prints". This room, having an exterior entrance would be more private than the other side of the tavern, since the Apollo would not have been in constant use, and the room on the other side we have interpreted as more of a semi-private dining room. One final point is that from our archaeological evidence, the fireplaces currently found in the bar and gentleman's room, were originally in the form of 4 diagonal fireplaces, the other two omitted in the reconstruction.

As previously mentioned, there was a womens role in tavern life allowing us to argue that a downstairs chamber for the wife of the tavernkeeper is presumable. Pat Gibbs cites specific instances where women were involved.

"Tavern keeping was not solely a man's occupation, for a number of women operated taverns--notably Susanna Allen, Christianna Campbell, Anne Sheilds, and Jane Vobe. Widows continued to operate the taverns which their husbands had kept. For instance, Mary Bowcock, whose husband, Henry Bowcock, died early in 1730, received an ordinary license in July, 1730. In 1767 Sarah Coke, widow of John Coke, gave notice to the "Gentlemen who were so kind as to favour her deceased husband with their custom that they, may depend on receiving the same entertainment as formerly."²¹

One couple, Richard and Mary Davis, jointly operated a tavern. Their business began in 1770 when Mary Davis advertised that she intended "to accommodate Ladies and Gentlemen with private lodgings." Sometime before October, 1772, they were operating a tavern at the Brick House; however, by January of the following year they had moved."²²"¹⁹

The vast quantity and value of the textiles found in the inventory is further indication that Mrs. Hay was likely highly involved in the tavern functions.

The next grouping of furniture comprises both the Apollo and the Daphne Room. There are 22 tables listed and 33 chairs. The Daphne Room we propose as the location for the Billiard table. Being a private room, and billiards was a private game, this room seems a logical choice. The size is appropriate for the table. Surprisingly enough, after walking off the Apollo Room we believe that the remaining 21 tables and chairs would fit in that space. It is also interesting to note that with the presence of an exterior door into the room, there is exactly the correct number of positions for the "11 Brass Sconces". This room was added to the tavern at the time when assembly and ballrooms were fashionable. The closer that one examines the appearance of this room in relation to the activities that took place, the more closely it relates to the concept of the Assembly Room.

We have attempted to formulate some new concepts concerning our view of 18th century tavern life and to incorporate them with the Hay inventory of the Raleigh. After discussion and revision of these thoughts this memo will be reworked.

As you know, the Operating Taverns Committee, has approved posting ordinary rates and other handwritten notices beside the bars and in major rooms where guests are served and recommends the same be done at the Raleigh and at Wetherburn's.

Presently handwritten copies of incorrect ordinary rates and notices are tacked onto plaster walls at the Raleigh and a different set of incorrect ordinary rates are tacked on wood paneling beside Wetherburn's bar.

Recently when I mentioned to Margaret Pritchard that the Operating Taverns Committee wanted ordinary rates and notices attached to walls at the operating taverns and suggested the same be done at Wetherburn's, she said that Architectural Research had not allowed notices to be posted at Wetherburn's in the past.

Please explore ways to preserve the walls and woodwork of our buildings yet also make exterior tavern doorways and interior walls better fit Johann Schoepf's 1784 observations of Virginia taverns:

…It is not always the custom to hang shields before taverns, but they are easily to be identified by the great number of miscellaneous papers and advertisements with which the walls and doors of these publick houses are plaistered; generally, the more of such bills are to be seen on a house, the better it will be found to be. In this way the traveller is afforded a many sided entertainment, and can inform himself as to where the taxes are heavy, where wives have run away, horses been stolen, or the new Doctor has settled.

Several enclosed prints [Take my word if you can't see for yourself on the poorly reproduced copies.] show notices tacked to wooden paneling or in the case of the Lehman engraving possibly pasted on a plastered wall above the fireplace.

In 1889 a workman found several printed papers--including a fragment of a 1752 Williamsburg playbill, an invitation to assemble at the Palace before Botetourt's 16 October 1770 funeral procession, fragments of an "Association" broadside, and a 1774 proclamation of Honorable William Nelson-pasted on plastered walls, under several coats of whitewash, at the Ludwell-Paradise House [William and Mary College Quarterly, 1st series, 5(1896): 169-170].

