Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Documentary references

Ca. 1710: - "One great Lanthorn for the Hall." "Proposal for rendering the New House convenient as well as Ornamental. "

October 29, 1711: - "About 9 o'clock I went to wait on the Governor but he was not at home and I walked after him to the new house and found him there and saw several of the Governor's contrivances, and particularly that for hanging the arms." The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, I, 429.

November 19, 17ll: - "I went to the Governors but he was gone to the new house and I went there to him and found him putting up the arms." Byrd, op.cit., p. 440 .

May 26, 1715: - "The Musquetts now in the Governor's hall being a hundred and sixty in number & in very good order," Executive Journals of the Council, III, 399.

April 26, 1723: - "that great part of the Arms in the Magazine and at the Governor's House are much out of repair & unfit for service"… Exec. Journals of the Council, IV, 31.

1723-24: -"The Palace, or Governor's House, is a magnificent structure, finished and beautified …with a great number of the best arms nicely posited, by the ingenious contrivance of the most accomplished Colonel Spotswood." The Present State of Virginia … by Hugh Jones (London, 1724) (Ed. R.L. Morton, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1956, p. 70.]

May 25, 1758: -"The President likewise communicated a letter from Sir John St. Clair, dated Winchester May 19th, signifying that both the Virginia Regiments wanted blankets, and that the second was without Arms, which he desired they might be supplied out of the Governor's House, as the Arms there can never be put to better use. " Exec. Journals of the Council, VI, 95-96.

May 31, 1758: - "I have this instant received a letter from Mr. President Blair acquainting me that he will not dismantle the Govrs house at Williamsburg of the Kings Arms. All I can infer from his stupid letter, is that he wants them in order to make War on the Cherokees … Surely when the Ministry sent those arms over they never were intended for adorning the Govrs House. " Sir John St. Clair to Col. Henry Bouquet.

June 2, 1758: -"The President acquainted the Board that considering the pressing Exigencies of the Service, he had sent away all the arms in the Magazine, and all those in the Governor's House, being near 700 .. ." Exec. Journals of the Council, VI, 97.

June 9th, 1758: - "…on the pres^ts reflecting what he had done about Arms, he had all those in the Govrs House pack'd up and put on board of a Vessell, which said from York for Fredericksbourg the 2 inst… " Sir John St. Clair to Col. Henry Bouquet.

September 18, 1763: - "The whole number [of arms] I could muster up to help to arm the Frontier counties amounted to but 100 and many of them out of repair … " F. Fauquier, Williamsburg, to Sir J. Amherst, New York. (Fauquier official correspondence, typescript, Research Dept., CWF.)

December 13, 1763: - "A thousand stand of good musketts, with bayonets and cartouche boxes compleat …" arrived in Williamsburg from Sir Jeffrey Amherst, New York, via James Furniss, Comptroller of the Ordnance, New York. (Fauquier official correspondence, typescript, Research Dept., CWF.)

June 13, 1775: - "It appears to your Committee from the Deposition of John Frederick Miller, keeper of the Magazine, that in June last (1774) there were there thirty barrels of Gun Powder, containing each about fifty weight, in indifferent order; that, by the Governor's directions, he sifted twenty seven barrels, out of which he made up twenty six Casks and better, the other three he left unsifted; That the President, soon after, sent to the Governor, then on the Frontiers, eight of those he had sifted, three hundred Muskets, Bayonets, Cartouch boxes, and Carbines, which have never been returned; That one hundred and fifty of the said Muskets were furnished out of the Palace, and soon after replaced out of the Magazine; That the said Miller, by order of the President, also delivered out about fifty stand of Arms, to some Gentlemen men of this City, which have not been returned." Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, vol. 13, pp. 223-24.

June 21, 1775: - "… that the Arms belonging to the King, which have for so many years been lodged, may still remain, in the Palace…" Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1773-76, p. 273.

June 24, 1775: -"List of arms & etc removed from the Palace. In the handwriting of Theodorick Bland, Jr. --

September 25, 1815: -"A considerable number of muskets, etc. was always to be seen in the Entrance of the Palace, where they were arranged upon the walls in an ornamental Manner, as in the Tower of London. It was these Arms, I suspect, that Lord Dunmore put into the hands of the Marines. He could not have brought them from the Magazine…without discovery…" St. George Tucker's Mss. comments of William Wirt's mss. Life of Patrick Henry [W&M Quarterly, 1st series, 22, 250-57].

AA 1

AA 2

[Staircase]

[Room Interior]

[Chair]

Parlor Closet

In his Life in the English Country House, Girouard traces the long development of the parlour from the Middle Ages onwards; it is almost always found off the hall (originally, of course, the great hall, the central focus of the household), and in conjunction with the great chamber, later to become the great dining chamber. Thus it was always smaller and more intimate than the great dining chamber. Parlours were sometimes also used for eating and sometimes also for games such as billiards——which may explain Spotswood's "Billiard Room." In some great houses in the 17th century it was the room where the upper servants ate.

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries there was often also a great parlour, which gradually developed into the salon or saloon, necessitating, therefore, a "common" or everyday parlour, which was still on the ground floor. The possible use of the upper Middle Room as a salon or great parlour may explain the designation in the Botetourt inventory of the parlour always as the "front parlour."

Apropos of what was probably its primary function in this official residence, the parlor obviously contained enough chairs to act as a waiting room for "persons who are of better rank than to be left in the hall." For such persons who were obliged to wait, the Scripture prints undoubtedly provided edifying and entertaining "reading matter" — (viz. Fithian, March 20, 1774, "I spent much of this day in Mr. Carter's Library among the works of mighty-Men; I turned over Calmets, Scripture prints, they are beautiful & vastly entertaining — "Fithian's Diary, p. 83). And the presence of not one but three important maps, with an extra Fry and Jefferson in the closet, should hardly be considered coincidental; they were there for precise reference, since many of those who came to wait on the Governor came seeking favour of one kind or another pertaining to land.

In this context it is well to take note of the following comment from the South Carolina-Gazette, September 10, 1772: — "In Virginia their new Scotch Governor began his Government with Negligence and Disregard of the Duties of his office. His Lordship was hardly ever visited, very difficult of Access, and frequently could not be spoken with, when the most urgent Business of the Public called for his Attendance. These spirited colonists could not bear these haughty Airs, but deputed one of their Lawyers to remonstrate against this Supercilious Behaviour, so inconsistent with the service of the great Prince whom he represented. At first he stormed, but at last he agreed to name Office-Hours, when every Person concerned might attend on Business. Since which time all things have gone on very peaceably … "

It is obvious that the "Passage Up Stairs" was yet another waiting area, for even more privileged visitors——this will be discussed later.

The parlor obviously served other purposes too. The correspondence between the location of this room with its card tables, and Fithian's already-quoted experience at the Lees' ball (January 18, 1774) is rather exact. Yet Fauquier seems to have kept the same two card tables in the Upper Middle Room——although the evidence for this is slender and in no way indicates a constant practise.

A third card table was kept in reserve in the closet, where also, were kept the Mediterranean Passes, issued to those merchants or captains who wished to do business in the Mediterranean, who needed the passes as proof of their being there legitimately rather than nefariously, particularly in this period of parlours relationships between England and France.

Did, perhaps, the Governor's private secretary (Capt. Foy under Dunmore) fill out the Mediterranean pass for the petitioner who had been shown in by the footman, (Botetourt had a footman called Knight) using the writing table in the parlour, which the secretary would then take to the Governor to sign?

Notice also the couch in the parlor, indicative of yet another use to which this room could be put, probably out of office hours. Botetourt had only two couches in the entire house, one here and one in the pantry. He had bought one couch (for £2) and one settee (for £6) from Fauquier; because of a certain flexibility in terminology concerning this form it is not possible to say exactly, but it is conceivable that the "couch" in the parlor was the settee that Botetourt had acquired from his predecessor's estate, for it is not otherwise mentioned, rather than the more normal daybed-type of "couch". Fithian's illuminating quote — July 13, 1774, "The other day, Mrs. Carter was lying in the long room among the Books on the Couch …" describes the piece of furniture that Chippendale and others in their pattern books illustrate……what we call a daybed. But the Society of Upholsterers pattern book, which we have very good reason to believe was in Williamsburg in this period, shows a "settee-couch" and, under "couch's;" two sofas! Sheraton in 1803 shows the daybed forms, calls them chaises longues and says "their use is to rest or loll upon after dinner, and in some cases…serve for a sofa."

In any event, the couch was almost certainly for relaxing and/or reading.

It is interesting to note that at Tryon's Palace (built 1767-70) the room occupying the same relationship to the hall as our parlour was called the servants hall, while on the opposite side of the hall was a library. The parlour at Tryon's Palace was a large room next to the dining room/drawing room. Governor Eden of Maryland, meanwhile, had two parlours listed in his inventory of 1776, one called the Gilt Leather parlour and containing almost identical furnishings to our parlour, the other called the right hand parlour and containing primarily a card table, a large dining table, 12 chairs, and a number of paintings. Tryon in New York in 1773 gave a partial listing of the contents of his parlour or "Chints Room" there and included 3 mahogany card tables, a chimney glass, and a carpet.

There were seven mahogany chairs (standing furniture) in the front parlour, the upholstery unspecified. Seven is an unusual number, but there were also four standing furniture mahogany chairs in the pantry, across the hall. It is thus possible that they were all from the same set. The pantry chairs were upholstered with leather, as were all the other standing furniture chairs in the Palace; therefore, it is more than likely that the front parlour chairs were upholstered with leather too. If that were so, they would be more serviceable and intended for harder wear than if they were covered with damask, like the chairs in the hall.

This line of reasoning suggests that the front parlour did, indeed, serve as a place for as well as a place for relaxation and conversation (and card-playing) after meals or after hours.

The chairs we have chosen are side-chair adaptations of the rare armchair from the DAR Museum in Washington, D.C. (see "Style and Taste" at the Governor's Palace: Introduction, fig. A. 5 and fig. B. 1) which is stamped "VIRG" on the back seat rail, a strong indication of official ownership.

Two smoking chairs are based on a Virginia prototype in the St. George Tucker House in Williamsburg (fig. B.2). We have recently discovered, by means of an English drawing of 1787, that the term "smoking chair" pertains to the form we have traditionally called a "corner chair." This form is not uncommon in Virginia furniture (see Gusler, Furn. pp. 141-42).

A certain confusion surrounding the definition "couch" has already been referred to. Because of this, we have chosen to follow the one unambiguous Virginia reference to this form ——from George Washington's account books for 1759, for material from the London cabinetmaker, Philip Bell: ——"A Neat Mahogany Marlborough Couch with a Roll head & Leather Cushions to ditto, stufft up in the best manner & covered with black Leather, quilted, best princes Metal Nails, Boulster & 2 Pillows , filled with Goose Feathers £7-0-0." We have traditionally called this form a "daybed," but the more correct 18th-century terminology is "couch."

The mahogany card tables are of the mid-century period and of rather fine quality (fig. B. 3). The writing table is another example of an extremely restrained rococo form that can be found illustrated in Chippendale's Director (fig. B. 4). Two small looking glasses, perhaps from Fauquier's estate, are of mid-century date. Considerably less elegant than ^some others in the house (in all probability), they are still appropriate for a waiting room and for a room to which ladies might repair after meals.

As Lord Botetourt seems to have had a strong interest in ornithology, we have used the opportunity presented by the "11 Chelsea China figures" to show an important set of birds modelled at the Chelsea porcelain factory immediately after the publication in London of the last volume of George Edwards', A Natural History of Uncommon Birds … (1743-51), and based on plates in that book (see Austin, Chelsea Porcelain, pp. 120-29).

Notice that there are no curtains listed for the room and that the carpet had been in storage for the summer. This latter object, because of the less than completely up-to-date nature of some of the furniture in the room, we have based on a 1753 English design for a pile-woven carpet, drawn by Anna Maria Garthwaite. (see fig. B.5. The manuscript design is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.) The reproduction, woven in England, is very carefully based on the colours of the original carpets of the period, yet it may still surprise some of our visitors by its vividness.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the parlour, however, will be the arrangement of "Scripture prints". One set of such prints —— called "Calmet's," and owned by Robert Carter of Nomini Hall (who had earlier lived on Palace Green and was an intimate friend of Fauquier's) —— has already been noted. Identical prints were also to be found in the library of his brother, Landon Carter, which makes their documented connection with Virginia strong, indeed. (Calmet was an early 18th century, French author of a three-volume dictionary of the Bible, translated into English in 1732; the illustrations for his book were commissioned from various print-makers and are of an artistic quality that, I think is fair to say, would make them less than "vastly entertaining" to most people.)

Another appropriate set of "scripture prints" with a possible Virginia connection, and which we have been fortunate to acquire, was engraved mainly by the Frenchman Picart and the Dutchman Houbracken for an illustrated New Testament published in the 1720s in several languages (see figs. B.6 and 7 for two representative examples). Such prints were also sold separately, as well as to other publishers; a virtually identical set was incorporated into a Latin bible published in Amsterdam, and an English bible published in Cambridge, England. Versions of the Latin bible were owned by William Byrd and Robert Carter, and a version of the English bible was left by William Gooch's widow to the College of William and Mary.

Whether it was actually one of the above sets, or a different one, that adorned the walls of the front parlour (and because they were standing furniture, could have done for many years previously) we may never know. What is important is that they were edifying and decorative, something for those waiting upon the governor to contemplate and admire. Their arrangement is based on 18th century English prints of interiors showing such items massed on the walls. They introduce us to the role of the governor in the religious life of the colony. They also form, along with the arms in the hall, an important introduction to the 18th century's preference for sets of items, appropriately arranged, to give an impression of proper symmetry and grandeur.

The most obvious difference between the front parlour at the Palace and similar rooms in great Virginia houses is the presence of a couch at the Palace. Frequently this item was kept in the passage (or hall) of Virginia houses. Otherwise, the furnishings are quite similar —— the dining function that such a room could offer, if necessary, is occasionally indicated by the presence of a marble slab and/or a dining table.

Prints and looking glasses are not uncommon . Not enough evidence is available to compare the leather upholstery in the Palace parlour with that in other Virginia houses.

B 2

B 3

B 4

B 5

B 6
FILE COPY

B 7
FILE COPY

Among Governor Botetourt's possessions in the front parlour was a Bowen map of North America. Emanuel Bowen served in the rather unusual capacity of map maker to both George II and Louis XV of France, and thus most of his work was done for official government purposes. This particular map served to delineate the dominions of the British, French, and Spanish as determined at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1763 and was published shortly thereafter by Robert Sayer in London.

Full information on the Mitchell map of North America, also in the parlour, shown partially folded in a traveling case has been provided to the interpreters with their reading list.

Secondary References

"Pantry - a Room to sit Victuals in; a Store-Room" - R. Neve, The City and Country Purchaser's and Builders Dictionary (London, 1736).

"Pantry - a room or apartment in a house, etc., in which bread and other provisions are kept; also (butler's or housemaid's pantry), one in which the plate, linen, etc for the table are kept." OED.

The function of the pantry seems to have changed little from the Middle Ages to the 18th century, and, indeed, its location seems to have changed little either, although, of course, it was always susceptible to some variation. When it served the late medieval great hall it was generally at the opposite end from the recently introduced parlour, and it appears frequently in 17th and 18th century English house plans (including the grandest) on the opposite side of the hall from the front parlour.

Its function as a store room is self-evident from the inventory and it has been refurnished as such. Almost certainly it was Botetourt's butler's (Marshman) office, where he would keep accounts (in the Library Table) and keep strict control over the wine and liquor inventory and the valuable plate. Items that the butler needed in the dining room for the dispensing of wine and liquor were also stored here, as well as various types of candles that would be dispensed as needed.

The presence here of a built-in closet is confirmed by the inventory——"1 iron chest in closet next the fire." It is likely that the plate was kept locked in here, perhaps the "physic" also and the almost seven dozen bottles of wine and spirits. There is no reference to a movable cup-board in the room and it would seem, by itself, too small to contain such a profuse quantity of items without a closet. Nor is it likely that the closet next to it that contains the west entrance would have been an appropriate storage place for valuables.

The strategic location of the Pantry off the hall is obvious——the butler could make sure that the footman at the front door, whom he almost certainly supervised, was doing his job properly. At the Palace he could also watch the other help whom he supervised too using the other main (service) entrance.

Lord Botetourt, we know, had both a butler and an under-butler (Thomas Fuller). Robert Eden in Annapolis had a butler and a housekeeper, each with their separate offices——in the butler's pantry is found mostly silver, glass, and cutlery and in the housekeeper's room mainly linen and china . In the Botetourt inventory the glass and linen are listed in association with the kitchen; it may be that here the cook was also the housekeeper——which may well explain the unusual lengths that Fauquier went to in his will to thank his cook Anne Ayscough for her loyal services. At Tryon 's palace there was a housekeeper's room immediately adjoining the servants' hall (although not opening into it) and the parlour——perhaps a servant could be on hand in the housekeepers' room awaiting a call from the parlour. The Governor's house in New York, when Tryon lived there, contained a butler's room and a housekeeper's room, in addition to the household being replete with a steward, too. Unfortunately, in his schedule of losses Tryon listed the linen, plate, and china separately with no indication of where it was normally stored.

The way the Palace was constructed precludes our being able to install a closet in the pantry large enough to exhibit the lavish quantity of silver —— and the silver is extraordinary enough in quality and quantity for us to want to exhibit it to our visitors as a display. You should understand, however, that it would not have been exhibited in this room in the 18th century —— merely stored, probably behind solid, locked doors. Because of its value it is quite possible that the butler slept in this room to guard it —— it is well not to be too emphatic on this point, however.

For these reasons we have taken liberties with the inventory and have devised a glass-doored cabinet for this room in which the silver can be kept and where it can be seen as a real index of Lord Botetourt's wealth and station.

There are more than 1600 items listed in this room in the inventory —— obviously all you can do for the visitor, and all we can do for you (apart from the separate inventory books we shall supply you with) is to focus on the functions of the room rather than dwell upon the individual objects.