I discovered in the Petersburg clerk's office, a book that had originally been used as a ledger for a tavern billiard room. The 8¼" by 12½" book had a leather spine with marbled covers and across the front was handwritten "Billiard Book.". On the inside of the cover was written "Billiard Room Book Feby 13, 1787 L" in addition to a lot of period doodling. The only tavern entries in the ledger were at the rear of the book, and unfortunately most of these pages were torn out.

In 1803, the book was used to record the minutes for the Board of Exemption (from military duty) for the City of Petersburg. In 1787 the Petersburg Hustings Court was still meeting in taverns, and possibly this ledger was accidentally taken away along with the court records.

The ledger is helpful in several regards. First of all, it is interesting to know that separate ledgers were kept for billiard rooms. The entries reinforce the notion that gaming rooms existed and could be profitable additions to taverns. At this tavern people were paying to play cards, billiards and games. Drinking possibly went on in the same room as the games-and almost certainly the dining room was used for drinking. One wonders if the persons playing these games were local, as the entries indicate that up to ten days of gaming was being charged at one time.

As we discussed on the telephone yesterday, the Collections Division this fall proposes re-examining the inventory of the Raleigh Tavern taken at the time of Anthony Hay's death. We decided that the timing for such an analysis was a good one given the fact that the tavern will be closed for six months for maintenance and this closure was prompting the Department of Historic Interpretation to reconsider its interpretation of the building.

To this end I would like to enter into preliminary discussions with both Pat Gibbs and Mark Wenger to get their respective department's thinking about the Raleigh. Let me emphasize that we are by no means considering a full-scale overhaul of the tavern's furnishings. Rather, what we hope to accomplish is a refinement of those objects already there and the spaces that they occupy so as to bring the Raleigh closer in line with our current understanding of the 1771 inventory. This information would then be passed on to DHI so that it might be incorporated in any reinterpretation that they consider implementing at the time of the tavern's reopening on May 1, 1990.

If you have any questions or comments about this proposed re-examination, please call me at ext. 7513.

Assembly Instructions for Raleigh Tavern Billiard Table

The enclosed hieroglyphics represent the Raleigh Tavern billiard table (1965-77) as it was marked and disassembled today. Every bolt, screw and pocket that was removed from the frame was individually marked and wrapped. I have sent copies to all involved in the project so we are sure that someone will have these directions come springtime. I will also ask Margie to put a copy in the file.

The entry, "34 Coloured Prints 20/. 1 Mattrass 40/ 3.0.0", in the Raleigh Tavern inventory of 1771 appears in what is believed to be a passage context. In trying to determine exactly what type of mattress this could be, Rebecca Fass studied the York County inventories for Williamsburg. (See attached). The following is a summary of what she found.

Out of a total of 121 inventories, 120 entries were found for "feather beds", with 100 (out of 36 inventories) found before 1740 and only 20 (out of 85 inventories) found after 1740. This may suggest that by the second half of the eighteenth century, "bed" had become synonymous with a feather bed. Only two entries were found to separate the price of a feather bed from the other bed furniture, "2 old feather bed" at 2.0.0 and "a small feather bed" at 0.15.0. other entries of interest are:

Five entries were found that separated the price of "mattrasses" from the other bed furniture:

The average cost of these "mattrasses" is just a little over 1.16. which means that the mattress in the Raleigh Tavern valued at 2.0.0 is above the known average cost for mattresses between 1769 and 1775. We are also safe to assume from this that Page 2 the mattress was made of hair as opposed to straw or some other cheaper stuffing. If indeed this mattress is in a passage context (and not storage), it has been speculated that it was intended as bedding for a servant or slave. The question still remains whether bedding of this value would have been furnished for a slave or servant.

For some time we have puzzled over the Humphrey Harwood reference to whitewashing "ye One & ye Four 5/"(copy attached). We have wondered if this referred to one particular room known by a numeralistic name.

Last fall Jan was doing some tavern research and found two references in Kim Rice's tavern book to a Boston tavern that had one room called "the Eight" and another called "the Ten" (copy attached). Then two weeks ago I was looking at the 1742 Henry Bowcock inventory from the York County records and noted that it started off with "No. 1." which was followed with "2," "3," "4," "5," and "6" (copy also attached).

Is it possible that the "One" and the "Four" are two of the bedrooms upstairs, especially since the following entry is "To do [whitewashing] passage Below"? Any cognitions on this? I am sending a copy of this to Mark to see what his reaction is, as well.

Appendices

Inventory & appraisment of the Estate of Henry Bowcock late of York County decd. taken 29 June 1742.

Henry Tyler Admr.

In Obedience to an order of the Court of York County We the Subscribers being first Sworn have appraised the Estate of Henry Bowcock decd. Amounting to Two hundred forty three pounds Eighteen shillings and Eleven pence as above
June 29th. 1742

James Wray
Andrew Anderson
Joseph Davenport

At a Court held for York County
July 19th. 1742

This Inventory & appraisement of the Estate of Henry Bowcock decd. Was this day retd. To Court and Ordered to be recorded.

Exam.

Test.
Matt. Hubard Cl. Cur.

The small northeast room off the Billiard Room in the Raleigh Tavern will be reinterpreted as the barkeeper's room. The inventory, I am told, leads to this conclusion.

As it is today, the room has a rather elaborate overmantle and the woodwork is painted a cream color, which accents the mouldings of the overmantle. Since this room would have been considered an inferior space, it would probably not have had such fancy paneling. And, being inferior, it would probably have had a cheaper paint color or perhaps not be painted at all. However, the fancy woodwork exists in the room and it is painted. Consequently, at the suggestion of Betty Leviner, we would like to repaint it Spanish Brown, Color No. 5192. This would not only underline the lesser quality of the room but would serve to downplay the design of the paneling as well.

Would you please see that this is done before the Tavern is reopened? Thanks.

The following is a list of modern fittings that would be visually intrusive if the north second-floor passage at Raleigh is viewed from the south door. I have suggested remedies when they are evident.

The closer on the south door should be removed.

There is a modern lock in the south door. I wonder if this lock could not simply be removed. Is it needed for security? If not, we should patch the mortise visible in the edge of the door as well as the holes for cylinder and turn knob.

A light switch is located just to the left of the south door. If this has to be left in place, a coat or some object needs to be hung over it.

There is also a fire extinguisher and hanger to the right of the south door. It would be simple to raise this to chest level, move it 10" to the east, and hang another piece of clothing over it. Otherwise it needs to be kept elsewhere.

The corner of the screen in the southernmost window may be visible. Should it be removed?

The face of the cylinder locks in the first and second (southern) side doors will be visible. I suppose oval covers should be put over them, though this is not a very successful solution. Is there a chance that office-holders could use relatively large keys for the case locks also on the doors?

There are three new electrical casings and two heat grilles in the passage ceiling. I assume the former are for detectors. All these will be visible, though perhaps unavoidable. Nick, I wonder if three detectors were needed and, if so, did you approve them?

There is also wiring for what I assume are two sconces and perhaps a thermometer on the west wall, as well as a light switch south of the small stair. Betty, will a piece of furniture block the view of the switch? If not, let's hang 2 clothes over this too, if acceptable. I prefer the former solution.

The cylinder lock in the door at the north end is so far away that it can simply be painted out.

Betty tells me that you have some questions about the amount of leather upholstery we have used at the Raleigh. She asked that I assemble for your review the research on which we have based those decisions. As I think you will see, we have excellent documentation for leather upholstery in our taverns, and should probably be using more of it at Wetherburn's.

I compiled the information below in 1980. It is taken from the estate inventories of twenty-seven tavern keepers in Williamsburg and Yorktown, and two in Norfolk, all recorded between 1716 and 1782. Within these twenty-nine establishments were a total of 1,085 chairs, and of that group, a specific upholstery material was mentioned in 502 cases. of that number 328 chairs were covered in leather, 133 had rush or flag bottoms, 31 were caned, 12 had haircloth, and 12 had "blue bottoms." Two thirds of the taverns examined had leather chairs of one kind or another.

Clearly, leather was the most popular material for tavern seating in eighteenth-century Virginia, probably because of its durability. The next largest group of material, flag and rush bottoms, were probably associated with inexpensive ladderbacks. Neither Wetherburn's nor Hay's inventory indicates the presence of ladder-backs, suggesting that they may have been used in less august circumstances.

I hope this provides the information you wanted. Please let me know if you have any questions.

This memo is to confirm decisions reached in yesterday's meeting of the Raleigh Tavern Reinterpretation Team regarding new routes for groups and reproduction seating needs for the tavern.