The fact that there is paneling and a marble mantel in the room merely indicates that when the building was built (over half a century prior to the documentary reference to this room as a pantry) the intention may have been to use the room for another purpose. As you know there is actually no evidence for the paneling or the marble mantel —— this was a supposition of the architects who reconstructed the building in the early 1930's. In any event, it is useful to point out that the building must have undergone changes and adaptations in its sixty-or seventy-year occupancy by a succession of different residents.

"The Closet next the fire" in the Pantry

Once again the Botetourt inventory provides us with an indisputable reference to an architectural feature at the Palace which the Restoration architects chose to ignore. In the Pantry listing are the words "1 iron chest in closet next the fire." The listing shortly continues "Pantry continued Closet, " is then briefly interrupted for "Physic closet…" and then continues with a long list of items that could have been kept in the "closet next the fire," culminating in the extensive quantities of silver and glass that would certainly have been kept under lock and key. Once again there is no movable piece of furniture specified in the room that could have contained such a large number of items. Furthermore, a careful inspection of the Jefferson drawing (particularly the photograph of the original rather than the illustration in Whiffen's book) reveals a definite break in the fireplace wall on the east side of the fire, that could well have been meant to indicate an entrance to a closet.

I believe that the restoration architects may have been persuaded that the west entrance, in what constitutes a closet-like space between the Little Middle Room and the Pantry, might have provided storage room. I do not, however, believe that silver or anything else of value —— would have been stored next to such a busy entrance and exit as the west door .

Maps for Pantry:

Already installed in the pantry and to remain filling the Botetourt inventory reference as part of the standing furniture is a map of New England. From the time of its making through until the end of the century A MAP OF THE MOST INHABITED PART OF NEW ENGLAND believed to have been made by Bradock Mead and first published in London in 1755 by Thomas Jefferys, then Geographer to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, was the most geographically acceptable delineation of the area to be available. Few impressions of this the first issue are presently recorded, but a second state, published in 1764, and a third, in 1775, are frequently found in good map collections. The unusual spelling "Konektikut" was changed on the later editions to the standard Connecticut and new counties in Rhode Island were added.

It should be noted that Jefferys position as Geographer to the Prince was altered when the Prince became King, and he remained in the position, publishing some of the most important mid-eighteenth Century maps of Colonial America.

A small map of Virginia and Maryland showing the Chesapeake Bay area is also to be installed in the Pantry to fill one place in the inventory listing of two maps, property of Botetourt. It was made in London by Emanuel Bowen about 1760. (Full information on Bowen will be supplied with the information on the maps for the Botetourt screen .)

Certainly a map showing the local waters would be an important document for the governor's household. Shipments back and forth across the waters was an essential part of the workings of the government .

The second map called for in the above reference will be the major work on Colonial America made by Henry Popple in London in 1733. Because of the exceedingly large scale of the map, it will be shown bound in boards, a typical eighteenth-century manor of handling such works. A complete discussion of this important map has been sent along with other interpretive materials.

Documentary References

May 2, 1727: - "The great Dining Room …to be new painted…pearl colour." (See Parlour)

March 6, 1747: - "Your friend Cannon…I wish I had never known…he had the assurance, in a most insolent manner, to affront my wife and Sister, at my own Table, for which he had no other Provocation than their rallying him upon his manner of Behaviour…I did not carry it the length I ought to have done by turning him out of my House, but sitting much disturbed until Dinner was over…I soften'd…provided he asked their pardon, next day at Dinner…this indeed he promised, but was far from performing, that when things were upon the Table, and they were call'd to Dinner and came into the Room, he was like a statue, as stiff and immoveable, and when we were satt down, tho' my wife, who I had prepared for this interview, carved for him, desired to know what dish of Meat he liked best; yet he continued silent, and at last calling for drink, 'tis true he drank my health, took no notice of either my wife or Sister…" William Gooch to his brother, Bishop of Norwich.

June 1770: - "to easeing drawers and fixing on moulding to my Lord's library table, 0..2..6" Joshua Kendall.

June 6, 1770: -"to taking down Dining Room curtains". Joseph Kidd

July 27, 1770: -"painting an oil cloth and sowing ditto, £7..10..0" Joseph Kidd

August 22, 1770: - "to fixing gun in the Dining Room two Brass hooks to Do., 1..7..6" Joshua Kendall

[Joseph Kidd charged £7.10.0 for making three venetian blinds, June 27, 1770, although there is no certainty that they were for this room].

In the development of the English country house from the Middle Ages to the 17th century, the trend, briefly, was to move away from the great hall as the ceremonial center of the household to the great chamber on the second floor and in the center of the building where possible. Later in the 17th century the eating ceremony gradually moved out of the great chamber into a parlour, and then later, dining room, which in grand houses became the great or (depending on its pretensions) state dining room, one of the best and biggest rooms in the house. Later still, the dining room was often called the Dining-parlour, to differentiate it perhaps from the common or everyday parlour, thus denoting its primary functions of eating and conversing. In the grander houses this room was generally found in conjunction with a drawing room, to which the ladies withdrew after the meal.

"Plate on the sideboard or central table and large numbers of footmen waiting in splendid liveries could make a big dinner an impressive sight, but mediaeval ceremony had by now entirely vanished. Each course was carried in by footmen and laid out on the central table; the more lavish the dinner, the greater the variety of dishes. The main meat dish was usually put in front of the host to carve. Footmen attended to the individual wants of guests by taking their plates to the dishes, rather than carrying the dishes round the table. The butler stayed at the sideboard with the wine; the footmen brought glasses to the sideboard to be filled or refilled. If the glasses had been used already the butler rinsed them in a cistern of water under the sideboard (or, as Swift complained, merely filled the dirty glasses). The one element of ceremony was provided by the company not the servants, in the form of toasts. These were either drunk by the whole company, or when one individual asked another to drink with him; in both cases the relevant glasses were taken to the sideboard by footmen to be refilled. On occasions an orchestra in, or more usually next door to, the dining room played music throughout the meal.

The meal normally ended with dessert, after which the ladies removed to the drawing room…[for example]'Lady Lyttelton wishes for a room of separation between the eating room and the drawing room, to hinder the ladies from the noise and talk of the men when left to their bottle, which must sometimes happen'. By then the English custom of the women leaving the men to drink, smoke and talk in the dining room was well established." Mark Girourad, Life in the English Country House (New Haven, 1978).

It is not known if this was the invariable custom among the Virginia grandees but it can be safely assumed that Lords Botetourt and Dunmore would be au fait with contemporary English habits and would probably observe them in Williamsburg. Perhaps the ladies withdrew to the front parlor.

At the Palace the dining room obviously served another function——business. Whether this was because Botetourt used this room mainly for intimate dinner parties, while larger ones were held in the Ballroom where there were four large dining tables, or because he did not have a separate office (for there is none mentioned in the inventory) is not known. The repair of the library table, the writing accoutrements, the private and public papers (sent to England after his death) all indicate usage. Did this room, in fact, serve as his private office? The articles in the mahogany desk might seem to indicate thus.

It is interesting that the contents of the room accord closely with Sheraton's dictum comparable to one he published ten years earlier——although he may well have considered the Chelsea china figures and a gun hanging on brass hooks as "triflings" and "unnecessary." Apropos of the "bowfat", Sheraton observed——"these ancient buffets^* seem to be in some measure suspended by the use of modern sideboards, but not altogether, as china is seldom, if ever, placed upon them…" Actually the room had a sideboard but not a modern one for it was almost certainly the same one that was ordered for the room about 1710. "For rendering the new House Convenient as well as Ornamental…for the furniture of the lower Apartments…one Marble Buffette or Sideboard wth. a Cistern & fountain…" Still, the china was not on the sideboard as Sheraton said it should not be, but in the "bowfat" instead. The sideboard was thus reserved for plate, and other "dining equipage", all of which Botetourt owned in abundance.

The architect's plans for Tryon's Palace seem to indicate the terms "dining room" and "drawing room" were used interchangeably for the same room, which was between the large room that served for a Council chamber and the parlors. Tryon furnished his New York dining room, listed in his schedule of losses (1773) immediately after the parlour (or "Chints Room"), in approximately the same manner of Botetourt's, with the exception of the office equipment, and still thoroughly in accord with Sheraton's later recommendation.

Eden may well have used his "right hand parlour" as the more intimate dining room, and the "long room" as the room for larger feasts (as Botetourt almost certainly used the Ballroom) for that contained furnishings closely comparable to our Ballroom, including "1 elegant iron Dutch Stove".

The furniture of the dining room is stylistically consistent, and of the 1760-75 period except for the very early Virginia sideboard table (fig. C 1). This dates from about 1720-25, not quite so early as the reference mentioned above, but still one of the earlier pieces of Virginia furniture known.

Seating furniture: — the smoking chairs are identical to the ones in the front parlour. The 12 mahogany chairs (fig. C 2) are of a rare form and are virtually identical to one with a history of by Lord Dunmore (see Gusler, op. cit., p. 6) although, by an extraordinary coincidence, several of the same form have also been found at Badminton, the great Gloucestershire house that is the seat of the Dukes of Beaufort, into which family Botetourt's only sister married (she was the 4th Duchess). They are upholstered with horsehair, which is documented in Virginia from the 1750s on, and fashionable for dining rooms in England and Virginia. Eden's dining room chairs were also covered with horsehair.

Dining: — a large straight-legged, drop-leaf table of the 1760s for of to 8 in number, and a smaller "Pembroke" table of the same date for the governor when he dined (or breakfasted) alone. Remember that larger groups for dinner, which were not infrequent, moved to the Ballroom. The plate warmer (fig. C 3) kept the plates hot and the wine cooler —— generally placed under the sideboard table which was the centre for dispensing drinks — kept the wines cool.

The table will be set for desert, utilizing the silver-gilt knives and forks (listed in the Pantry) and some handsome silver-gilt plates. It will be decorated with some of the "ornamental china" that was kept stored in the "Bowfat" [buffet] when not in use, as well as some lovely cut glass of the 1760-70 period, elegant and fashionable.

It will be useful here to read again and completely familiarize yourselves with the description of dinners quoted above from Girouard's book.

The evidence points to the fact that Fauquier, as well as Botetourt, used this room for business. And the mahogany desk (fig. C 4) ^{in bedchamber over the dining room} we shall install has a history of belonging to Dunmore. thus the three governors of the third quarter of the 18th century are directly and personally evoked here. The Library table (fig. C 5) we shall use is not quite as fine as the one we now know Botetourt imported from London in 1768, but it is of the same form. The writing table and reading desk directly reinforce the picture of this room as a centre of the governor's work.

Remember Adam's description, quoted above, about political discussions in the dining room. As many of the influential men with whom the governor needed to be in touch came to Williamsburg only two or three times a year, and as he probably did not communicate with them much otherwise, social occasions such as dinner parties served another, immensely important function —— communication. The governor found out what was happening in the colony from them (and probably invited them to the Palace for that very reason), and they in turn found out what was happening in the capital of the colony and (through the governor) in the capital of the empire. Considering the relatively primitive state of communications then, the function of this room as an information-gathering and dispensing centre cannot be overstressed. The furnishings reflect these social conventions perfectly. Other Virginia houses such as Kenmore, Berkeley, Morrattico, and the Nelson house can be proved to have desks in the dining room, so the convention was not peculiar to the governor.

Looking glasses are often found in conjunction with sideboard tables (frequently in Adam's designs); the oval example here is a fashionable one, as are the Chelsea figures, kept — to judge by their placement in the inventory — near the fireplace, which is why we have placed them on the mantelpiece.

Botetourt ordered from London some firescreens with maps on them, and our rare example (on loan from Kenmore) has a history of ownership by him. John Henry's map (he was the father of Patrick) was issued in the late 1760s and Botetourt subscribed handsomely towards its publication —— another of the many examples of his important local patronage.

Wax portraits (fig. C 6) were sometimes issued in sets of thirteen —— they were novel, fashionable, and attractive. Botetourt had had his portrait taken in wax in London in the 1760s, and it was later used as a likeness by the sculptor of the full-length marble statue of him to which reference was made earlier. The royal family, philosophers, religious leaders, etc., were among the subjects popular at the time. Several replicas of the wax portrait of Botetourt were purchased by prominent Virginians after his death as a memorial to a most popular man.

A carpet and the curtains for this room were in storage when the inventory was taken —— probably a seasonal change. The painted canvas floorcloth was a fashionable and attractive form of floorcovering of the time, sometimes used by itself to protect the floor from the spillage of food, sometimes over the carpet. Our example is directly based on a design from the tradecard of Alexander Wetherstone, ca. 1760, (fig. C 7). We shall here follow a custom well documented in Chippendale, however, of covering the carpet in the winter months with a baize cloth —— a protective device.

As there are only three curtains listed for the three windows of this room, we believe they were panels for a Venetian (or pull-up) style of curtain, quite fashionable for this period. Tryon also had blue moreen window curtains in his dining room, as well as a carpet.

C 1

C 2

C 3

C 3A

C 4

C 5

C 6

C 7

RATIONALE FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES

The Dining Room "Bowfat"

In the initial proposal for "Rendering the New House Convenient as well as Ornamental" (ca. 1710), it was recommended that "one Marble Buffette or Sideboard" be procured for "the furniture of the lower Apartments." "Buffette" and "Sideboard" thus seem to have been interchangeable terms,^* so it was assumed by the Restoration architects that what was ordered about 1710 was the same item as the one described in 1770 in the list of "standing furniture" at the Palace, in the dining room —— "1 Side Board wth Marble Slab." Actually this latter item had been initially included in the list of Lord Botetourt's possessions in the dining room as "1 marble sideboard table," but was later removed, probably by Robert Carter Nicholas, Treasurer of the Colony, and added to the list that he himself compiled of furniture in the Palace belonging to the Colony. This object was still in the Palace in 1779 —— "1 Marble Sideboard" —— and was among the furnishings —— "Marble table" —— later shipped to Richmond.

However, I believe that the evidence points to there being, after 1710, both a sideboard and a cupboard-type buffet in the dining room. Lord Botetourt's inventory of 1770 contains a long list of 125 pieces of china and glass, as well as some foodstuffs, "in the Bowfat" of this room. No movable piece of furniture known to us, that might be classified as a sideboard table, could contain such a large quantity of items, so we are forced to conclude that the "Bowfat" was a built-in cupboard or closet of the type commonly encountered in 18th century Virginia houses. I believe, furthermore, that there is another reference to such a cupboard at the Palace, which has long been ignored because it has seemed inexplicable —— in the Journal of the House of Burgesses, December 12, 1720, included in an "Estimate of Charges for Finishing the Governor's House" is the following item, "4 yards of painting on the Side Board Shutter." Now we have already seen that the words Buffet and Sideboard in this early period were interchangeable terms for a table; why could not they also have been interchangeable terms for a cupboard? If this were the case, the "sideboard" in 1720 would thus be the cupboard and the "Shutter" its door; if the shutter was to be painted on both sides, it would thus be approximately 6' x 3' which equals 18 sq. ft. each side, for a total of 36 sq. ft. or 4 sq. yds. A door (or perhaps a door divided into two) 6' high and 3' wide would be approximately right for a cupboard inserted in the wall above the chair rail °° which would not interrupt the floor plan and so explain why the Jefferson drawing shows no trace of such a cupboard in this room.

While the 1720 reference does not specify that the "Side Board" was in the dining room, we have seen that buffets and sideboards were an indispensable part of the dining function, and this room is the only one that we know was definitely used for dining in this early period.

If the above interpretation is correct, it shows that a "bowfat" was in place in the dining room by 1720. We would suggest, therefore, that it was most probably on the south (fireplace) wall in the manner of the attached print that I have already sent you in this context.

The Tea Table

That the Little Middle Room and its attendant closet (under the stairs) functioned as a service area for the dining room is obvious from the inventory. Notice, however, that the china the closet contains is for personal use and does not include serving dishes and tureens, etc. In other words, it seems that the breakfast, dining, supping, and tea tables were set from this area, plates warmed, tea, coffee, and chocolate prepared, etc. It is possible that the house keeper's rooms at both Tryon's Palace and the Maryland governor's house served similar functions. To judge by its contents, the "Little Middle Room" did not serve as a "warming room" for food brought in from the kitchen, where it could be transferred to handsome silver or china covered dishes and brought to the table; rather, it along with the pantry, was the supply area for the setting of the dining room and the serving of beverages.

It is important to stress this fact; the inventory records that the main serving dishes were kept in the kitchen. Thus the traditional notion of this as the "Warming Room" should be dispelled. It is a service room for the dining room, to which dirty dinner plates etc. from the dinner table will be seen to have been removed, and in which the after-dinner tea and coffee equipment will be gathered on the large silver "tea board" (fig. D 1) ready to be taken to whichever room the Governor and his guests will move to (if they do decide to get up from the dinner table).

To fill the inventory reference for five maps owned by Botetourt a handsomely colored group of large-scale maps of foreign countries has been selected. The maps were drawn by the early 18th-century geographer, Herman Moll, and were printed and sold in London starting about 1727, not only by Moll, but also by John Bowles, Thomas Bowles, Philip Overton, and John King. Each work was dedicated to an important English nobleman. Despite the early date of the maps they continued to be an important part of English dealers' stock as late as 1775, when Robert Sayer listed them in his catalogue.

Even more important they have a long and distinguished history of ownership in Virginia and the adjoining colonies. In 1741 an inventory taken of the estate of Francis Robinson, late usher of the Grammar School of the College of William & Mary listed 7 Moll maps. In 1761 George Hunter bought directly from John Bowles five maps, "viz the world and quarters," as well as a separate map of Germany. In 1765 Hartwell Cocke bought from the Printing Office five four-sheet maps of the world and four quarters. The Cabell papers at the College note that on February 1766 maps of Asia, Africa, America and the world were secured. Lastly, in 1744 Charles Carroll of Annapolis ordered from his London merchant, John Bowles, maps of Europe, Asia, Africa and America, "of the best and latest Cutts and Largest."

A number of Robert Adam's grand English houses of the 1760s and '70s contain, in the private apartments of both milord and milady, a "powdering room." This was generally for the storing and dressing of the wig. The Powder Room at the Palace contains "1 wig block with Screw Stands," although it was obviously an overflow area from the adjoining closet too. Its use as a wig dressing room was probably a fashionable innovation of Botetourt's. In a storeroom on the third floor of the Palace were "2 Powder Machins" and "26lb common hair powder" and "27lb best do. " Whatever finishing touches were put to the wig as the governor put it on (probably in the Middle room upstairs--see later) is unknown at this time.

D 1

Staircase

Not specified in inventory.

It is impossible to appreciate properly the function of the "Passage up Stairs" without first understanding the crucial ceremonial importance of the upper "Middle Room" or "great Room in the second Story." This latter was the innermost sanctum of the governor and was the ceremonial climax of the residence; thus the passage served as the waiting room or anti-chamber for it. A lengthy excerpt from a letter by Sir William Gooch, shortly after his return to London, will illustrate the use to which such a room was put, given the formal ceremonial practices of the 18th century; Gooch was petitioning for financial improvement in his position "When I gott to the Treasury, the Place for Intelligence, I went to my Friend Mr. West, for if a person Page 26 in his station can be such, I think he is; who at first word, gave me my Memorial Indorsed with this note "My Lords cannot do anything in the Matter;" but told me Mr. P — said when the Board came to that Resolution, Sir William must put it into some other shape, and advised me to wait on him next morning as he was the best interpreter, the meaning of those words. Accordingly I went, and mett Mr. West coming out of the House, who was pleased to say, I am sorry you are come at so improper a time for the D. of Devonshire is now with Mr. P. and there are many more Lords waiting to speak with him, and at 12 o'clock he goes to the Regency. Upon which I went to the Secretary, Mr. Roberts, to whom I have free Egress and Regress, and told him what had passed with regard to my Memorial, and he notwithstanding the Company offending, advised me to go to the antichamber, which I did, and satt there for above two Hours, seeing others call'd for that came in after me, until my Patience was quite subdued; when I remember'd that the time was come for Mr. P. to meet the Regency, so I came away, leaving word with the Master of Ceremonies, that if Mr. P. should ask for me, he should lett him know I would pay my Duty to him for another time…" Gooch to his brother, August 7, 1750.

Thus the large set of chairs in the passage here and the pictorial matter which, as in the parlour, was almost certainly arranged for the edification of those obliged to wait here. These, however, were not of the "second rank" or "tradesmen" but a notch above. Presumably the Governor's private secretary could act in the role of "Master of Ceremonies," to determine the gradation of rank so that the more important ones would wait the least amount of time.

Of the "Roman Catholick pictures" nothing else is known. The most informed supposition is that they were among booty taken from a ship destined for the Spanish New World, which, having little commercial value, were handed over to the authorities to decorate some otherwise bare walls——there are other colonial examples of such a practice. It is also possible that they could have been donated by, or acquired from the estate of, a former governor. In any event, they add an extra dimension to this room and also introduce the important religious role in the colony of the governor, especially in the dispensing of clerical appointments.

For the reasons stated above, it is important, therefore, to observe the 18th century nature of a noteworthy visitor's progress upstairs——not through the bedchambers to the Middle Room, as the present traffic pattern dictates, but along the passage, past the library to the grand room of the residence.

Such a progression also serves to accentuate the architectural division of this floor into the two apartments on the east and the west of the passage and middle room. In the case of married governors it is entirely possible that the three rooms in the east side served as bedchamber, closet, and wife's dressing room, or the three rooms as the wife's apartment, while Page 27 the rooms on the west served as governor's dressing room, closet and study, or as his bedchamber closet, and study. Botetourt clearly occupied the south-west room as his bedchamber, and used the middle room as his dressing room.

We believe that "the Roman Catholick Pictures" have very definite Roman Catholic content to distinguish them, in the minds of such erudite churchmen as Robert Carter Nicholas (who actually wrote the list of standing furniture), from Anglo Catholic pictures. Thus the subject of the pictures should be of the kind not normally found in Anglican churches——such as the Coronation of the Virgin, The Immaculate Conception, etc. Illustrations (Figs. E 2-4) show the kind of picture that we have been able to acquire up to now. The largest of the three is an especially good illustration of the kind of picture that has been preserved in Philadelphia, and Wilmington, N.C., with a history of being among booty (seized from pirate ships as well) emanating from Spanish treasure ships. In Boston there is record of the same kind of thing.

The set of 12 chairs will again be based on a Williamsburg-made original in our collections——a type distinguished for sturdiness rather than elegance (Fig. E5).

The large looking glass on the north wall (probably dating from the earliest order for furniture for the Palace, ca. 1710-14), the lantern, and the spider table have been here for some years; they will be returned to this area.

E 1

E 2

E 3

E 4

E 5

It was traditional for a gentleman to keep his books in a closet, usually adjoining the bedchamber. Here it is obvious that the governor kept his in "built-in" shelves (for there is no press otherwise listed for them) and kept them dust-free by means of curtains, for which ample visual documentation exists. The display of prints, not framed but attached to the wall with upholstery nails, was also prevalent in the period.

Lord Dunmore claimed to have a far larger library than Botetourt had——the former claimed compensation for "upwards of 1300 volumes."

Many have commented on the lack of chairs in the inventory for this room, not only for reading but also in connection with the writing table.

However, it is conceivable that the writing table was similar to one delivered to Fithian's schoolroom at Nomini Hall, February 2, 1774: - "We had also a large elegant writing Table brought to us, so high that the writers must stand."

By the second half of the eighteenth century, the Library was a standard element of English houses. Because the Governor's Palace dates to a period prior to the formal Library, the room in which Lord Botetourt kept his books seems to have served more as a private study and an intimate space in which to read and write. This is evidenced by the lack of seating furniture (the Governor probably pulled in one of the chairs from the hall of his bedchamber), and by its close proximity to his personal quarters.

The only piece of movable furniture listed in the inventory is "1 Writing Table". Although this form did not appear in the Virginia colony until the latter part of the eighteenth century, we know from the account book of William Lightfoot (1762) that it was being produced in the Anthony Hay shop in Williamsburg. The fact that it belongs to the standing furniture indicates that this piece pre-dates Botetourt's residence at the Palace. The necessity for an early form of writing table allows for the selection of a mahogany "Pembroke" type table. (Fig. F1)

Corresponding to the Botetourt reference to "20 Prints" is the bill from Joseph Kidd for "Brass nailing pictures in study". We have interpreted this reference to be the custom of hanging framed pictures from decorative brass-headed nails. As Sheraton indicated, by the end of the 18th century the practice of hanging portraits of famous men of learning in libraries was well established. This holds true in England as well as in the colony. For this reason, the selection of a set of "The Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great Britain" is felt to be most suitable. (Fig. F2) In Addition to the prints, a map of North and South America was inventoried; for this we have chosen a map printed for John Bowles and Carrington Bowles. (Fig. F3) It is up-to-date in geography as it appeared shortly after the 1763 Peace treaty that assigned much of Canada and Florida to the British. The map illustrates these new boundaries and includes much descriptive material concerning new discoveries in and around both continents.

"1 Wilton Carpet" in the study is the only carpet that is clearly specified by type in the Botetourt inventory. Woven in strips in repeating designs and stitched together, often with accompanying borders, these carpets were one of the more fashionable of the imported carpets during the second half of the eighteenth century. Botetourt brought with him from England 234 yards of Wilton carpeting. Since original Wilton carpeting has survived in only minute quantities we have been forced to reproduce carpeting for the Palace. Prototypes are very scarce, but rare survivals include several water-color sketches by Robert Adam for carpet designs, giving us not only patterns for reproduction, but a good indication of the colors that Adam intended. A pattern with ogee curves enclosing rosettes Which he designed for Syon house (c. 1767) was chosen for the study (Fig. F4).

RATIONALE FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
"Library" or "Study Wall paper

No evidence whatever exists for wallpaper in this room, to my knowledge. It is unlikely that Lord Botetourt would have had twenty prints brass-nailed to the walls (as he did in November of 1769) if there was paper on the walls both the arrangement of prints and the existence of bookshelves argue against paper here. Furthermore, the oriental paper now in place postdates the use of the building by the royal governors, according to our best information.

Fig. F2
[Print] - Mr. Alexander Pope

Fig. F3
Map

Fig. F4
[Carpet pattern] - Copyright: Soane Museum

The unusual lengths to which the author of the ca. 1710 proposal for furnishing the governor's house went in detailing the furniture to be acquired for the "great Room in the second Story" is eloquent enough testimony of the room's importance in the initial scheme of things, while the rich details itemised in the Botetourt inventory indicate that the room retained much of its ceremonial character over half a century later.

The great room was the logical successor of the earlier "great chamber" —— in the 15th and 16th centuries some of the most ceremonial functions in the household (generally involving the receiving and hopefully impressing of important visitors) had been removed from the central great hall to a more private great chamber which was generally on the second floor off one end of the hall, adjacent to the bedchambers and reached by a staircase which in itself eventually came to provide a scene for some of the ceremony. Thus the location of the "great room" in the Palace accords perfectly with the earlier "great chamber". However, in the 17th century the dining function was generally removed from the great chamber to a different room, and in this period separate parlours generally appeared for family use, so that what remained in the great chamber was largely ostentatious and ceremonial. Thus in the ca. 1710 proposal for the Palace we see detailed the rich leather hangings with numerous chairs en suite, large looking glasses emblazoned with the arms of the colony, and pier tables standing below them.

By the third quarter of the 18th century such rooms were generally termed drawing rooms, or in grander houses saloons. Descriptions of such rooms by Ware and Sheraton quoted above reveal how similar their locations and furnishings were to the earlier "great rooms." Certainly the 1770 appearance of the "Middle Room," with its chairs richly upholstered in crimson damask en suite with the three sets of window curtains, the four "large" looking glasses with carved and gilt frames, the pier tables and the chandelier, was as sumptuous and ostentatious in its colonial context as the rooms Ware and Sheraton described.

What more appropriate room at the Palace for the Council to meet in? That august body, the embodiment of tradition in the colony, surely Page 33 appreciated the special significance of this room for its frequent meetings at the Palace. Thus it is likely that it was no accident for the seal of colony to be inventoried here after Botetourt's death .

Fauquier, from whom Botetourt had acquired the window curtains {specified as crimson silk damask) and the chairs {presumably upholstered to match the curtains then) and who seems to have kept those items in this room, seems also to have hung "8 pictures in gilt frames & 2 small D^o in D^o" here, which accords closely with Ware's description of a saloon. Not only does the rich standing furniture in this room (even if a bit old fashioned by Botetourt's standards) suggest the long continuance of tradition here but the furniture acquired from Fauquier further conveys suggestions of the continuity of governance in this particular place.

It also seems highly likely that Fauquier and Botetourt additionally used this room as a dressing room. Such a use need not seem totally at variance with the functions described above, as Ware's description will bear out——indeed, he called the dressing room "a room of consequence." After all, the number of rooms on the second floor of the Palace was limited, by grand English standards. Botetourt kept two mahogany clothes presses with apparel as well as a wash stand in this room, and it appears that Fauquier had a pine dressing table and 12 neck cloths here. Perhaps both men conducted here their versions of the levee—"A man's levee was attended by men only…great men (and the king) held a levee every morning…Levees were especially used to present petitions or to ask for jobs or favours…the select few would be invited to talk [to the great man] in his bedroom or dressing room but most waited patiently outside"(Girouard, op cit.) There are documentary references to both Mr. and Mrs. Fauquier's dressing rooms, while Governor and Mrs. Tryon also had a dressing room each, in addition to a study for the governor, in New York. For the Governor to receive petitioners and conduct business while surrounded by the panoply of the colony's——and his—official presence, particularly after the petitioners had passed by the impressive arrangement of arms on the way, was a well-calculated device indeed.

One major item that is not referred to above should most decidedly be included in any revised interpretation of the Governor's Palace——it could be introduced by the use of tangible objects in the building in accordance with documentary evidence. It is the one topic on which the governor spent more time, we believe, than any other single subject, and, incredibly, it is omitted from our present interpretation——it is the Indians .

"The Emperor of the Cherokee Nation with his Empress and their Son the young Prince, attended by several of his Warriors and great Men and their Ladies, were received at the Palace" by Dinwiddie in November 1752 and treated to a ball, which event may well have inaugurated the new room. Fauquier in August 1765 received an official visit from "the Little Carpenter" of the Cherokee Nation; the governor wrote to London——"With all these tokens of friendship he took his Leave of me as of a friend and brother and gave me a String of White Beads as a Mark thereof. He seemed to feel the Weight of an Argument I made use of in a private conference at my own House…" The minutes of the Council further record that Little Carpenter also "presented the Governor with a pipe to smoke out of, with any of his people, who might hereafter be sent here."

These figures were as close to "ambassadors" as the governor ever entertained at the Palace, so it would be entirely appropriate, we believe, for a string of beads and an Indian pipe to be introduced into the upper Middle Room so that its function as a "drawing room" … in which are entertained ambassadors, courtiers, and other personages of the highest stations" (Sheraton) be dramatically illustrated.

No account of the Palace as the official residence and work-place of the governor is complete without substantial reference to the Indians. (Figs. G1 & 2)

To use crimson damask, rather than the red that was specified for the hall below was a calculated device since crimson was more expensive (it cost more to dye) and therefore more impressive. The chairs you will see in this room (Fig . G3) are upholstered with the crimson damask and are closer to the 18th century manner than any upholstered pieces we have ever had at Williamsburg before. (We have made great advances in our knowledge of 18th century upholstery practices in recent years.) Although the chairs are specified in the inventory as also having red check covers, we have decided to dispense with these in order to suggest that a meeting of the Council has been taking place in this room and that the covers have been removed as an acknowledgment of the importance of that group. Thus the crimson upholstery of the chairs will be seen to be en suite with the curtains (which are also specified as crimson damask in the list of items bought by Botetourt from Fauquier's estate)and the crimson damask-covered, carved cornices.

The two clothes presses will consist of a Virginia one and an English example. We shall use the Virginia one (Fig. G4) because it is an excellent example, made in Williamsburg with a history of ownership in the Spottswood family and also because the top drawer of the lower section (Fig G5) holds a writing interior——it is here that we shall place the Seal of the Colony, and a string of wampum. The Seal of the Colony has been reproduced from matrixes in the Royal Mint in London, and we are extremely fortunate to have been able to procure it. Only one other colonial seal has survived (the one for South Carolina, which was not destroyed on the accession of George III in 1760 as it should have been).

For the desk and bookcase we will install an outstanding Williamsburg-made piece (Fig. G6) that descended in the Galt family of Williamsburg. (For the clothespress and the bookcase see Gusler, op. cit., pp. 87-88 , 123-124). It is instructive to compare the restrained style of these two pieces and the chairs with the large chimney glass with a gilt, carved frame (Fig. G7), which Botetourt acquired from Fauquier and was presumably in the somewhat florid rococo style, and also with the three earlier looking glasses which are part of the standing furniture. The two glasses on the south wall of this room we have had in that location for the last few years. The one on the side of the room (Fig. G8) is rather similar in style to the other two, although not quite so grand.

The "2 long looking glasses with red gilded frames" listed in the standing furniture, were almost certainly the same as the "2 large looking glasses with the arms of the colony on them according to the new mode" that were ordered circa 1710-14. Obviously, our hopes of finding a pair of appropriate glasses with the arms of the colony on them are not very high. The "new mode" could well mean verre églomisé, and if we ever find a pair of this type we hope to purchase them. In the meantime, we shall continue to use the outstanding pair of looking glasses of the 1720 period which have hung on the south wall of the room in the last few years.

For the winter months we shall install a modern carpet based on a Scotch carpet design (Fig. G9). There was a carpet for this room as the inventory shows. We shall use a Scotch carpet, since Tryon had one in the Council chamber of his Palace in New Bern. The carpet is based on an English prototype in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Our modern carpet is uncut loop-pile whereas the original is a heavy ("double") woven cloth.

A final note about the gilt leather hangings. In the 1690s these were very fashionable in England, where it was customary to procure them from Holland. At least one Virginian who was extremely interested in the building of the Governor's Palace (William Byrd II) had experience with an English house in which there were rooms hung with Dutch gilt leather——that house was Dyrham Park, the home of William Blathwayte who was Auditor General of the Plantation Revenues. (Through his office Blathwayte was in close contact with a number of Virginians in the first two decades of the 18th century.) Whether the leather hangings ordered for the Palace ever arrived, we do not know; there is no further reference to them. However, it is interesting to note that in the inventory of Eden's residence in Annapolis in 1775 there is mention of a "gilt leather parlor". Thus it is not unreasonable to suggest that the middle room upstairs was still hung with gilt leather in the 1770s.

RATIONALE FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
Overmantel in the upper "Middle Room"

The Restoration architects based the treatment of the overmantel in the upper "Middle Room" on Hampton Court Palace and Drayton, Northhamptonshire. In the words of Thomas T. Waterman, July 8, 1932, the description of this room in the ca. 1710 "proposal…" as "the great Room in the second Story" "led to the adoption of a set back mantel instead of cutting off the corner and balancing it with a closet as in the room below [the hall], so as to preserve the apparent size of the room as much as possible." Persuasive or not, this reasoning did not appear to take into account a most important item in this room noted in the Botetourt inventory —— "1 Large Chimney Glass gilt carv'd frame." As this is the only one of three chimney glasses in the Palace described as being large, it can be presumed to be of a size commensurate with the other "large" and "long" looking glasses in this same room —— yet the space left above the fireplace by the above-mentioned architectural treatment will accommodate only a modest-sized glass.

Once again (as in the well-known instance of the "Family Dining Room" vs. the Pantry) it is apparent that intrinsic evidence was neglected or sacrificed to a vision of greater elegance and splendor than was justified.

G 1

November 17, 1752.

The Emperor of the Cherokee Nation with his Empress and their Son the Young Prince attended by several of his Warriors and great Men and their Ladies, were received at the Palace by his Honour the Governor, attended by such of the Council as were in Town and several other Gentlemen, on Thursday the 9th Instant, with all the marks of Civility and Friendship, and were that Evening entertained, at the Theatre, with the Play, (the Tragedy of Othello) and a Pantomime Performance, which gave them great Surprize, as did the fighting with Naked Swords on the Stage, which occasioned the Empress to order some about her to go and prevent their killing one another. The Business of their coming is not yet made publick; but it is said to relate to the opening and establishing a Trade with this Colony, which they are very desirous of. They were dismissed with a handsome Present of fine Cloaths, Arms and Ammunition; and expressed great Satisfaction in the Governor's kind Reception, and from several others; and left this Place this Morning.

G 2

G 3

G 4

G 5

G 6

G 7

G 8

G 9

Botetourt Inventory

References to, or explanations of, bedchambers are conspicuously absent from the architectural sources and pattern books from which we have formerly quoted, nor does the inventory provide much illumination other than the beds with their furniture (including carpets), case pieces for the storage of clothes, and various toilet and dressing facilities. The number of items in "His Lordship's Bed Chamber" with a probable Fauquier provenance is rather interesting. Certainly the quantity of Botetourt's apparel is remarkable and should provide a rich theme for interpretation, as should the conspicuous fashionableness of the bamboo chairs.

It is possible that the bedchambers could have been used for business purposes (note the desk in the chamber over the dining room), or that beverages could have been brought in and placed on a table (such as stood in the "chamber over the front Parlour"). If the wife of the governor held her version of a levee it could well have been in her bedchamber if she did not have a separate dressing room——although Mrs. Fauquier had a dressing room, as did Mrs. Tryon (and Miss Tryon, still a small child) and Mrs. Eden. Separate dressing rooms for husband and wife "so that at rising each may retire apart and have several accommodations complete" were customary in grand houses. In the few instances of children in the Governor's Palace it is possible that the younger and female children slept on this floor. The Carter boys slept away from the main house at Nomini, but the 5 girls slept on the same floor as their parents, together with the housekeeper and a negro maid, in the same room!

The incidence of ill health (or at least preoccupation with a climate that was deleterious to good health) among governors was fairly high. A committee of Burgesses visited the indisposed Gooch in his bed-chamber in 1746, for example. As three governors actually died in the building and two others were forced by ill health to resign, the health matter might be considered an important one for interpretation. Perhaps, too, this might be the place to introduce at least passing mention of the apparently widespread problem of bedbugs!

This Virginia bedstead chosen for "His Lordship's Bedchamber" (Figs. H1 & H2) is an unusually complete example of Colonial reliance on Virginia fashions of the time for it closely parallels plate 27 of Chippendale's famous Director, (Fig. H3), first published in 1754 and reissued twice in the 1760s. Lord Botetourt was probably familiar with this influential patternbook, as his brother-in-law, the Duke of Beaufort, was one of the charter subscribers to it; furthermore, a copy of the book is documented in Williamsburg, owned by the cabinetmaker, Edmund Dickenson, who also repaired seven pulleys on a bedstead owned by Mrs. Anthony Hay of Williamsburg (widow of his former shop master) in 1754.

This bedstead is one of the few American examples known to have survived with its original pulley-lathe intact. Pulleys inserted into the lathe allowed the bedstead to be furnished in the "drapery" style fashionable during the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Evidence associated with this pulley-lathe and the elegant drapery bed curtains suggests a degree of elaboration that makes this bed an appropriate choice for installation in the Governor's bedchamber.

In 1768 Lord Botetourt purchased from the estate of the late Governor Fauquier a mahogany bedstead complete with furniture for £25. It was the most expensive bed in Fauquier's inventory (not, unfortunately, itemized room-by-room), and may be presumed to have been used by the governor himself. Two years later, in Lord Botetourt's inventory, only one mahogany bedstead was listed in the principal bedchambers of the Palace, and that was in this location: "1 Mahog. Bedstd 2 Matrasses, 1 Bolster 2 pillows 2 blankets 1 white quilt [;] Chintz and green satten furniture & 1 bed carpet." The supposition that the same expensive bed had served both governors is strengthened by the fact that it was listed in Fauquier's inventory in immediate proximity to certain seating and case furniture that was also itemized in Lord Botetourt's bedchamber two years later.

Neither the bed frame, the Botetourt reference, nor print sources provided the detailed information needed to reconstruct exactly the "Chintz and green satten furniture". Although several unlined drapery curtains have survived in museum collections, complete sets of bed furniture matching this description have not survived, to our knowledge. The account of Thomas Chippendale with Sir Rowland Winn of Nostell Priory, Yorkshire (1771), provided the precedent for lining the curtains with green satin, while making the valances, tester, headcloth and counterpane of chintz: "A chints furniture and the Curtains lined with green Persian [,] the tester[,] head cloth [,] inside Valenes of Chints…ye Curtains to draw in drap'y with a Chints Counter-pain…". A surviving drapery bed curtain from Colonial Williamsburg's collections provided the precedent for stitching the brass rings to the back of the curtains in a curved path, in order to produce, when the curtains are raised, the kind of swag shown in the Director, plate 27, as well as in occasional English paintings of the period. To outfit this bed, a Schumacher reproduction has been chosen, the "pondicherry", based on an Indian mordant-painted cotton in Colonial Williamsburg's collections, dating from the third quarter of the eighteenth century. For the summer season a green silk gauze was chosen to comply with the reference to mosquito curtains in the accounts of Joseph Kidd, upholsterer; June 7, "puting up Muscato curtains in his room 0:1:6".

Among the other items in this room that Botetourt purchased from the Fauquier sale was "1 large Walnut chest of draws containg his Lodp's Linnen, Gloves, Stockg^s &c. (F12). Its value is similar to that given for other large case pieces in the inventory such as desk and bookcases and clothes presses. Furthermore, surviving examples indicate that tall walnut chests were being made in Virginia at this time; therefore, we have chosen to use the form of a chest-on-chest. This chest is English and dates around 1750. (Fig. H4)

Sets of chairs and stools in large bedchambers were frequently found in English country houses and in some exceptional Virginia dwellings. The Botetourt inventory lists "8 yellow bottom chairs & two stools of walnut" in this room. These were purchased from Fauquier's estate for £5. In order to show a complete set of chairs of the appropriate type, we have reproduced a Williamsburg side chair attributed to the Peter Scott shop (ca. 1750, Fig.H5) . The knee brackets of this chair, with their small "C" scrolls and tattered shell, are the first indications of the rococo style found in chairs attributed to the Scott shop.

The English shaving table (c. 1760. Fig H6) in this room is a rare survival. Washstands and shaving tables were usually equipped with bottle basin sets, a typical pair being illustrated in the Director, Plate LIV. The Botetourt reference to "1 Wash bason & Mahog. stand compleat dressing Glass", leaves little doubt that the Director illustration is what Lord Botetourt owned.

Another piece of furniture used for his morning toilet was "1 dress^g table". By the second half of the eighteenth century dressing tables often had flat box tops with hinged sides opening outwards at the center. George Washington ordered in January 1758, "A neat Maho^y card which may serve for a dress^g one". This Philadelphia table (c. 1755, Fig. H8) has been chosen to correspond to this entry.

(Fig. H1)

(Fig. H2)

(Fig. H3)

(Fig. H4)

(Fig. H5)
1972-230

(Fig. H6)

(Fig. H7)

(Fig H8)
1930-118

Taking into consideration the furnishings found in the remaining bedchambers on the second floor, along with contemporary accounts of visitors to the Palace, it is reasonable to assume that these rooms served as a suite for Lord Botetourt's out-of-town guests. They are joined by a closet which was intended for use as a dressing room. Although some of the Governor's clothing was stored in a clothes press in the larger chamber (seemingly off-season clothing), there is no evidence of his personal effects in this room.

Divided between the two rooms is a set of bamboo chairs. They are found in both the accounts of Thomas Chippendale and John Linnell (both supplied furniture to many influential English patrons). It is interesting that Linnell supplied furniture for the Duke of Beaufort, Botetourt's brother-in-law. Surviving accounts indicate that the chairs Botetourt brought with him from England were supplied by William Fenton. The original Bamboo style armchair (Fig. I1) used to reproduce the chairs for the Palace is English and dates c. l770.

This room is equipped with "1 Oak bedstd with a Suit of white callico Curtains & valens, bed, bolster, p^r of Pillos & white Virg^a cloth counterpane, & carpet." (Fig. I2) White cotton fabrics such as calico (tabby weave cotton) and dimity had become fashionable as bed hangings by the latter part of the eighteenth century. Significantly, Governor Eden (Maryland) had "white Dimothy" furniture on a bed which had "ornamented cornice with vases compleat". As previously mentioned there is ample evidence for the frequent presence of superstructures accompanying such beds. The design of these bed furnishings is taken from various eighteenth century print sources and plate 96 in Hepplewhite's Guide (Fig. I3). Hepplewhite includes in his description "To this design the Cornice will look well japanned. The curtain to this bed is drawn up and fastened by lines at the head, or with a loop and button." We have elected to use a marbleized cornice and, corresponding to the Hepplewhite reference, curtains drawn up by loops and buttons, as seen in the curtain prototype from our collection (Fig. I4). The bed carpet will be a reproduction Wilton based on Robert Adam's design for Sir Lawrence Dundas (c. 1767, Fig. I5). This design was taken from Robert Wood's The Ruins of Palmyra, published in 1753.

The John Selden mahogany clothes press exhibited in this room for several years, will remain in the same location. (Fig I6) Selden resided in Norfolk and Hampton in the 1750s and 1760s and had connections with Williamsburg——frequently buying leather for chair seats here. His work is very close in character to that of Williamsburg, where he may have received his training, or been employed as a journeyman. This press is testimony that he followed closely Chippendale's designs (Fig. I7) or worked with a shop that did. The press is signed and dated 1775.

In the list of standing furniture for the Chamber over the Front Parlour is included 14 prints. We have elected to use 12 glass transfers of the months (Fig. I8). (The term painted on glass and glass transfer seems to have been interchangeable during this period.) In addition to the months will be glass transfers of Queen Charlotte (Fig. I9) and King George (Fig. I10). Prints of the rulers of England and other nations, as well as prints of the months were prevalent throughout the colonies.

Fig. I1
1936-344 (original)
R1978-37(1-12)

Fig. I2
Temporary

Fig. I3
Plate 96. To this design the Cornice will look well japanned. The curtain to this bed is drawn up and fastened by lines at the head, or with a loop and button.

Fig. I4

Fig. I5
-Design by Robert Adam for a pile carpet for Sir Laurence Dundas, Bart., Moor Park. About 1765. (Soane Museum)

Fig. I6

Fig. I7
Cloaths Press

Fig. I8
1967-460

Fig. I9
1936-638

Fig. I10
1936-638.2

WEARlNG APPAREL

Chamber Over the Dining Room

The Chamber Over the Dining Room is the largest chamber on the second floor of the Governor's Palace. Lord Botetourt, a bachelor, chose a smaller room for his personal bedchamber, so it is probable that he offered this room to Governor Tryon of North Carolina and his wife when they were his guests during the summer of 1769. Preceding married governors may have shared the larger bedchamber over the dining room with their wives. Since, however, most of the governors were not young men during their stay in Virginia, they might have followed upper class English custom of husband and wife using separate bedchambers. The east and west sides of the second story, each side consisting of two rooms connected by a closet, form convenient "apartments," as such suites were called in the eighteenth century, for elderly connubial bliss. (See Mark Girouard, "The Social House: 1720-70," Life In the English Country Home, pp. 181-212, passim.)

Evidence indicates that Fauquier may have kept the same southwest chamber as his successor, Lord Botetourt. Several of the furnishings that are grouped together in the list of items which Botetourt purchased from the Fauquier estate —— the most expensive bedstead and furniture (£25), 8 chairs and 2 stools, and a large and small chest of drawers —— reappear in "His Lordship's Bedchamber" in the Botetourt inventory. While the Fauquier list does not specify the woods of the bedsteads sold to Botetourt, the Botetourt inventory describes the governor's bedstead as mahogany, and the other two on the second floor as oak, a much cheaper wood. Therefore, the Fauquier bed that sold for £25, much more than the others, must be the mahogany bedstead in His Lordship's Bedchamber. Botetourt may have chosen to keep his newly-acquired furnishings in the room where his predecessor had left them.

The furnishings of the chamber over the dining room during Botetourt's tenure in the Palace seem to correspond to its size and importance. The inventory indicates that the room was handsomely fitted out with fashionable furnishings of the 1760's: eight green bamboo chairs, chintz bed furniture, and mahogany case pieces. The several green objects (bamboo chairs and "green stuf" curtains) listed in the room seem to provide the key to a color scheme. The east side of the second story (two bedchambers and a closet) will, therefore, be painted en suite in a pale version of what in the 18th century was termed an "olive" or "pea green" color. The larger room will receive the more important decorative treatment, with molding details picked out in white.

The practice of highlighting architectural details was common in houses influenced by the Palladian ideal (see Cornforth and Fowler, English Decoration in the Eighteenth Century, chapter 5, pp. 174-209, passim.) The practice is also documented in Thomas Chippendale's accounts with Sir Rowland Winn at Nostell Priory: (before 12 August 1767)"

"Anty room Next to ye green damask bed Chamber, the room to be hung with a plane green paper to posable the bed and hangings of ye Bed Chamber. The Cornice of the room to be painted white and green and the Moulding of ye upper part of the Cove. Query [read ask] if the moulding, the Sr. base [Surbase, or chairrail], architrave of the windows, and chimney &c to be painted green." (Christopher Gilbert, Life & Works of Thomas Chippendale, pp. 180-81.)

For American precedent, the primary upstairs bedchamber of the Covenhoven House in Freehold, N. J., has original paint with architectural details picked out in blue and white (See Antiques cover, January 1980.) Although this room illustrates a folk art tradition in house painting rather than a formal Palladian decorative scheme, it documents the practice of architectural highlighting in America in the 1750's.

The oak bedsteads listed in the two east bedchambers of the Palace were at first a puzzle. Oak had been popular in the previous century for the heavy Jacobean beds, but by the mid-eighteenth century had been relegated to use as a secondary wood, mahogany being the preferred primary wood. A 1755 Williamsburg reference to Dr. Kenneth McKenzie's "1 oak Marlborough Bedstead" proved that the cheaper and retardataire woods were being used to make the fashionable rococo beds illustrated in Chippendale's Director. The furniture conservation shop has made reproduction beds, which will be covered by the bed hangings. Perhaps this same practice of bedcurtains hiding the bedstead prompted the use of cheaper wood in the 18th century.

The bed will be fitted out with chintz bed furniture according to the inventory reference. The bed furniture, a purple and white copperplate print with green silk lining, is based on several sources: 1) Thomas Chippendale's frequent use of purple, white, and green in the 1760's, as in the purple and white bed curtains with pea green lining that he made for Sir Edward Knatchbull at Mersham-Le-Hatch; and 2) the original Jones copperplate printed bed furniture in the Colonial Williamsburg collection. ^{Fig. J1} Schumacher has printed a special color-way of the "Jones Toile" fabric, a scenic design of classical ruins. This bold fabric is suitable to the scale of the room, and its classical subject matter suggests the burgeoning taste for things neoclassical that Lord Botetourt may well have introduced to Virginia in the late 1760's. All valances will be scalloped and edged with fringe as in the original. The lining will be of green Persian silk. The molded cornice will be covered with the "Jones Toile." Fabric-covered cornices are recorded in Chippendale accounts and in the 1760's daybook of Thomas Elfe, a cabinetmaker in Charleston, South Carolina.

Straight panels of green wool satin will represent the "2 pr. green stuf window curtains and rods." Period print sources reveal that such simple window treatment was not usual, even in formal rooms. Painted wooden cornices will cover the rods.

To represent the "1 bed carpet" listed in the inventory, we will show a U-shaped bed round of Wilton cut-pile carpet. The Badminton papers reveal that Botetourt ordered 11il ton carpeting; which was made on English looms, a domestic competitor to the hand woven Turkish carpets. It was evidently already popular with Virginians, for in 1766 John Wayles commented, " … nothing are so common as Turkey or Wilton carpetts…" (Mildred Lanier, English and Oriental Carpets at Williamsburg, p. 59) The U-shape is based on a bed round that survives in situ at Osterley, ^{Fig. J2}a Robert Adam house near London. The geometric pattern in greens, purples, and pinks is based on a carpet which Adam designed for Lord Coventry in 1767. ^{Fig. J3}

An English mahogany clothespress of about 1765 ^{Fig. J4} will represent the piece that Botetourt kept in this room. This fashionable English form for the storage of clothing was popular in the South; Eastern Virginia cabinetmakers produced this form (see John Selden of Norfolk clothespress in Chamber over the Parlour.) Lord Botetourt kept some of his extensive wardrobe in this clothespress. The press may be opened to show some wearing apparel, depending upon the interpretation of the room.

The mahogany night table ^{Fig. J5} was used to store a chamber pot. The night table had superseded the commode chair by mid-century.

The closet between the two east bedchambers contained a large deal (pine or fir wood) toilet table. The inexpensive wood indicates that the table was meant to be covered; in fact, Joseph Kidd billed Lord Botetourt for dressing a "toylet" table on two occasions. The reproduction linen "twilight," as such toilet table covers were sometimes called in inventories, is based on the proportions of an original in the collection, and corresponds to those seen in many period prints and paintings. ^{Fig. J6}

Among the standing furniture in the closet are "10 prints in frames." We will show a series of the "Gods in Love" ^{Fig. J7} to represent part of this entry. These amorous subjects were printed after paintings by Titian which hung at Blenheim; first published in 1708, they were popular throughout the eighteenth century. John Custis of Williamsburg owned a set of the "Gods in Love" in 1717. Four classical views will complete the group. One of these prints was derived from an original painting by Gaspar Pussin^{Fig. J8}; painting was owned by William Fauquier, brother of Lt. Governor Francis Fauquier.

Fig. J1

Fig. J2

Fig. J3
155. Coventry House, 29 (now 106) Piccadilly, London. Office copy of a rendering for a carpet, offering alternate colour schemes, c1767 (Sir John Soane's Museum).

Fig. J4

Fig. J5
36-215 (1851)
Cupboard, bedside, Chippendale, mahogany

Fig. J6

Fig. J7
Mars & Venus

In the Collection of Wm. Faquier Esqr.

[In "3rd store room"] "2 spare Branches Etc belonging to the Lustre in the Ballroom."

["In a closet" on 3rd floor] "8 long green Cushions for Stools in the Ballroom."

[In "3rd store room"] "a long box of Gilt bordering intended for the Supper Room."

["In a closet" on the 3rd floor] "1 blue baise d^o [curtain] for Supper Room." "Oznabrigs intended to paste the Paper on in the Supper Room."

["In a closet" on the 3rd floor] "Supper Room Carpet."
"large Sandbag for Supper Room."

K 10
RATIONALE FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES

LIST OF READINGS FOR PALACE TRAINING

• Lanier, Mildred. English and Oriental Carpets at Williamsburg. pp. 31-32, 36-39, 44-46, 59-61, 82-83.
• Montgomery, Florence. Printed Textiles. pp. 52-63, 78-82.
• Roth, Rodris. Floor Coverings in 18th Century America. pp. 37-40, 58-60, Figure 7.
• Walton, Karin. Golden Age of English Furniture Upholstery. pp. xi-xxi, Figure 47.
• Cornforth, John and Fowler, John. Decoration in the 18th Chapter 4, noting especially Figures 56, 71 and Plate XVj chpt. 7.
• Inventories of Governors Eden and Tryon of North Carolina
• Dolmetach, Joan. "Prints in Colonial America: Supply and Demand in the Mid-Eighteenth Century" in Prints In and Of America to 1850, ed. by John D. Morse, Winterthur Conference Report, 1970, pp. 53-74.
• Hitchings, Sinclair H. "The Graphic Arts in Colonial New England" in Prints In and Of America to 1850, pp. 75-109.
• Hood, Graham. "The Role of the British Eighteenth-Century Print at Williamsburg" in Eighteenth Century Prints in Colonial America, ed. by Joan Dolmetsch, pp. 1-11.
• Hitchings, Sinclair. "London's Images of Colonial America" in Eighteenth Century Prints in Colonial America, pp. 11-32.
• Wolf, Edwin II. "The Prodigal Son in England and America" in Eighteenth Century Prints in Colonial America, pp. 145-175.
• Dolmetsch, Joan. "European Prints in Eighteenth-Century America" in Antiques, May 1972 (Vol. CI, No. 5), pp. 858-863.
• De Vorsey, Louis, Jr. Notes to accompany reproductions of the 1755 John Mitchell "Map of the British Colonies in North America" and the 1775 Fry-Jefferson "Map of the most Inhabited part of Virginia."
• Gilbert, Christopher. The Life and Work of Thomas Chippendale. Chapter 6.
• Girouard, Mark. Life in the English Country House. Chapters 6, 7 ,8.
• Gusler, Wallace, Furniture of Williamsburg and Eastern Virginia, 1710-1790. pp. 2-10, 59-112; illustrations #16, 32-34, 57-58, 78-79, 101. 2.
• Noël-Hume, Ivor. Glass in Colonial Williamsburg's Archaeological Collections.
• Noël-Hume, Ivor. Pottery and Porcelain in Colonial Williamsburg's Archaeological Collections.
• Roth, Rodris. Tea-Drinking in 18th-century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage.
• Notes on Popple's Map of the British Empire in North America, 1733 and on John Henry's Map of Virginia.

Sheets M-1 through M-8

John Mitchell: A Map of the British Colonies in North America with the Roads, Distances, Limits, and Extent of the Settlements, Humbly Inscribed to the Right Honourable The Earl of Halifax, And the other Right Honourable The Lords Commissioners for Trade & Plantations, By Their Lordships Most Obliged, and very humble Servant Jn^o Mitchell. Tho: Kitchin Sculp. Published by the Author Feb^ry 13^th 1755 according to Act of Parliament Printed for Jefferys and Faden Geographers to the King at the Corner of S^t. Martins Lane Charing Cross London. Scale: 1 inch = c. 32 miles.

This truly grand map, covering the area from Labrador and Hudson's Bay south to the Gulf of Mexico and west from the Atlantic to the high plains, has been appropriately identified by experts as the single most important map in the history of the United States. This is because it was the official map employed by British and American diplomats in framing the definitive Treaty of Peace of 3 September 1783, the document which ratified once and for all the full and independent membership of the United States in the world family of nation states. In the words of John Adams written after that event in 1784. "We had before us, through the whole negotiations, a variety of maps, but it was Mitchell's map upon which was marked out the whole of the boundary lines of the United States." Other significant historical uses of the map include its employment by Parliament during the debates on the momentous Quebec Act of 1774: as well as its presence in the halls of the U.S. Congress in 1802 and on several subsequent occasions. It was central to several discussions concerning British land grants in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. Great Britain and the United States agreed to its official status in the Convention of 29 September 1827, and it played a crucial role in the negotiation of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. Since that time it has figured in literally scores of litigations before such tribunals as the Court of Arbitration at the Hague, the British Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the United States down to the present day.

The elegance and comprehensiveness of the map speaks for itself upon the first of it. How did its author, John Mitchell, come to compose such a significant map? This is the question which almost immediately intrigues anyone who begins to study this crucial cartographic document. To find an answer one should know something of Mitchell's life and background.

Although Lawrence Martin and other Mitchell scholars have usually placed his birthplace in England, recent research by Dorman and Lewis makes it clear that John Mitchell, author of the great eighteenth century map of Britain's colonies in America, was a native of Virginia. Mitchell was born the son of Robert Mitchell, a successful planter and merchant, and his wife Mary in St. Mary's White Chapel Parish, Lancaster County, Virginia, on 13 April 1711. Unfortunately, little appears to be known regarding Mitchell's early life and education in Virginia. It is suggested that he may have begun university study at Edinburgh while in his early teens since he appears to have received his M.A. there in 1729. Just where Mitchell went on to study medicine and receive a further degree is still in doubt. The records indicate, however, that he returned to Virginia in 1731 and began the practice of medicine in Lancaster at or near his old home. In 1734, he purchased a house and property in the small village of Urbanna on the Rappahannock River in Middlesex County. This village is shown on both the Mitchell and Fry-Jefferson maps found in this collection.

While following his calling as a physician, young Doctor Mitchell undertook a number of scientific studies as was often the wont of educated gentlemen during his period. In particular he became deeply interested in the flora and fauna of his native Virginia. This interest soon led Mitchell into an active correspondence with some of the leading natural scientists in Europe including Peter Collinson and Sir Hans Sloane. In addition to this correspondence Mitchell prepared scientific papers on such varied topics as Virginia's medicinal plants, the American o'possum, and the "Causes of the Different Colours of People in Different Climates". The latter essay required 48 printed pages when it appeared in the Transactions of London's prestigious Royal Society. These intellectual excursions were carried on as Mitchell's medical practice grew, and by the summer of 1744 his health was suffering to a serious extent from apparent overwork. It was then that he decided that he must get away from sultry Virginia for a recuperative sojourn in the more temperature climate of Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia he established stimulating friendships with the renowned botanist, John Bartram, as well as Benjamin and the bibliophile, James Logan. Although intellectually bracing, the trip north had little remedial effect on Mitchell's physical health and in the autumn of 1745 he resolved to sell his practice and property and travel to England. In a note to John Bartram written early in 1746, Peter Collinson reported "Dr. Mitchell is arrived safe with his wife at London and is much recovered."

Mitchell lost no time and soon after his arrival in England began a significant research effort concerned with discovering the best process for producing potash. In June 1748, he was formally proposed for membership in the Royal Society. His nomination was endorsed by an impressive group of London savants including such figures as Mark Catesby, William Watson, Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, Thomas Birch, and Martin Folkes. Mitchell read a portion of his findings on potash production at the 17 November meeting during which he was formally elected to the Society.

With such an early and clear recognition of his scientific abilities it is not surprising to find that Mitchell quickly became known to many of Britain's most powerful nobles and ministers of state. The Duke of Argyle and the Duke of Richmond, both famous for their interest in botany, opened their circles to Mitchell and sought him as a companion on plant gathering jaunts. In these circles of science-oriented politicians were included several members of the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, the royal government's chief advisory panel on American affairs. Mitchell, as a respected scientist with an intimate knowledge of the American colonies was soon identified as an expert and frequently called upon for information and advice on a wide variety of colonial problems.

It would appear likely that the need for a comprehensive map of the American colonies was being increasingly felt by Britain's leaders during this period as the French began to penetrate into the Ohio valley. Mitchell, like others close to the American scene, was alarmed at both the seriousness of the French threat and the lack of awareness to it being evidenced in Britain. At that point only Henry Popple's outdated map of 1733 was available to illustrate the situation comprehensively from a British point of view. Not surprisingly, therefore, the resourceful Mitchell undertook the task of drawing an improved general map of America sometime in the late 1740's. The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations were so greatly impressed by his preliminary efforts that they made their official files of reports and maps available to him. As indicated by Mitchell's explanatory text appearing in the upper box on Sheet M-7, he completed his first draft in 1750. In an effort to ensure that Mitchell had the very best and latest information from which to draw, the Lords Commissioners ordered all colonial governors to send maps of their provinces to London as rapidly as possible. Among other things these maps were to show all boundaries exactly and also any incursions being made by the French along the frontiers. Admiralty logs and journals were also made accessible to Mitchell. His lengthy commentary and tables on such topics as latitude and longitude, the positions of prominent coastal landfalls and tides attest to his diligent and effective usage of these primary materials in his cartographic compilation. With such a plethora of original data at his disposal it is not surprising that five years elapsed between the completion of Mitchell's first draught in 1750 and the first publication of his elegant engraved map in February 1755. John Pownall, secretary of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, leaves no doubt that John Mitchell's map was to be viewed as an "official" British cartographic statement. Pownall wrote:

This Map was undertaken with the Approbation and at the request of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations; and is chiefly composed from Draughts, Charts and Actual Surveys of different parts of His Majesties colonies and plantations in America; Great part of which have been lately taken by their Lordships Orders, and transmitted to this Office by the Governors of the said Colonies
Plantation Office
February 13th, 1755

John Pownall
Secretary

Mitchell's map met with a very favourable reception in Britain as well as on the continent of Europe and in the American colonies. A number of editions and plagiarisms of it were issued over a period of three decades or more. Lawrence Martin, long time Chief of the Library of Congress Map Division (1924-46) identified seven English impressions; two Dutch editions, with English titles, published in Amsterdam; ten French impressions, several with titles and notes in German as well as French; and two Italian piracies published in Venice. Richard W. Stephenson has recently compiled a "Table For Identifying Variant Editions And Impressions of John Mitchell's Map Of The British And French Dominions In North America" from Martin's original notes. This valuable guide appears in the volume A la Carte edited by Walter W. Ristow, present Chief of the Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. The carto-bibliographers, Henry Stevens and Roland Tree, include a section on the Mitchell map in their Comparative Cartography which was republished in the Map Collectors' Circle, vol. IV, no. 39 (1967). This source indicates that the full-scale facsimile of John Mitchell's map included in this collection is reproduced from the Fifth Edition of the original produced by the London map publishing firm of Jefferys and Faden in the year 1775.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Edmund Berkeley, "Dr. John Mitchell: The First Virginia-Born Scientist" (A Lecture given in Klein Theatre on 26 October 1971). Occasional Papers, Number 5, E. Lee Trinkle Library, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia, May 1972.
• Lyman Carrier, "Dr. John Mitchell, Naturalist, Cartographer, and Historian", Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1918, I (1921), 201-19.
• William P. Cumming, The Southeast In Early Maps (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962), pp. 223-24.
• John Frederick Dorman and James F. Lewis, "Doctor John Mitchell, F.R.S. Native Virginian", The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 76 (October 1968), 437-40.
• Edward M Douglas, Boundaries, Areas, Geographic Centers and Altitudes of the United States and the Several States [U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Bulletin 817 (Washington 1932), pp. 26-7.
• Emerson, D. Fite and Archibald Freeman, A Book of Old Maps Delineating American History (Cambridge, Mass., 1926 [reprinted by Dover Publications, 1969], pp. 180-84, 290-93.
• Gordon W. Jones, "The Library of Doctor John Mitchell of Urbanna", The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (October 1968), 441-43.
• Hunter Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, 3 [Publications of the Department of State, Number 453] (Washington, 1933), pp. 328-53.
• Henry Stevens and Roland Tree, "Comparative Cartography", Map Collectors' Circle, 39 (1967). 342-4-

Sheets FJ-1 through FJ-4

Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson: A Map of the most Inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole Province of Maryland with Part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina Drawn by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson in 1775. To the Right Honourable, George Dunk Earl of Halifax First Lord Commissioner; and to the Rest of the Right Honourable and Honourable Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. This Map is most humbly Inscribed to their Lordships, By their Lordships Most Obedient & most devoted humble serv^t Tho^s Jefferys. Printed for Rob^t. Sayer at N^o 53 in Fleet Street, & Tho^s Jefferys at the Corner of S^t. Martins Lane. Charing Cross, London. Scale: 1 inch = c. 10.4 mi.

This is the first printed map of Virginia to be prepared and authored by Virginians. Perhaps even more important than the citizenship were the attainments and personal experiences of its authors, Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson. Both men were land surveyors with an abundance of first hand experience throughout both the frontier and settled regions of their home colony. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and son of one of the members of the surveying team of Fry and Jefferson, "they possessed excellent materials for so much of the country as is below the blue ridge; little being then known beyond the ridge".

Joshua Fry, who had emigrated from England sometime between 1710 and 1720, flourished in his adopted Virginia. He was to hold the positions of justice of the peace, county lieutenant, member of the House of Burgesses, and member of the Kings Council in addition to being a professor of mathematics at William and Mary College and a practical surveyor. In I738 he joined Robert Brooke and William Mayo in forwarding to the House of Burgesses a proposal "to make an exact survey of the colony, and print and publish a map there of, in which shall be laid down the bays, navigable rivers, with the sounding, counties, parishes, towns, and gentlemen's seats". Unfortunately for all who might have benefited from this ambitious undertaking the Burgesses moved to reject the proposal.

At this time most Virginia counties had official surveyors responsible for surveying and mapping the county as well as land grants and sales. Very few colonial county maps were ever printed, and there was no adequate map to show the whole of the colony. This lack was to vex Virginia residents and Crown administrators alike severely as the colony's population and economic interests continued to expand into the mid-eighteenth century. As the French menace in the Ohio basin became recognized the need for a large scale general map of the colony began to assume crisis proportions.

On 15 January 1750, the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations requested a general map of Virginia in their effort to accumulate current and accurate data on the American colonies. Among other needs for this detailed data was the comprehensive map which Dr. John Mitchell was then preparing to show all of eastern America from the British point of view. It is clear that Mitchell drew heavily on the Fry and Jefferson map of Virginia as he compiled his own outstanding map which also appears in this collection.

Virginia's governor, Lewis Burwell, was doubtlessly relieved to be able to respond to the request for a map in a positive manner. He reported to the Board of Trade that he had employed "the most able Persons" to prepare his government's map. These persons were Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson, at that time probably among the most competent and experienced surveyors and cartographers in Virginia. In his later letter of transmittal of the map itself, governor Burwell referred to Fry as being:

A Gentleman very eminent for his skill in mathematicks, who was formerly a Professor of it in our College of William and Mary, and since his quitting that Place has retired to the back Settlements in Order to raise a Fortune for his family. This situation of his together with his having been employed by the Government to run the Northwest boundary of Lord Fairfax's Grant and likewise the Boundary between this Province and North Carolina has given him many Opportunities of acquainting himself with the Geography of this Country.

Peter Jefferson's career became intimately intertwined with that of Joshua Fry's from 1745 onward. In the words of Fairfax Harrison:

The constructive influence of Peter Jefferson's career was that of Joshua Fry. From his appointment in 1745 as a deputy county surveyor of Albemarle under Fry, the remainder of his life work was a complement of that of the former professor of mathematics. Thenceforth it was "Fry and Jefferson" not only at home in Albemarle and in the Northern Neck survey of x746, but in the westward extention of the North Carolina boundary in 1749, in the compilation of the 'Map of the Inhabited Parts of Virginia' in 1751, and, finally in Jeffersons' successtion to Fry's offices as County lieutenant and Burgess for Albemarle.

Like many of the other great Revolutionary Era maps of America, this by Fry and Jefferson enjoyed several printings. The original map was engraved by the London master, Thomas Jefferys (or under his supervision) while the handsome cartouche was engraved by Reynolds Grignon from a design by Francis Hayman. Although the original edition of the printed map bears the date 1751, it seems clear that this refers to the finished manuscript only. In the judgement of Professor Coolie Verner, the acknowledged Fry and Jefferson expert, the first printed copies of the map probably appeared in London in the late summer of 1753. Verner has prepared an exhaustive carto bibliography which indicates that the Fry and two principal ectypes in its lengthy evolution. The version of the map presented here is identified as state 6 and was included in Thomas Jefferys', The American Atlas …, published by Sayer and Bennett in 1775 as the American Revolution was about to flare into an open conflict of arms.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.

• William P. Cumming, The Southeast In Early Maps (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962), pp. 219-21.
• Emerson D. Fite and Archibald Freeman, A Book of Old Maps Delineating American History (Cambridge, Mass., 1926 [reprinted by Dover Publications, 1969]), pp. 242-44.
• Fairfax Harrison, "The Northern Neck Maps of 1737-1747", William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 4, 2nd Series (January 1924), 1-15.
• Dumas Malone, "The Fry and Jefferson Map of 1751", The Fry and Jefferson Map or Virginia and Maryland [Facsimiles of the 1754: and 1794 Printings with an Index, Published for the Harry Clemson Publication Fund of the University of Virginia] {Charlottesville, Va., 1966), pp. 7-12.
• Delf Norona, "Joshua Fry's Report On The Back Settlements of Virginia (May 8, 1751)", The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 56 (January 1948), 22-41.
• Coolie Verner, "The Fry and Jefferson Map", Imago Mundi, 21 (1967), 70-94.

Among Governor Botetourt's possessions in the front parlour was a Bowen map of North America. Emanuel Bowen served in the rather unusual capacity of map maker to both George II and Louis XV of France, and thus most of his work was done for official government purposes. This particular map served to delineate the dominions of the British, French, and Spanish as determined at the Paris Peace Conference in February 1763 and was published shortly thereafter by Robert Sayer in London.

Full information on the Mitchell map of North America, also in the parlour, shown partially folded in a traveling case has been provided to the interpreters with their reading list.

A. Upper Servants

Even though employers held ultimate authority, the upper servants possessed considerable freedom in implementing their master's commands. They gave orders to subordinates, supervised routine work, oversaw the operation of the house and grounds, and usually possessed the power to hire and dismiss the lower servants.

A land steward generally held the top position in the occupational hierarchy. He managed the estates, directed outside activities, and kept detailed records of expenses and receipts. He was often assisted by a bailiff, who managed the home farm. At town properties and on some small estates the house steward occupied the top position. He managed the residence and was responsible for household expenditures.

Occupational Hierarchy at the Palace - 1768-1770

Servants who ranked directly beneath the house steward included the clerk of the stables, who was in charge of the stables and all servants connected with them; the clerk of the kitchen, who ordered provisions, protected supplies, oversaw the preparation of food, and supervised all servants connected with the kitchen; and the housekeeper who assisted the house steward, cared for the linen, and supervised the work of the maid servants. Subordinate to the clerk of the kitchen were the cook, generally a man trained in French cuisine; the confectioner, who prepared desserts and other sweets; and the baker, who made bread.

The butler and gardener occupied the tier just below the clerks of the kitchen and stables and the housekeeper. The butler supervised the serving of food and beverages at mealtimes and was responsible for the wine cellar and for cleaning and protecting the glass and plate stored in the pantry. The gardener had to be accomplished in many branches of horticulture and understand the elements of landscape gardening. At times he also guided visitors through the grounds.

The groom of the chambers occupied the lowest position of the upper male servants. Trained in upholstery work, he was primarily responsible for maintaining the furniture.

Though considered upper servants, the chaplain, private secretary, valet, and gentlewoman or lady's maid are difficult to rank in the occupational hierarchy. Earlier, when these positions were generally filled by educated but less wealthy members of the gentry, these servants ranked directly below the master. But when persons of the middling sort began to assume these roles during the eighteenth century, their rank in the servant hierarchy became less clear. The chaplain preached at chapel, read services, and generally attended to the religious needs of the family; the private secretary wrote letters and messages and prepared legal documents; the valet attended to his master's appearance and clothing and often served as a combination companion-escort-personal servant; the gentlewoman or lady's maid — the feminine counterpart of the valet — dressed and undressed her 6. mistress, arranged her hair, cared for her clothes, and served as a companion.

B. Lower Servants

The clerk of the stables supervised the coachman, undercoachman, and groom. The coachman — the highest ranking inferior manservant — drove and maintained the vehicles and assisted the clerk of the stables in directing work performed by the groom, postilion, and stable hands. Occasionally he was assisted by an undercoachman who ranked equally with the groom, game keeper, park keeper, porter, underbutler, and footman. The groom cared for the horses.

The land steward also supervised the game keeper, who preserved the game for his master's diversion and his table, and the park keeper, who cared for the deer in the park, mended fences, and controlled the size of the herd.

The house steward supervised the porter, underbutler, and footmen. The porter guarded the entrance to a country estate or the front gate or door of a townhouse and allowed only persons with proper credentials to enter the property. The underbutler assisted the butler. The footman worked both within and without the house. Inside he set and waited on the table, served tea, and cleaned the glass, cutlery, and plate. Outdoors he ran errands, delivered messages, and escorted his master or mistress when they went out by coach or chair. Large households usually employed a number of footmen.

Several positions were filled by boys or young men. The postilion, who rode the near lead [left-hand] horse and helped guide the team which drew a coach, ranked below the groom. Boys often served as postilions but occasionally a slight, older man held the position. Footboys served under the butler; stable hands assisted in the stable yard; and yard boys helped the gardener. A special variety of footboy, called the page was a vestige of the medieval household that had nearly disappeared by the eighteenth century. Generally sons of the lesser gentry, pages served with the understanding that after some years they would receive 7. preferment from the master.

Maid servants — whose work was directed by the housekeeper — included the chambermaid, who ranked slightly above the other maids and cleaned the bedrooms and often assisted the lady's maid in caring for the family's clothing; the housemaid, or maids, who cleaned the parts of the residence not specifically delegated to others; the laundry maid, who washed, mended, and ironed the clothing and household linens; the dairy maid, who milked and made butter and cheese; the cook or kitchen maid, who assisted the cook; and the scullery maid, who washed the dishes and cooking utensils and cleaned the kitchen.

C. Master/Servant Relationship

In theory, the relationship between master and servant was contractual — with the master hiring a person to do certain tasks and agreeing to maintain him in the interim and the servant agreeing to perform his assigned duties. Eighteenth-century masters were exacting. A servant was considered bound to his master and expected to relinquish all thoughts of a separate, private life. Masters also expected their servants to be loyal, obedient, honest, and deferential.

In practice, the relationship was seldom mutually agreeable. Genuine attachment between master and servant was unusual and long-term service exceptional. By our standards working conditions — particularly for lower servants — were poor, hours long, wages low, and many masters, mistresses, and upper servants overbearing. Servants often found their situations untenable and employed various means of retaliation — dishonesty, insubordination, neglect and ill treatment of guests, malicious gossip, and (when all else failed) quitting. A high turnover was especially common among the female lower servants.

However, trusted relations between a master and servant were valued by the master and beneficial to the servants. Such domestics frequently advanced in position. Although some recently hired servants were dismissed when they became 8. sick, trusted servants often received good care and attention when they became ill or infirm. In addition to granting these servants valuable perquisites, masters frequently rewarded faithful servants with pensions and legacies. The tribute of diarist John Byng, who became the fifth Viscount of Torrington, to T. Bush exemplifies several advantages of such a relationship. When Bush died after twenty-six years of service which began as a groom, Byng commented that "from long observance of my manners, he knew me so well, as to render orders unnecessary; and to leave me at ease about his care and attention. Soon after my getting into the Stamp-Office, I was lucky enough to be able to find a situation for him there; that reliev'd his family from a wretchedness I could scarcely conceive. " Byng was away during Bush's final illness but his wife attended at Bush's bedside.

Occupation Hierarchy for a Large English Country House (c. 1720-1770)

A. Occupational Hierarchy at the Palace (1768-1770):

The hierarchy at the Palace during Botetourt's tenure was an abbreviated version [see chart on the opposite page] of the English model discussed earlier. As in the English system, the Palace upper servants occupied executive, supervisory roles, and lower servants performed unskilled, manual work. Likewise, the lower servants were divided into highly visible domestics such as the footman and less visible domestics who mainly worked behind the scenes. But the addition of slaves 11. merged the transplanted English servant system with the Virginia servant system. With the addition of slave labor, the bottom layer of what had formerly been a two-level system acquired a sub-level. For the most part, slaves performed the drudgery within and without the Palace.

When Botetourt moved into the Palace in October 1768, the resident white staff consisted of persons holding the following positions:

During 1769 one servant died, several others returned to England, and the craftsmen left to establish local businesses. Between February and mid-October 1770 the resident white staff consisted of the following persons:

Even when we add about twelve slaves (the number fluctuated since some hired slaves only worked part time) to the eight resident white servants in 1770, it is obvious that the Palace operated with a small staff. Considering the work involved — waiting (often referred to as "attending") on the governor and his guests, cooking, cleaning, washing, tending to the horses and vehicles, gardening, and farming — this staff obviously functioned efficiently. Though adequate to 12. handle the daily routine, Botetourt supplemented his regular staff by hiring additional workers — both black and white — when large numbers of guests attended balls, large dinners, and other events at the Palace or seasonal demands required additional workers for the farm and gardens.

B. Conditions of Service:

C. Relationship between Botetourt and His Servants:

Because many sources indicate that Botetourt was well liked by his family, friends, associates, and constituents, it is natural to find evidence that he established good relationships with his servants. Marshman's death provides insight into why relations between Botetourt and his servants were mutually satisfying: "In Lord Botetourt, I always experienced more of the Friend and Father, than of the Master."

The fact that four of the five servants (the fifth was a widower) whom Botetourt brought with him from Stoke left their wives in England and accompanied Botetourt to Virginia implies a measure of loyalty and devotion to one's master beyond that generally expected of English servants. All of these servants (except for Towse who died several months after arriving) remained on Botetourt's staff until his death.

However, the same cannot be said for the servants that Botetourt hired shortly before he left England. Except for Silas Blandford, Jr., who apparently grew up at Stoke, none of this group remained on Botetourt's staff at his death. The gardener and undercook returned to England and the three craftsmen left Botetourt's service to open businesses in Williamsburg during the fall of 1769. But even after they left the Palace staff, the craftsmen remained on good terms with their former master who hired them to wait at balls and dinners and to make items and do a number of repairs at the Palace. Botetourt loaned Kidd money and 36. later the estate paid him for attending Botetourt during his final illness. Suits of mourning clothes were made for Kidd and Draper to wear at the funeral and Kendall was directly involved with carrying out details during the funeral.

Letters written after Botetourt's death contain special tributes and also cite specific instances of the love and respect which his servants had for their master. For instance, Edward Montague reported to Botetourt s nephew that all of the servants behaved "with the utmost Fidelity & Tenderness, particularly Marshman, Fowler [Fuller] & the Coachman [Gale]." Marshman wrote that the loss of "my Dear kind Master" caused him the "utmost Grief and Consternation" and several persons attributed William Knight's death to his being overcome by hearing that his master had died. Though perhaps not the cause, Botetourt's death undoubtedly worsened Silas Blandford's illness. Two days after Botetourt died Marshman wrote a friend in England: "to add to my Calamity and Confusion at the loss of my Lord, an Old Fellow Servt. dyed within 4 hours after him, and another lays now dangerously ill."

Several weeks later Marshman wrote his brother that he and Fuller attended Botetourt day and night during the three weeks that he was ill and that he was not away from him for more than half an hour during that period. "I did my utmost," noted Marshman, "and have the pleasing sensation of having given perfect Satisfaction to my Dear Lord, to his last Breath. His Expressions to me, at several times, were tender and Affectionate beyond my power at present to describe…. I believe no Servant had evr heaped upon him such continual proofs of kindness from any Master, as I receiv'd from that Generous and Good Man."

An incident reported by one of the persons attending at the Palace several days before Botetourt died reveals Marshman's devotion to his master and the close relationship between Botetourt and his butler: "he Called his Servant (Marshman) & told him no man ever had a more faithfull or better Servant then he was, You 37. must Says he go home to the Duke of Beaufort he will provide for You, The Man burst into tears, & his Ldshp. Chid him Fy Marshman why do You unman yr. Self, do You envy me the happiness I'm goeing to enjoy, what have I lived for."

On the other hand, Botetourt was not adverse to necessary punishment of his slaves. The accounts do not indicate cause but list payments at various times for flogging Doll, Phillis, Sarah, Matt Piper (twice), and Will.

Though weighted by available source material toward he relationship between Botetourt and Marshman, we can infer from the above remarks that Botetourt earned the devotion of his staff through kind treatment and genuine appreciation for their service. Bequests in Botetourt's will further indicate that he valued those who served him. He left a year's wages to all servants living with him at his death and bequeathed to Silas Blandford, Sr., his "very faithful Servant" and long-term land steward at Stoke, an annuity of £100 a year during is life and earnestly recommended that his successors "employ and trust him."

A. Work Areas:

B. Economic Ties between the Palace and the Town:

Except for the college, the Palace was the largest household in Williamsburg (with around twenty-two members including the governor, the resident staff and slaves, and the hired slaves) and therefore a good customer for food, supplies, and services available in the community and on nearby plantations.

Even though Botetourt imported many non-perishable foods and supplies, feeding his staff and many visitors created a larger demand for local, fresh, perishable food and supplies. Botetourt's accounts indicate that items were purchased both in quantity and in small amounts — occasionally on the same day. Did the latter result from lack of modern communications or, to further good public relations, were the cooks and Marshman instructed to also buy small amounts of items such as eggs and chickens from persons who brought them to the Palace and 43. offered them for sale? The latter may well be the case since persons bringing gifts of food were well tipped for their offerings.

Botetourt also patronized the services and goods available from local craftsmen and sold by local merchants. Also the hire of additional workers to supplement the Palace staff benefitted local freemen as well as the masters of hired slaves.

DAILY ACTIVITIES OF THE BUTLER

The butler directed all activities within the Palace —— including over-seeing the work of the footmen, underfootmen, and housemaids; keeping the household and Botetourt's personal accounts; and assuming responsibility for the plate, glassware, and the contents of the wine cellar. In addition, he assisted Botetourt when called upon and coordinated his work with the cook and the land steward to ensure that the entire Palace complex functioned efficiently and harmoniously.

Except when extra workers were hired to help at a ball or large dinner, the staff that assisted the butler on a regular basis included two footmen (one of whom became the underbutler in 1770), several liveried male slaves who served as underfootmen, and two female slave housemaids.

The butler's daily routine followed a schedule similar to this:

DAILY ACTIVITIES OF THE COACHMAN AND GROOM^*

Ordinarily the day's work began about 6 a.m. But if Botetourt chose to ride, rather than walk, to morning prayers at the college (7 a.m. in winter; 6 a.m. in summer), the work at the stable began about 4:30 a.m. Even if Botetourt needed only one horse for an early morning ride or drive, all of the horses needed to be fed at the same time. [Feeding should occur at least an hour before work time.]

The coachman generally received orders a day in advance.

Several slaves probably assisted the coachman and groom with the work in the stable yard.

The daily routine followed a schedule similar to this:

The amount of time required before one of Botetourt's vehicles was ready to be taken out varied:

Preparation for an outing using one of the vehicles:

• 1.Livery is laid out.
• 2.Vehicle is drawn from the carriage house and dusted.
• 3.While in the stable all staff assist in harnessing the horses except for their bridles.
• 4.Staff don their livery and an apron.
• 5.After putting on the bridles the horses are taken out where the coachman supervises the putting to of the horses.
• 6.The coachman mounts the box, the postilion mounts the near lead horse [front left-hand horse] , and the groom takes his position on the rear of the vehicle.
• 7.The vehicle is drawn up to the front door and the footman assists Botetourt and anyone accompanying him into the carriage. After the footman closes the door he takes his posit ion beside the groom.
• 8.The vehicle proceeds to its destination.

The coachman and groom's workday was extended when Botetourt went out in the evening. Upon returning about 1 and ½ hours was spent in removing the 49. harness, cleaning but not fully grooming each horse, cleaning the harnesses including polishing the brasses, and light-cleaning the vehicle. This work made the next day's tasks easier.

DAILY ACTIVITIES OF THE COOK^*

As an upper servant the cook supervised and assumed responsibility for procuring foodstuffs and supplies, cooking and preparing meals, and overseeing other activities of the kitchen yard —— including dairying and, perhaps, laundering. Except when preparing special foods, training assistants, or during emergencies, the cook performed few manual tasks.

The records are not specific but probably only two female slaves assisted the cook on a regular basis with supplementary help added on special occasions.

The cook 's daily routine —— mostly supervisory —— followed a schedule similar to this:

Possible variation on market days (Wednesdays and Saturdays):

DAILY ACTIVITIES OF THE FOOTMAN

The footman 's daily routine, supervised by the butler, followed a schedule similar to this:

If Botetourt goes out in one of his vehicles, one or both footmen will accompany him to help him in and out of the vehicle. The footmen ride on the back of the vehicle with the groom.

Occupational Hierarchy for a Large English Country House (c. 1720-1770)

Occupational Hierarch at the Palace - 7168-1770

Adaptation of the English System in America.

Education in duty, courtesy, and manners in Virginia and England was conducted both formally (by tutor or school) and informally (by experience and observation). Training in personal virtue, interpersonal conduct, and duty to God assisted the child in seeing the practical application of cultural ideals in his social relationships. Consequently, upper-class Virginians insisted that their children acquire "polite" accomplishments. This preoccupation is clearly revealed in their papers. for example, in a letter dated 1718 Nathaniel Burwell of Gloucester County deplored his brother's inattention to his studies, not only because an ignorance of arithmetic would hamper him in "the management of his own affairs," but also because if he lacked a broad basis of knowledge, he would be "unfit for any Gentleman's conversation, & therefore a Scandalous person & a Shame to his Relations, not having one single qualification to recommend him"³ In a similar spirit William Fitzhugh of "Bedford" in Stratford County asserted in 687 that his children had "better be never born than illbred."⁴

Subjects such as mathematics, surveying, and law prepared a youth to manage the estate he would one day inherit and to discharge the social obligations that his position imposed. But the goal of education was not professional specialization. Rather, it was to develop fully every side of a gentleman's character. George Washington expressed this ideal in planning for the education of his ward, young "Jacky" Custis, in 1771. Admitting that "a knowledge of books is the basis upon which other knowledge is to be built." he explained that he did not think "becoming a mere scholar is desirable education for a gentleman."⁵ Likewise, Robert Beverley, father of Harry Beverley of "Hazelwood" in Caroline 4. County, directed in his will that his son's guardians should continue the boy's education until he should be taught "everything necessary for a gentleman to learn."⁶ Young women were not exempt from learning gentility. Charles Carter of Cleve directed in his will of 1762 that "it is my positive will and desire that my daughters may be maintained with great frugality and taught to dance." Regarding his sons, John and Landon, who were then in England "for the benefit of their education," Carter stipulated that "it is my will and meaning that they shall be continued at school to learn the languages, Mathematicks, Phylosophy, dancing and fencing till they are well accomplished & at proper age to be bound to some reputable, sober, discreet practising attorney til they arrive at the age of twenty-one years and nine months."⁷

The landed gentry of Virginia provided tutors, plantation schools and in some cases sent their children to England.⁸ That these young men were educated in both England and America is significant because it suggests that educational standard were interchangeable. The shared values of the education systems argues for a cultural nationalism between England and America. This cultural nationalism is further indicated by the similarity of books that were in the libraries of Virginia and English gentry. Many of these books dealt with the duty and conduct of gentle persons.

Although parents and tutors were responsible for cultivating genteel behavior, dancing masters (for the most part itinerants in Virginia during the mid-eighteenth century) taught the ceremony and civility of proper behavior. The itinerant dancing and music master set up school for a certain period of time, usually several days, at a plantation. Philip Fithian, tutor to the Robert Carter family, recorded the arrival and departure of Mr. Francis Christian (ca. 1770s), the dancing master whose circuit covered the plantation seats of Bushfield, Stratford, Wakefield, Sabine Hall, Mount Airy, Nomini Hall, 5. Mount Vernon, and the towns of Part Royal and Fredericksburg. Other dancing masters of the Northern Neck were William Dering (ca. 1740s), Stephen Tenoe (1740s), John Victor (1770s-1780s), and John Stadler (1760s-1770s)⁹.

To some, "the world"——participation in society——was at least as significant an agent in learning gentility as was formal training. by associating with persons of rank, a youth would learn gentle and good behavior. Civility was the product of worldly experience. The company of others was needed to determine what was universally acceptable behavior. A person secluded from company and from society had little opportunity to consult others or to put his good sense to use. Chesterfield urged his son to look for the laws of good breeding "in company, and renounce your closet till you have got them."¹⁰ Although the fundamentals of courtesy belonged to both an American savage and a French courtier, the courtier had made his courtesy well nigh infallible by spending his life in polite circles.

Informal education thus relied on participation in society. The wealthier a person was, the broader his or her experiences in society might be and, therefore, the wider-ranging his observations and his knowledge of how to act in particular circumstances. Participating in society was the best way for a young person to learn appropriate behavior because such participation required the unremitting performance of acts of civility and ceremony. Gradually, universally pleasing conduct would become habitual to a gentleman or gentlewoman, so that they no longer had to pause to consider whether or not their actions would be agreeable. "As soon as we have gained knowledge of civility," James Forrester affirmed, "we shall find the best way to improve it will be Exercise."¹¹ Similarly Chesterfield reminded his son that "good-sense can only give you the great outlines of good-breeding, but observation and usage can alone give you the delicate touches and the fine colouring."¹² Governor 6. Gooch found that a young man who visited the Palace had not learned from his experience and observations in society:

Your friend Cannon, who, I wish I had never known, and to whom I have nothing to give, … to say nothing of his prophane Jests against Religion and things sacred, or of his lewd and unnatural Lust of which he Boasts, … to enlarge upon his Principles, he had the assurance, in a most insolent manner, to affront my Wife and Sister, at my own Table, for which he had no other Provocation than their rallying him upon his manner of Behaviour.¹³

Hugh Jones, an Englishman and professor of mathematics at the College of William and Mary, observed that Virginians were inclined to "read men by business and conversation,"¹⁴ a statement indicating the importance of informed education. In face-to-face encounters of a small community——Williamsburg or the plantations of the Northern Neck——reading the behavior (intentions and dispositions) of one's fellows was essential to one's social, political, and economic survival. Virginians tended to rely on their immediate reactions to determine what would be pleasing to another person and what made sense in a given encounter.

In summary, Virginians' social life rested on the easy practice of civilities with ceremony. Adult men and women informally recognized a self-imposed code that guided their conduct. Observing the code in others behavior made gentlemen and ladies sensitive to their own social obligations. Consequently, they were quick to resent any imputation that their conduct did not accord with customary practice. Monitoring the conduct and behavior of one's fellows was an important way of "reading" and "knowing" one another; imperfections and slips acted as guards and catches in perpetuating the efficacy of this system of informal education.

When the Reverend John Camm wrote to the bishop of London on September 3, 1768, responding to accusations that he failed to extend civilities to 7. Governor Fauquier, he was exposing the Virginia system of duty to future historians as well as defending himself:

I have received from Mr. Horrocks such Intimations of the grounds of this confirmed dislike of the Governor & his family to me as the following. That, the Governor & His Lady once fancied Mr. Graham & me to have purposely Omitted the putting off of our Hats to them, when they passed by in a Chariot on the out side of the Pales of the College, while we were walking to & Fro in the gravel Walk within. And it was taken notice of it seems, that I did not put off my hat to Mr. Fauquier & Captain Fauquier when I happend to meet them in the Streets. This compliment I never failed to pay the Governor so far as I can recollect; because custom here gave it to him from every body. But I did not extend it to his sons: because I thought it would be resented as a challenge of Acquaintance, from one who had never enjoyed the Honor of being introduced to them, & therefore could have no pretensions to make such a challenge.¹⁵

The Mid-eighteenth-Century English World View of Duty, Courtesy, and Manners Encompassed in Key Terms of the Period 1750-1775.

Mid-eighteenth-century English elites assigned certain key terms to their ideas about their social world and how life in it should be lived. These terms do not mean the same thing today as they meant over two hundred years ago.

Social Encounters and Interactions.

The Governor's Palace was one of many locations in Williamsburg where persons were likely to meet and transact affairs. Social encounters, meetings, took place between those who (1) lived in the Palace and its grounds: (2) came to the Palace on business, including ships' captains, shopkeepers, artisans, vendors, religious leaders, members of the College of William and Mary and other educational leaders, members of the House of Burgesses, Councilors, dignitaries from other colonies and Europe, and plantation owners; (3) came to the Palace for pleasure——guests, friends, family and, on ceremonial occasions, selected gentry and townspersons; (4) acted as intermediaries for business and pleasure——messengers servants of upper class individuals, coachmen, apprentices, and the like. In any one given social meeting (encounter), the historian can either determine direct[ly] or hypothesize who might have been involved in the encounter, what was transacted during the encounter, where the encounter might have most likely occurred (what room, the physical place of meeting), and when it would have most likely happened during year, month, week, day, and time of day. Sometimes the historical record speaks eloquently of social encounters at the Palace, oftentimes the encounters must be conjectured. Two examples will make this clear.

Writing to the bishop of London on September 8, 1768 (after Fauquier's death), the Reverend John Camm spoke of an encounter he had with Governor Fauquier during which he "thought it became me to take with me two Clergymen of unexceptional characters, Mr. Robinson the late Commissary & Mr. Warrington, to be witness to what should pass between the Governor & me in transacting such Business for the Body of the Clergy." How fortunate for historians that both Camm and Robinson wrote down their observations of the meeting! Camm's description captured the 18. essentials:

The Governor appeared in view ready to receive us before we approached near to his House met us at the Door & scarcely could be said to admit us within the Passage. On receiving the Papers he fell into a most indecent & unmanly rage; charged me with having shewn more respect to Mr. Warrington than to the Governor, alluding I suppose to the few days which I had spent at Mr. Warrington's since my arrival; said I had told lies of him in England. This I took the Liberty to deny, to be that I might know my Accuser, & that we might be brought face to face. On which he roar'd out I will appear with you no where. We prepared to depart. With a commanding voice he bellowed to us to stop. We obey'd on the top of the Steps. When he came out & called with great violence for Westmore one of his servants. Westmore came. Call my Negroes, says he, call all my negroes, in high wrath. When the Negroes were come; look at him, mark him, says he, that you may know him again, & running his finger close up to my face; & if this Gentleman ever hereafter approach my Gates, take care that you do not suffer him to enter them. This singular & insulting Ceremony the manifest Child of violence, having spent itself, we were permitted to depart.

Upon receiving the Order (Camm's description is of his reception at the time of delivery), Fauquier found "his Majesty's royal Order in Council and Instruction, both open, dirty, and worn out at the Edges and Folds. Seeing they were of an old Date, I ask'd him [Camm] where they had been till this Time. He answer'd in the Custody. I ask'd him if they were deliver'd to him open and without Cover. His answer was, they were."

Governor Fauquier felt in this situation that if Camm wasn't to blame then perhaps the "Lordships [of the Board of Trade] meant to cast a Slurr upon [him]…, and lessen…[him] in the Eyes of the Gentlemen in the Colony." He felt that Mr. Camm had treated him "with great Indignity," affronting the privilege of his office.³² Governor Fauquier's behavior was a reaction to the magnitude of the affront that he felt had been paid to him by Camm.

This particular account is exceptional in its vivid detail; others are not. Yet the historian can synthesize encounters from an understanding of the protocol that surround meetings with the governor and by studying the routines and schedules of the household staff. We can conjecture the various typical meetings that occurred as the governor's household staff and family went about their daily business and when the governor received visitors. For example, the hypothetical daily activities of selected Palace servants gathered by Pat Gibbs suggest the following encounters: (1) butler directs footmen's and housemaids' work at a variety of locations in the Palace at various times during the day; (2) butler assists the governor before chapel, before meals, and before retiring; (3) coachman and groom meet each other while maintaining and caring for the equipment and animals in the stable area as well as meet others who will use vehicles and animals during the day; they will also meet the coachmen of visitors to the Palace; (4) coachman and groom meet with Palace footmen at meals; (5) footmen greet visitors to Palace and direct sequence of arrival up to the actual meeting with the governor; (6) governor meets with visitors and guests.

Each of these encounters would necessarily entail the transaction of business, whether it be conveying the rather precise logistics of carrying out a household task (butler instructs housemaid how to clean a spot on the carpet) or conveying respectful honors and conversation for civil or ceremonial purposes (butler extends honor to visitor and inquires how he might make the visit 20. more comfortable).

In the mid-eighteenth century every person, no matter what his or her position on the social scale, ranked social encounters according to whether they occurred with superiors, equals, or inferiors. This typology determined the attitude Virginians assumed and the honors they gave when they met someone. Most persons acquired this knowledge informally, by "being in society," but English writers offered formal descriptions for those who would not learn by "observation and experience." Adam Petrie's Rules of Good Deportment guided youth and adults for over a hundred years. Some examples of Petrie's social admonishments with superiors and with inferiors were:

When you walk with your Superior, let him have the right Hand; but if near a Wall let him be next to it. In Scotland the right Hand is only given, but in England and Ireland they give the most eminent Person the Wall, and to all Ladies.

When you walk with a Person of Quality keep not up by his Side, except he desire you; and when he speaks to you keep off your Hat. I do not mean here that Gentlemen of ancient and handsome Fortunes should do so.

When you walk with Superiors you must not keep to the Middle, but let the most eminent Person have it; and the next eminent Person his right Hand. Be sure not to walk with your Hands behind your Back, or in your Sides before your Superiors; nor must you handle any Part of your Body in their Presence.

If you be walking in a Garden with a Person of Quality, it is rude and uncivil to fall about plucking of Fruits or Flowers; it evidences little Esteem of his Company. If they are presented, it is civil to take them.

If a Person of Quality sits down for his Ease, it will not be civil for you to sit down, unless he desires you. If he be engaged with other Company, it will not be discreet for you to walk up and down before him, nor to sit down …³³

Selected Civilities

The most basic sign of outward respect that could be paid to a person was called an Honor. Honors were classified according to sex. In the phraseology of the period men "paid a bow" or "gave a bow," and women "paid a courtesy" or 21. "gave a courtesy," as if the acts were currency. If a gentleman gave an honor, he paid out respect and expected in return the respect due his station. Such an exchange was civil. In July of 1774 Fithian recorded that he "bow'd to the venerable old Negroes [Dadda Gumby and his wife]," who offered him "Eggs, Apples, Potatoes" and gratitude for his visit.³⁴

Males bowed their bodies (from the hip joint, keeping the back through the neck straight) and females bent their knees during their honors. The point of respect was the lowering of the eyes, which the tilt of the man's body did automatically, but which women coordinated with the knee bend, so that "the Eyes (being downcast,…) discover Humility and Respect, … then rising from the courtesie gradually raise the Eyes so too, and look with becoming Modesty."³⁵ The simplicity and plainness of honors executed "in a regular Manner," were thought to be very grand, noble, and highly ornamental to good character.

Honors were categorized into two groups: Standing and walking. Standing honors included taking leave and taking praise. Walking honors involved acknowledging another person with a minimal break in the cadence of the walk itself. Honors occurred at several key points in encounters: (1) on breaking off a conversation, as in taking leave; (2) in acknowledgement of some favor or words of praise; and (3) upon entering a room or meeting a person in passing.³⁶

Honors recognized the status and rank of the person to whom they were directed. Adam Petrie cautioned: "Be indebted to no man for a Hat, tho' he be far inferior to you; but discreetly pay him home his salute."³⁷ Pierre Rameau, the French dancing master whose deportment instruction enjoyed an international reputation, said: "A very necessary matter for everyone, whatever their station, to be informed upon, is the correct manner of raising one's hat a making a[nd] graceful bow." The depth and number of the bows or courtesies related to the rank of the person being saluted. Superiors were accorded a deeper gesture or more than one, 22. depending on their rank and the circumstances of the encounter. For instance, a citizen would accord the Governor of Virginia a deeper bow than he would an equal in passing but would also give a standing bow as his superior passed.³⁸

The removal of the hat, coordinated with the bow, was also a sign of respect. The grasp of the hat (pointed over the left eye) was crucial to making sure the inside of the hat was open to the honoree at the lowest point of the bow.³⁹

Hand shaking was not a sign of respect or honor, but rather a signification of a bond. In As You Like It (V, iv) Shakespeare noted the shaking of hands to swear brotherhood. Samuel Papys (1662) noted that handshakes accompanied the taking of oaths. We have seen how Governor Fauquier purposely withheld his handshake (which he deemed "a constant Token of good will in this Country") from Mr. Robinson until he was sure of Robinson's character and sincerity. Only after the governor's evaluation could Robinson enter "brotherhood" with him.

Verbal greeting accompanied physical gestures and related to the tripartite ranking of persons as superior, equals, and inferiors. The political and religious hierarchy within the colony created a list of precedence. Most instructional books containing greetings illuminate the Virginia model. (SEE: Appendix——"Address in the Proper Manner.")

Selected Ceremonies

The most essential aspect of ceremony was the presentation of the self. The outward appearances of self that others "read" included dress, mannerisms, attitude, and conversation. Of these, dress was the most significant because it literally moulded the body into identification——fashionable, proportional, and stylish; dress "spoke" if it was out-of-fashion, occupational or social class-related, or foreign. Mannerisms and attitude were conveyed by deportment, taught formally by the dancing master. Conversation was a matter of formal education and 23. being in society——familiarity with social usages and pleasantries.

Fashionable dress for both men and women must be a major concern at the Governor's Palace, for style of dress was significant in bodies and therefore the quality of movement. Style of dress can be related directly to style in decorative arts and was a major source of information for persons in the Palace concerning taste and aesthetics.

How the body moved——the exact range of movement of the limbs, the articulation of the torso and the rate of movement depended on clothing. The clothing a person wore supported his or her self-image and implied the degree of social rank and status. Behavior and clothing are like the hand in the glove; behavior cannot be defined independently of dress.

In order to understand how dress controlled behavior, it is important to realize that dress was not designed strictly to function in terms of bodily comfort, natural movement patterns, or any utilitarian purposes. Dress usually did keep the wearer warm in drafty, unheated halls, but beyond this it was detrimental to health because it inhibited physical activity. The symbolism of dress was evident at the Governor's Palace, where dressing à la mode was one of the ceremonial functions of attendance. Clothing symbolized the separation between those who were invited to attend and those who were excluded. Within the political and social hierarchy of the colony, clothing symbolized the degree of privilege held by reason of wealth, birth, or favoritism. The length of coats, new closer-fitting fabrics for men's breeches, colors designated by royal edicts or fashion (consider the fashionable blue wallpaper of the ballroom), sumptuous fabrics that were in themselves negotiable assets, and even the quality of a servant's livery were important emblems of status that represented the wearer's financial and political clout. Clothing was thus intended to do more than become the wearer or serve as protection——it was meant to astonish and even intimidate. 24. In short, clothing was armor.

As stated above, fashionable dress imposed physical restrictions and limitations of movement on men and women. The major confinement for a woman was her stays, which fit from under the arm to the hip joint, immobilizing the torso and completely restricting movement from the waist. The stays created a particular body proportion and shape, forcing the body into an unnatural alignment by pushing it forward and up. The shape of the body was cone-like: A flat line from the middle of the breasts to the pubic bone and a very narrow waist. Stays accommodated the hips, which were accentuated by paniers. In stays, a person today can feel the extreme forward and upward push on the body; thus, in order to balance the body (and sometimes because of stay straps), the arms were held behind the shoulder. The overall posture was accentuated by small heels on shoes, which also caused the body to tilt forward. Thus, balance became a key aspect of proper deportment.

Men's dress, although not as restrictive as women's, paralleled the aesthetic lines of women's dress. Men assumed an alignment and postural configuration similar to women. For instance, in place of women's stays, men's waistcoats created the illusion of an unbroken torso line. Although men were able to bend at the waist, proper deportment did not allow them to do so. Men's coats and waistcoats, structurally had the armholes set back, forcing the arms to hang behind the shoulders, thus encouraging the same upright posture as that of women. The slight flare of the outer coat subtly picked up the wider line of the ladies' paniers. As with women's dress, the narrow look at the shoulders of the coat contrasted to the fullness at the hips. Heels on men's shoes also forced the body to tilt forward, necessitating compensation in balance.

Both sexes employed neck scarves and ruffles at the breast to accentuate the upward-turned sternum.

It was not merely the clothing, but the ability to handle oneself within 25. the limitations and restrictions of dress that constituted the presentation of self. Writers on deportment and manners maintained that graceful bearing was more important to insuring social success than were sound sense and profound knowledge. Certainly Lord Botetourt found this idea expounded when he read Henry Fielding's novel Tom Jones, wherein a youth with no knowledge gained formally is accepted into society by virtue of his graceful bearing.

John Locke, widely read in all the colonies, discussed at length the desirability of "managing the self"——acquiring his good-breeding——in his book Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Lessons in "managing the self" and deportment ideally began in early childhood, not by following rules, but by having the opportunity to follow examples. Locke believed that

young children should not be much perplexed about [managing the self]; I mean about putting off their Hats, and making Legs modishly. Teach them Humility, and to be good-natur'd, if you can, and this sort of Manners will not be wanting. If you can teach them to love and respect other People, they will, as their Age requires it, find ways to express it acceptably to every one, according to the Fashions they have been used to: And as to their Motions and Carriage of their Bodies, a Dancing-Master, as has been said, when it is fit, will teach them what is most becoming.⁴⁰

In addition to the presentation of self and deportment of the "players" or "performers," ceremony included the structure of the event, which acted as a kind of script telling players what to do next, when, and how. This structure often had its own history and traditions. Ceremonial structures at the Governor's Palace included formal dinners and balls, presentation of letters of introduction, and meetings of the Council. Rites of passage——christenings, marriages, and funerals——were additional occasions for ceremony.

The taking of the oath of office by Botetourt and Dunmore are two more examples of ceremony. For both men the event began with their ceremonial 26. conduct into the city and ended with illuminations. Botetourt noted in a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough, 1 November 1768,

Colonel Cary finding me eagerly bent upon being at Williamsburg that night, immediately order'd his Chariot and convey'd me within four miles of the City, where I was met by Mr. Secretary Nelson and his brother; at the Capitol we found the Council and all the Gentlemen of Williamsburg assembled to receive us. I was immediately conducted to the Council Chamber; and after my Commissions were read took the oaths and swore in the Council.⁴¹

Next morning his Excellency landed at LITTLE ENGLAND, and was saluted with a discharge of cannon there. After tarrying a few hours, and taking a repast, his Excellency set out about noon for this City, where he arrived about sunset. His Excellency stopped at the Capitol, and was received at the gate by his Majesty's Council the Hon. the Speaker, the Attorney General, the Treasurer, and many other Gentlemen of distinction, after which being conducted to the Council chamber, and having his commissions read, was qualified to exercise his high office, by taking the usual oaths. His Excellency then swore in the members of his Majesty's Council, after which he proceeded to the Raleigh Tavern, and supped there with his Majesty's Council . His Excellency retired about ten, and took up his lodgings at the palace, … Immediately upon his Excellency's arrival the City was illuminated, and all ranks of people vied with each other in testifying their gratitude and joy that a Nobleman of such distinguished merit and abilities is appointed to preside over, and live among, them.⁴²

Yesterday arrived in Town, between ten and eleven O'Clock, the Right Honourable the Earl of Dunmore, our Governour, with Captain Foy, his Excellency's Secretary. He cam from York that Morning accompanied by His Honour the President, Mr. Secretary Nelson, and the Honourable John Page, Esquire, and immediately, with those Gentlemen, and the Honourable Robert Carter, Esquire, repaired to the Palace, where he was sworn in to the Administration of Government. They, with several of the Principal Gentlemen in this City, who went to pay their Respects to his Excellency, were invited to dine at the Palace, where they spent the Day. In the Evening there were Illuminations, &c…⁴³

Within the framework of such ceremonies, civilities (honors, for example) became more important than they were in everyday life. Because civilities were an integral part of the performance at ceremonial functions, participants were made more conscious of their meaning and executed them with a heightened sense of awareness.

Historical evidence of the ceremonies at the Palace during the governorship of Lord Botetourt is sparse. Data from other colonies can be useful in providing ideas for interpreting the fragmentary evidence that does exist. For example, to discover how Lord Botetourt received official visitors into the Palace, we can look at the activities at one reception ceremony recorded by William Black. Black was appointed as Secretary to the commissioners in 1744 by Governor Gooch of Virginia, to join his counterparts from Pennsylvania and Maryland, to treat with the Iroquois or Six Nations of Indians for the lands west of the Allegheny Mountains. The reception by the governor of Pennsylvania, George Thomas, had precedents in seventeenth-century English royal entries into a city. At the line dividing Maryland and Pennsylvania, the commissioners of Maryland and Virginia were met by "the High Sheriff, Coroner, and under Sheriff of New Castle County with their White Wands, who came at the Desire of the Governor to Conduct us thro' their County." At the line dividing New Castle and Chester counties, the commissioners and the New Castle County delegation were met by the high sheriff, coroner and under sheriff of Chester County, who conducted them to Chester Town, where they spent the night. The next day the whole entourage, now accompanied as well by "several Gentlemen of the Town," moved toward Philadelphia. Three miles from the Schuylkill, the entourage was met by the sheriff, coroner and sub-sheriff of Philadelphia County. Here the Chester County delegation took their leave. At the Schuylkill, the commissioners were met by Richard Peters, Esq., secretary of the province, Robert Strettell, Andrew Hamilton, and several other gentlemen of 28. Philadelphia, "who Received us very kindly, and Welcom'd us in to their Province with a Bowl of fine Lemon Punch big enough to have Swimm'd half a dozen of young Geese."

After crossing the river into Philadelphia, the commissioners and their welcoming committee were conducted to the governor's house.

The Secretary Introduced the Commissioners and next their Levee to his Honour, who came to his Gate where he received Us with Great Civility and bid us all heartily welcome to Philadelphia[.] [A]fter this Ceremony was over, he led the way to the Hall, where we was [sic] presented with a Glass of Wine, and after some talk on the Stay of the Indians, and his Recommending us to the Care of Mr. Secretary, and Mr. Robert Strettell, who had provided Lodgings us before, we took leave of the Governor for that night, after having Received an Invitation to Dine with his Honour the Tuesday following⁴⁴

A. Orientation: Advance Building

Here there is an opportunity to speak of the ⁽¹⁾ vastness not only of the British Empire but also of the extent of colonial Virginia. Here there is a place to refer to the ⁽²⁾ wealth of England's commercial empire and the insistence of the mother country that the colonies pay their own costs of administration: Virginians paid for the construction and upkeep of the Palace, for its enlargement in the 1750s. Here also is an opportunity to speak of the problem of meeting complex local needs within the rigid framework of prerogative government whose final decisions were made in England. Stress the governor's responsibilities, underline his limited final authority.

B. The Hall, Pantry, and Front Parlor

The Visitors will note at once the arms and the royal arms; they might be reminded that Spotswood, a military man and a veteran of Marlborough's staff, noted that he had not even a sentinel to place before his door and that when Botetourt needed a sentinel on ball nights to keep the hoi poloi out of the Palace, he had to hire them from neighbors in the town.

C. The Passage Up Stairs

The Library offers an opportunity to say that the Governor might receive visitors not only formally and openly in the Middle Room but also secretly and confidentially in one of the private rooms, to which access could be gained by way of the private or concealed stairs.

D. The Middle Room

Of all the rooms, the most likely to have been used most often for formal political business. Council Meetings. Receiving Petitions. Something could be said here of Botetourt's business-like habits and example: that the General Court and even the General Assembly kept longer hours in his [cut-off]

E. Chamber Over the Room

I do not see this as a room to discuss the Governor's political role, but since the Governor had clothes stored even here, somewhere in the discussion of his Lordship's profusion of clothes mention should be made that Botetourt intentionally left his English regimentals from his days as a Colonel of the Gloucestershire militia at his home, Stoke Gifford. That omission says a lot about Botetourt's attitude toward his role as Governor.

F. The Dining Room

Although at present the interpretation of this room rightly centers on the servants' role, it should not be forgotten that the meals served often served a political as well as a purely social purpose. The presence of a desk in the room may be used as a reminder of this; so might a mention of Botetourt's policy of inviting local political leaders to meals, sometimes en masse, necessitating in that case the use of the Ball Room for dinner.

G. The Ball Room

Public entertainment of the elite was a part of the Governor's role as a political and social highest official in the colony. It also marked with the exception of funerals, the most ceremonial of the social occasions in which the Governor figured at the Palace. This might be a place to note that, while the quality danced within, the populace without were being swi[lled] with Bumbo, at least by Botetourt.

F. The Supper Room

Here the ceremonial continues, as does the social and cultural; but [to] Dunmore chairs afford an opportunity to ring down the curtain on royal government at the Palace. See Documentary handout.

1) Williamsburg did well enough for the seat of Government during the golden Age, it will not do now, it should be here /Norfolk/, or some place where a Ship can go. What can a Governor do without a little force. No Man can, I believe, make a better Shift than ours, on such an Occasion, Like Charles 12th he has fortified his House, with Swivel guns at the Windows, cut loop holes in the Palace, & has planty of Small Arms, his Lady and famillee are on board the Fowey at York he heard, Wednesday evening, that Patrick Henry had got 60 men together (all he could raise of the boasted thousands) and was on his way down to demand the pouder they were seen by a Merchants Clerk of this place at New Kent Court House, on thursday his Lordship got 40 Marines out of the Fowey, which with 30 of his household, is all his force & such is the Situation of matters at present.

LORD DUNMORE TO VICE ADMIRAL SAMUEL GRAVES

710 AMERICAN THEATRE

(Copy) Fowey in York River, 17th of June 1775

Sir, I have received the Letter with which you have favoured me by Capt [Matthew] Squires, and I thank you was well for that as the assistance which by the Otter Sloop you have sent to His Majesty's Government in the Colony.

After having seen the greatest part of the Colony in Arms, and suffered continual insults accompanied by threats of the utmost violence against my Person, upon so slight a pretence as my having removed Gun Powder afforded them; and finding that the meeting of the Assembly, which I have called together for the purpose of taking into Consideration the Plan of reconciliation held out by the Parliament, has served only to increase the Tumults in and the disorders of the Country, I have thought it most Conducive to the good of His Majesty's Service to fix my residence on board the Fowey.

I have found by experience that I could rely on no protection but such as was furnished me, by the Zeal of Captain [George] Montague, from His Majesty's Ships under his Command; and as the marching the few Men he could be able to spare me, through a covered Country the distance of several Miles, exposes them to very great risk from the Superior number of the People who have made no hesitation at declaring their intention of attacking them, I thought it most prudent to avoid such unequal contests, and for the preventing of the shedding of Blood I have resolved to quit the Place where the Governors usually reside, which is at the distance of some Miles from any Place where the Men of War can approach, and consequently lies at the mercy of the People, and to retire to the only safe retreat at present in the Colony for any Officer of the Crown; and my Intention is to remain in this Situation until I receive Instructions from His Majesty, for the procuring of which, and for the conveying of the most speedy Intelligence of these transactions to His Majesty, I have applied to Captain Montagu to dispatch Mr [Henry] Collins with the Magdalen to England; in conformity to which she is to sail immediately.

If the Circumstances of the Service at Boston, and His Majesty's orders to you permit, I am still in hopes that you will augment the Sea Force in this part of America as much as will be possible, as the keeping of these considerable Countries lying upon the great Rivers which empty into the Bay of Chesapeak in awe cannot but contribute much to the Success of the General Plan for the enforcing the Authority of Government in the Colonies.

It were to be wished that small Vessels could be kept constantly passing from Station to Station along the Coast for the purpose of regular and uninterrupted intelligence between all the ports where any of His Majesty's Servants are employed; who by these means may mutually aid each other. The land Conveyance is no longer to be depended upon. I am Sir, [&c]^{Your most obedient & humble servant}
Dunmore

^{Enclosed within Admiral George's Letter dated 16 July 1775.}

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH, 24 JANUARY 1770

I have the honour to inclose an Address and Memorial from the Mayor Recorder, Aldermen and Common Council of the City of Williamsburg, who are extremely alarmed at an avowed intention of Mr. Williams, one of the Inspectors General of America to propose to the Board of Commissioners at Boston to move the Custom House for the Upper District of James River from this city to Bermuda-Hundred--about sixty Miles higher up the said River.

Their reasons against his proposal are fully set forth in their Memorial, and I must beg leave to add to those Reasons that I shall for the future have very little Weight in this Country if in consequence of a Report from an Officer of the Customs and against my Representation, the Seat of Government of this Dominion is to be distressed and made subservient to the Convenience of certain Interested Individuals.

I must intreat your Lordships answer by the very first opportunity as I am truly anxious to be enabled to convey ample satisfaction to his Majesty's Loyal Capital of Virginia, the very first possible minute.

Enclosure 1: Lord Botetourt to the Custom Commissioners at 28 1770.

I have the honor to inclose Reasons from the City of Williamsburg against a proposal of your Officer, Mr. Williams for moving the Custom house for the Upper District of James River to Bermuda Hundred and must intreat that no step may be taken in that measure until You shall have heard from England upon that Subject, as I have represented against it in the strongest manner I am able both to the Duke of Grafton and the Earl of Hillsborough.

Enclosure 2: Address & Memorial of the City of Williamsburg, Undated.

To his Excellency the Right Honourable Norborne Baron de Botetourt, his Majesty's Lieutenant and Governor General of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, and Vice Admiral of the same, The humble address of the City of Williamsburg.

May it please your Excellency

We his Majesty's most dutiful Subjects, the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and common Council-Men of the City of Williamsburg, beg Leave with great deference and Humility, but at the same time with that Confidence, the Experience we have had of your Lordship's Goodness and unwearied Attention to the Interests of this Colony naturally fills us with, to sollicit your kind Patronage, on a Crisis of the greatest Importance.

A Scheeme, my Lord, is now meditated, to prevail with the Commissioners of his Majesty's Customs in America, to give orders for removing from this Place the Custom-House for the upper district of James River, about sixty miles higher up the said River, to a Place called Bermuda Hundred.

The Bad Consequences of that Measure, should it be adopted, we beg leave to represent to your Lordship, in a Memorial subjoined to this Address; humbly bespeaking your kind Attention thereto, and Favour in laying the same before his Majesty, in such Departments of his Administration, as you may think proper, and in using your Interest for it's receiving a favourable Hearing and Redress.

The Memorial of the City of Williamsburg on the Subject of the above Address.

Your Lordship well knows, that by an Act of Parliament passed in the Reign of King Charles the Second, the breaking Bulk, or unloding any part of a Vessels Cargo, before a regular entry shall have been made with the Proper Officers, incurs the Forfeiture of the Vessel, as well as of all the Goods therein contained, which are of European Growth, Manufacture or Production. Should the Custom House therefore be carried up to Bermuda Hundred, whatever Goods shall thereafter be imported for this City, or any other Place below the said Hundred must pass by the very Doors of their Proprietors, in order to attend the Office; where, after a Permit is obtained for Unloding, they will be deliver'd to the orders of the several Owners, who must of Course be subject to the very great additional Expence of freighting them back again in smaller Vessels, often in open Boats, at the Risque of great Damage, and even of a total Loss thru' bad Weather in the passage down the River.

Your Memorialists are also of Opinion, that the business of smuggling would thrive not a little, to the Prejudice of the fair Trader, and Diminution of his Majesty's Revenue, from an Adoption of the Measure proposed; there being several Creeks in the lower Parts of the District, very inviting to an illicit Trade; a Circumstance which seems to require the utmost Vigilance of the Officers, which yet it will be impossible for them to bestow unless placed on the Spot.

Your Memorialists, my Lord, humbly apprehend that the Offices ought ever to be at the lower Extremity of the District, as well for the Reasons already assigned as, that if the Officers should be informed, or have any other Reason to suspect a contraband Trade in carrying on, either by Importation or Exportation, they may make Search, in the one Case, before the Persons concerned can have an Opportunity of landing the illicit Articles, and in the other, after every thing is laded, that the Vessel can possibly receive from any part of the District.

Your memorialists also conceive that the owners of Vessels, coming here for Freight, will be exposed to no inconsiderable Difficulties -4- and Loss of Time, by the proposed Regulation; for my Lord, there are no less than six Warehouses for Tobacco within the upper District, and below Bermuda Hundred from all of which, Vessels usually take in Tobacco, in their Way down the River and this they can now very conveniently do; because The Custom-House being below, they come of Course, to clear out after they have taken in such Tobacco. But this Advantage they must be totally deprived of, by a Removal of the offices. The Captains will be obliged moreover to call here, to obtain Mediterranean Passes, and Colony Seals to Protests and other Papers, wherever the Custom-House may be fixed; a Circumstance, which strongly points out this as a proper Place, especially, as under the present Establishment, they can so conveniently deliver and receive Letters and other Dispatches to and from the Governors of the Colony; besides he opportunity they have of selling their little Cargoes to the Town's People, after Entry at the present Offices. And tho it may be thought expedient, as has been suggested to your orialists, to continue one of the Offices where they are now, yet the trouble and Expence of entering and clearing out at two Offices, so remote from each other, will be intolerable, nor can an entry in the Lower District, avail to unlade in the Upper District of the same River, they being as distinct from each other as either of them is from that of any of the other Rivers.

These, my Lord, are the very weighty Objections which have occur'd to your Memorialists against the proposed Project.

Nor can they, when they endeavour impartially to view the Matter on the other Side of the Question, discover one single Circumstance of Compensation, for these many and great Inconveniences, unless perhaps, that it may draw a little Trade to a particular Place, and increase it still a little more, by distressing that of an other. For it is evident from the Nature of the first Objection your orialists have submitted to your Lordship's Examination, that the Absence of the Custom-House from the upper Parts of the District, cannot bring on the Trade of those Parts the same Distress, which the Removal of it from the lower, must inevitably throw theirs into.

The only Reason suggested by the Petitioners for this very extraordinary Alteration is "that the Naval Office, or Custom House for the upper District of the said River is inconveniently situated; that the greater part of the Trade are under the Necessity of riding near sixty Miles to clear out their Ships, whereby the said Ships are often delayed in prosecuting Voyages", but your Memorialists are warranted from good Authority to deny the Fact; yet even admitting it to be true, it must be consider'd as a very indifferent Reason for removing an Office from a Place where it has been long held, to a Town without Trade or Inhabitants, and to which the Navigation is extremely difficult for large Ships; and we refer to your Lordships Judgment whether the Removal of that single Mischief, will make amends for the Introduction of so many greater Grievances.

Thus without insisting on such private Views as might possibly influence Individuals to sollicit the above Removal, and that too, in no very Public Manner, We have presumed to submit our Motives for this Address to You, my Lord, the worthy Representative of the best of Kings, our common -5- Sovereign and Father, always ready to hear and believe, when his People apply with Reason, humbly beseeching your Lordship to use your Interest for it's receiving a favourable Hearing and Redress, if upon the whole we have had the Happiness of convincing your Lordship, that it deserves it.

TO THE EARL OF HILLSBOROUGH, 28 JANUARY 1770

I must beg leave to add to what has already been said in my Dispatches of the 24th of this instant January against Mr. Williams' proposal to move the Custom House for the Upper District of James River from this City, that it is my opinion that he has been stimulated to that measure by the Proprietors and Neighbourhood of Bermuda Hundred who wish to move the Seat of Government to that Quarter and imagine that by moving the Custom House to their Hundred a material Step would be taken towards that object of their desires.

The inclosed Advertisement proves to Your Lordship the regard which is paid to his Majesty's interests in this Colony by His Council and Officers of Revenue and I verily believe that every attention of that sort will go on increasing if the Plan I have stated by your Direction be strictly adhered to.