It was agreed that the new traffic pattern would involve the public walking through the Club Room and Bar Room, with Collections' reservations being noted about the reduced furnishings this implies. To compensate for this reduction, it was agreed that the public will be directed along the east wall of both the Daphne Room and new Billiard Room. This will allow Collections to add accessories that the former traffic pattern did not permit in these two rooms. I have left a message for Gary Brumfield about some unused stanchions in the Gun Shop. If this does not pan out, I will see about having C&M fabricate several.

As for reproduction seating for visitors, it was agreed that as a temporary measure I will go back to Sarah Caramia to see if we can use 12 of the Palace Advance chairs to tide us over until Collections can procure 24 Virginia Craftsmen chairs. Ron hopes this will take no longer than 2-3 months. Also, we will proceed with ordering hand-made reproductions from the Hay Shop, a process which will take a considerably longer time.

If you have questions about any of the above, please let me know as soon as possible.

In accordance with our discussion Friday, the following changes must be made in the light fixtures:

• 1.Paint the hanging lanterns on the rear porch and the one over the stairway flat black, including chains, canopies, etc.
• 2.Install one of the double brass sconces now located in the second floor north passage in the north stair in lieu of the tin sconce specified.
• 3.Get a second tin sconce matching the one specified for the stair (CW 13162, electrified), paint both flat black and install in the passage in lieu of the brass sconces.
• 4.Tag the remaining brass sconce (this is one of the originals used in the reconstruction) identify it on a tag and store. Mark tag that this is not to be reused without the Foundation Architect's approval.

Confirming our discussion Friday regarding the second floor north passage, the following changes have to be made in order to open the passage to visitors' view:

• 1.Remove the mortise lock on the door at the south end of the passage (leading to the southwest stair), patch as required and paint to match door.
• 2.I know I didn't think so at the time, but I now feel we should remove the cylinder lock on the most southern door on the west wall. Patch as required and paint to match door.
• 3.Remove the cylinder lock on the second door from the south on the west wall, patch as required and paint to match door.
• 4.Paint out cylinder lock on the door at the north end of the passage to match door.
• 5.Can we put the fire extinguisher somewhere else?

I think we are in process of making all the changes we can in the second floor north passage in order to exhibit it. I will leave up to you how to camouflage such things as:

• 1.Light switches (hang a hat or something over them?).
• 2.The thermostat at the north end (another hat?).
• 3.The fire extinguisher if it cannot be put in one of the rooms or somewhere where it cannot be seen (could you put a chest or some such on that wall and stick the extinguisher in the corner?).

There is nothing we can do about the grilles and smoke detectors. These were all approved (and, I think, installed) before I heard anything about the passage being interpreted. I'm afraid they are necessary because there are offices up there.

The reinterpretation at the Raleigh has necessitated another change. Due to the new furniture arrangement on the second floor the barrier between bedrooms 3 and 4 has to be removed. Would you please have someone do this and patch and touch up as required? If there is any question, please call Betty Leviner (ext. 1513).

I talked with Nick today and he agreed that the runner should be removed from the north passage. He will ask Lawrence to have it taken up.

Thanks for keeping after all this.

Although we do not have a room by room inventory of the Raleigh Tavern, Anthony Hay's inventory of 1771 provides us with a listing of furniture which-can be broken down into logical room groupings. We have used these room groupings to select the textiles and bed furniture newly installed in the tavern. The following are the inventory references and information on the antique and reproduction textiles selected.

I have received your telephone message that the brass wall sconce removed from the second floor north passage of the Raleigh Tavern has been tagged and stored on the third floor of the Governor's Palace. This sconce was part of the original 1930's reconstruction of the Tavern and should be accorded the same care as any other artifact. I hope the tag reads that the sconce cannot be removed or reused without the express approval of the Foundation Architect. If it does not, would you please add this?

Storing it in the Palace is perfectly acceptable to me until such time that the foundation Architect has a suitable storage facility for such artifacts.

Thanks for taking care of this for me.

As we discussed last week, it is perfectly all right to extend the furring around the security device in the closet under the west stair of the Tavern (between the Barr and Apollo Room) to the ceiling of the closet and to raise the unit. It is also permissible to remove a portion of the plaster inside the closet so that the sensor can be against the back of the Apollo Room plaster.

I think you had a very good idea in raising the sensor rather than having Collections move the chair. This gives considerably more freedom for rearranging furniture in the future.

[No digital Image Available - Form of Transmittal, Architects' Office, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation]