Adam Thoroughgood HousePhoto by Flournoy, Virginia State Chamber of CommerceAdam Thoroughgood House—Princess Anne CountyThis house, considerably altered, an example of early seventeenth-century architecture, located in that part of Lower Norfolk County which became Princess Anne in 1691, was built by Adam Thoroughgood on land patented by him, 1635. The dormer windows are a later addition.
True it is that many young men bound themselves, by written agreement before departing from England to serve seven years in the colony, in return for passage and other considerations, granted at the conclusion of their terms. However, apprenticeship was the customary means, by which young men acquired knowledge, and some degree of skill from their elders. Young Robert Hallom, about 1640, was sent to England to live with relatives and receive some training. He, forthwith, was apprenticed to his cousin to learn the trade of asalter, and was described by the family as a "prettie wittie boy." When Doctor Pott came to Virginia, in 1620, he brought as apprentices to learn the art of apothecary, young Randall Holt and young Richard Townshend. Both youths became dissatisfied, and sought to break their agreements through petitions to the General Court, contending that Doctor Pott was not instructing them. However, the Court held the young men to their agreements. Later, Randall Holt married the heiress Mary Bayly, and became possessed of the large plantation, Hog Island on the James River. Townshend rose to prominence in the colony, also, having been named latera member of the Council. Often such young men were third or fourth sons in a family, and influence from overseas, as in Townshend's case, helped establish them in places of honor and authority in the colony.
Youths, who agreed by indenture to serve in Virginia, were the main source of help to the planters in the first half of the century. There was never a sufficient number to fill the needs in the Colony, and planters pleaded with the Company or with friends in England to send them "servants." In letters sent to authorities in England, 1622, the Rev. Richard Buck urgently requested that "servants" be sent to assist him in carrying on the work of his 750 acre plantation.
Letters from Kathryne Hunlock of England to her daughter and son by a prior marriage, Margaret and John Edwards, recorded in Northampton County, indicate the class of young people who often bound themselves to come to Virginia. Apparently, mother, son and daughter were educated, for the mother refers to the correspondence with them. In 1648, Kathryne Hunlock lists supplies she had sent to her daughter: eight yards of snuff colored silk mohair, an ell of taffeta, silver lace, four pairs of gloves, thread, hose, two taffeta hoods and two lace hoods with taffeta handkerchiefs, four pairs of shoes, one hundred needles, 5000 pins and "one green scarf for your husband." As the last entry shows, young Margaret did not long remain an apprentice, for she was redeemed from that status by a planter named Stephen Taylor, who, her mother wrote, she understood, was an "honest man and gave a great price" for her.
Later, Kathryne Hunlock wrote her daughter and her son regarding the daughter's inheritance from her deceased father. The son, incidentally, served out his time. The correspondence indicates that these were substantial folks, and the young people, probably having little to anticipate in an improved status in England, sought both adventure and a brighter future in Virginia.
Young orphans in the Colony, with no one to look to forsupport, were bound out, this responsibility being accorded the vestry of the parish church. In 1646, the York records note that Ann Snoden, an orphan seven years of age, had no means left for her maintenance. Thereupon, she was bound out to Captain Nicolas Martiau for nine years, with the provision that he supply her with food, clothing, shelter, and give her a cow and a calf and maintain both during her apprenticeship, rendering an account annually to the court. In 1686, little William Hickman, a year old infant, was bound out to William Dods of Isle of Wight County to be in his care and service until he was twenty-one years of age.
Fewer than two score Negroes are listed in Virginia in 1625; they were not present in numbers in the Colony until about 1660. By then, they began to supplant white labor and were particularly useful in the tobacco fields, the latter an ever increasing source of revenue to the planter. Not all Negroes worked in the fields, however. In the inventory of Mrs. Elizabeth Digges' estate filed in York County, 1691, three sets of quarters for Negroes are listed: the home quarters where the house servants lived, the Indian field quarters where those working in tobacco lived, and the new ground quarters where were housed the Negroes doing the heavy work of clearing new ground, a constant operation in Virginia as the cultivation of tobacco quickly exhausted the soil.
As the Negroes took their places in the Colony as field-hands, house-servants and craftsmen, the white indentured servant vanished from the scene. As heretofore noted, the supply was never enough in the Colony to fill the demand. Moreover, young men, at the conclusion of their five or seven-year terms, received their allotment of clothing and supplies, usually abarrelof corn, agreed upon in the indenture, and joined the small-planter class in the Colony. Especially was this true when the indenture included a clause granting fifty acres upon completion of service.
Since Negroes were taught trades on the plantations and some of them became highly skilled in handiwork, the white artisanhad a difficult time in establishing himself in Virginia. There was practically no white artisan class. Small planters and their families acquired skills needed in their daily living, the Negroes becoming the craftsmen on the larger plantations.
The winters in Virginia, mild except for occasional freezes, with now and then snowfall during the three winter months, proved less arduous to the Englishmen than the two months of midsummer, when the mercury reaching into the nineties brought discomfort, especially since the men and women were clothed in the bunglesome garments, necessary in a cool zone frequently overhung with fog. The many open, pleasant months in the Colony made life out of doors a continuing pleasurable experience, when hunting, fishing, horse-racing and games could be indulged in freely.
Yet, living indoors in Virginia in the coldest weather was always cheerful. The land, heavily forested, yielded an ample supply of firewood of all sorts, and the necessity of clearing the ground, for the plantation homes and agricultural areas, kept heaps of wood at hand at all times. The earliest open fires of the primitive shelters as well as the great brick fireplaces later in the century, and the smaller hearths in every room of the affluent planters' homes, always diffused that glow of comfort instinctively sought, when the sun retreats. Before the burning logs of hickory and oak the families gathered. There could be no extravagance in the use of the abundant supply of wood, contrasting with the necessity to preserve fuel in England, as the forests there, even in the seventeenth century, were disappearing. Often, there were generous pots of walnuts and hickory nuts to crack on the hearth, as family and friends sipped from their pewter mugs the aging cider, pressed from apples gathered in nearby orchards.
In addition to the flaming hearth, the soft glow of the candle,used for illumination in the seventeenth century, lent charm to the evening scene, as wanton shadows stood off in the room. Moreover, there was an elusive aroma from the candles, often made from the wax of berries, taken from the prolific growth of myrtle bushes about the Virginia waterways. This redolence, together with the clear light which the myrtle wax gave forth, made that candle popular in the evening; notwithstanding, both beef and deer suet were in use for candle making, and some candles were imported. All were held in candlesticks, made of wire, brass, pewter, copper, or iron, the more elegant, of silver, with snuffers of the same metals. In the very modest homes, the pine-knot served as a means of illumination, the turpentine in the wood fibers causing it to burn brightly until consumed.
Domestic SceneFrom a painting for Colonial National Historical Park by Sidney King.A Domestic Scene at Jamestown About 1625This representation of seventeenth-century home life was executed by the artist after a detailed study of artifacts andarchaeologicalremains found at Jamestown.
Various house furnishings have been listed in the inventories or are listed hereafter. During the latter part of the century, particularly, it will be seen that these furnishings were as elaborate or as simple as in the comparable home in England.
Next to the fireplace, perhaps, the table adds more good feeling among family and friends than any other item of the household. To "gather around the board" was not merely a figurative expression in the early seventeenth century when the first tables were boards laid on trestles and set aside after meals. Table frames and planks were mentioned in a Lower Norfolk County inventory in 1643. Later, permanent legs were attached to the boards, and stretchers, fastened to them with pegs, kept the table steady. However, as the English began to fashion fine pieces of furniture, the table of various types found its way to Virginia and, by the middle and late seventeenth century, there were serving-tables, tea-tables as well as dining-tables. The four-times married Mrs. Amory Butler owned a rare item in an extension table.
Early Dining TableEarly Dining TableThough the first tables in the Colony were boards laid on trestles, the above shows the adaptation of supports for permanent placing of this article in the household.
Even the planter with a modest household owned table-linen. As heretofore noted, Joseph Ham possessed, before 1638, a dozennapkins and a table-cloth. The well-to-do planters, especially after 1650, brought with them, or sent for, a wide variety of table-linen, and both Mrs. Butler and Mrs. Digges owned napkin-presses, that of the former listed in 1673, and that of the latter in 1692.
Wooden trenchers and wooden spoons were the earliest tableware in Virginia. Later, pewter-ware supplanted wood and while earthen-ware trays and pots were mentioned, in a few inventories, and were used in the dairy, and while earthen-ware was produced in the Colony by 1675, it did not come into general use for dining during the seventeenth century. Table-knives were not plentiful, nevertheless, various types of such knives are mentioned in inventories by the latter part of the century, black-handled, white-handled and ivory-hafted knives. The one rare item was the table-fork, which was not common even in England during the period. "Eating with the knife," a step beyond the use of the fingers, gradually became an established custom, and the practice has survived among the homely folks, despite the many varieties of forks available and in general use today.
The bed was a prominent item and the ticking of the best beds was filled with feathers, which assured a soft, comfortable, cosy resting place, especially in winter. There were no springs. The flock bed so often mentioned was less downy but comfortable, being filled with bits of wool, rags, milkweed or cattail-fluff, the latter in abundant growth near the fresh waterways. This was the "next best bed" which was a sufficiently important item to be left to heirs. Thomas Gibson, in 1652, bequeathed to his daughter his "best flock bed, with rug (used for covering), bolster, pillow and fine pair of Holland sheets." Sheets, variously mentioned, were of canvas or of Holland, generally, the latter, being an unbleached coarse linen. By the middle of the century, valances and curtains around the beds "to shut out the night air" were in general use. As soon as practicable, the English were bringing over their brass warming-pans with long handles. Theseperforated pans filled with warm embers were run in the beds just before the retiring hour. As the antecedent of the modern American electric blanket, they enticed the drowsy to bed. Retreating from the cheerful hearth, the would-be sleeper, then as now, had no fear of being aroused by the clammy chill of frigid bed-linen.
All colonists appear to have possessed chests of one kind or another, some plain, some carved. When the early planter obtained sufficient credit from his tobacco crop to indulge in a luxury, he acquired an innovation in a chest-of-drawers, where was kept the family clothing and the supply of materials on hand. Since dress was an important matter in the Colony, the looking-glass was indispensable. Occasionally, there was "a great looking-glass," but for the most part, the mirrors were small and stood on chests or chests-of-drawers.
Stools and benches were in use generally. Chairs, rare in England until the early part of the seventeenth century, nevertheless, found their way to Virginia about the time they came into use in England. However, chairs were scarce, and only the master of the house or his distinguished guest was accorded the privilege of being seated in them. The earliest chairs were cumbersome, being fashioned of oak with solid square backs, often panelled, and thus were known as "wainscot chairs." The seat was of wood and the bracing beneath made this article of furniture exceedingly substantial. Later in the century, a variety of chairs found their way to Virginia, caned chairs, leather chairs and Turkey-work chairs. The latter were those upholstered in hand-woven material imported into England from the Orient and then exported to Virginia. By the middle of the century, couches were listed and they were for the most part of the same construction as the chairs.
Wainscot ChairWainscot ChairWhile stools and benches were commonly used for seats in the early seventeenth century, a wainscot chair as shown above was in use at Jamestown before 1623.
Lord De La Warr, who came to Virginia in 1610, sat in the Jamestown church in a green velvet chair. This is the first known mention of a chair in the Colony. In 1623, a wainscot-chair, ownedby John Atkins of Jamestown, was bequeathed to his friend Christopher Davison, Secretary of the Colony.
In addition to the standard pieces of furniture aforementioned, luxury articles were imported during the latter part of the century. Mrs. Elizabeth Digges owned five Spanish tables, two green carpets and a Turkey-work carpet; Mrs. Elizabeth (Mason) Thelaball, of Lower Norfolk County, had among her possessions a small desk and a writing-slate. In the goods consigned, 1694, by Perry and Lane of London to Mrs. Elizabeth Woory, of Isle of Wight County, was a drugget.
The size of the homes varied from the simple one-room structures characteristic of the early part of the century to the Bridger home previously described, and Mrs. Digges' home of six rooms, hall, cellar, garret and detached kitchen.
In looking over the inventories of the seventeenth century planters, observation is inevitable that the kitchen area alone maintained its distinct character. Even among the well-to-do, beds were everywhere, irrespective of the number of rooms in use. Guns, swords, pistols, saddles, bridles, steelyards (scales) cluttered up the hall in the Bridger home.
Bathing facilities were meager. Copper and pewter basins were in general daily use, and also were employed for sponge baths occasionally taken in winter before the open fires. The chamber pots, frequently listed, served other necessary functions.
In the summer months, much of the cooking was done out-of-doors in huge pots slung from a tripod. The food for the servants went into a single pot, and their fare in "pap" was eaten in the open also, when the weather permitted. In the winter and during the cooler months, cooking was done on the hearth of an ample fireplace which customarily took up the greater part of the end of a room. If the family was of modest means, the kitchen area was the heart of the house. Here, in winter, was warmth, food and companionship. As the planter acquired numerous servants and preparation of food became an all-day matter, every day, thekitchen with its companion room, the buttery, was divorced from the house. Under this arrangement, the mistress of the household merely directed the preparation of food, the care of the dairy products, the salting of the meat, and the rendering of the lard.
Before the fire on the great hearth, meat on joints and fowl were trussed on spits, and to some small boy fell the task of keeping the spit turning. A drip-pan placed beneath caught the juices. Bakestones, griddles and clay ovens were at hand to stand on the hot embers, and later, ovens were built into the fireplaces. From cranes, simple at first and later with convenient arrangements for tipping, hung the pots for boiling. Bellows were at hand to enliven dying embers. On a rough table stood the brass mortar and iron pestle for mixing, the flesh-hook for handling meats, brass skimmer, rolling-pin, and other handy cooking utensils. Besides, in an adjoining space, there were pans, butter-pots, tubs and trays for the milk and milk products.
KitchenCourtesy of the artist, Sydney R. Jones from Old English Household Life by Jekyll and Jones, published by B. T. Batsford, Ltd., London.Photo by Thomas L. WilliamsSeventeenth-Century Kitchen and Cooking Utensils
Water, which had to be drawn by hand from wells, except for an occasional windmill, was not a plentiful commodity. Therefore, the washing of clothes was not the semi-weekly operation carried on today with labor-saving devices. For the most part, it was carried on out-of-doors in clear weather, either at a nearby stream, or in the huge pots or tubs possessed by every family. Soap was brought into the Colony, and also was compounded from the animal fats available and the soap-ashes, which were plentiful. After soaking, the clothes were laid on boards and the grime driven out with "beetles" or paddles; then, the garments were hung up or laid out to dry or bleach in the sun. The few housewives, who owned napkin-presses, had the table-linen carefully folded, and placed, when damp, in the press in a pile. The board, screwed down firmly, eliminated the wrinkles, and the linen in some hours was smooth and ready for use. Also, various smoothing-irons and goffering (crimping)-irons, heated on the hearth were applied to garments. In all, however, launderingwas a laborious process. Perfume, therefore, was a popular item in milady's toilet.
Wash-dayCourtesy of the artist, Sydney R. Jones from Old English Household Life by Jekyll and Jones, published by B. T. Batsford, Ltd., London.Photo by Thomas L. WilliamsWash-day in the Seventeenth Century The women soak the clothes in hot water dipped from the nearby kettle heated over the open fire, beat out the grime with paddles, rinse the articles in the shallow stream and hang them out to dry.
From time immemorial, the traveller, in sparsely settled areas in need of food and shelter at the end of the day, has always been made welcome, whether he was known or unknown. Moreover, there were no questions asked. Famed Virginia hospitality had its roots in this age-old custom, particularly as the early seventeenth-century traveller, often from overseas, could be sheltered nowhere else save at the homes of the planters. Although there were few inns, some taverns and ordinaries by the middle of the century, accommodations were poor and the well-to-do gentlemen preferred the warmth of the planters' hospitable homes to meager public accommodations. Nor was the entertainment of the unexpected guest a one-sided proposition, for visitors broke the daily routine of plantation life, bringing news from beyond and reports of what was happening in other parts of the Colony or overseas. Upon departure, the guest was sped on his way by his host or some member of the family, who accompanied him part way on his journey. In case he came by water, he was bade a final farewell from the planter's wharf.
Peter deVries, the Dutch sea-captain and trader, has left some early accounts of hospitality in Virginia. Although he recorded that the Englishmen in Virginia drove a close bargain in trade, and their acumen in that respect could not be surpassed, he was ever warm in praise of their hospitality. On his arrival in Virginia, 1633, he anchored off Newport News and visited there the Gookins. Later, when his ship sailed up the James River, he recorded that he stopped at "Littletown," the plantation of George Menefie, an early Virginia attorney, a prosperous planter and, said deVries, "a great merchant, who kept us to dinner and treated us very well."
When young Christopher Calthrope, aged sixteen years, came to Virginia in 1622, George Sandys, Treasurer of the Colony,proffered him the entertainment of his home and offered him his own room to lodge in. Although the young man declined, having other friends, Sandys saw to it that he was adequately cared for in the Colony.
The hospitality of Captain Samuel Mathews of "Denbigh" was widely known, even in England, where several, who had visited in Virginia, recorded the welcome they had received at his extensive plantation at the mouth of the Warwick River. In 1648, a writer, who signed himself Beauchamp Plantagenet, recounted his visit to Virginia where, upon arrival at Newport News, a few miles below "Denbigh," he was welcomed at the home of Captain Samuel Mathews and given "free quarter everywhere."
Virginia proved a haven to numerous Royalists as previously mentioned. Many who found it expedient to flee from England, about 1649, sought refuge in Virginia. Their coming was often kept secret, but they were accorded a warm welcome. Furthermore, when it was safe to make their presence generally known, they were received into official life in the Colony.
Among those who came and received welcome on the Eastern Shore at the home of Stephen Charlton were Colonel Henry Norwood, Major Richard Fox and Major Francis Moryson. Later they joined Colonel Mainwaring Hammond, Sir Henry Chicheley, Sir Thomas Lunsford and Colonel Philip Honeywood at Captain Ralph Wormeley's, on the Rappahannock River, and joined in the "feasting and carousing."
RosegillPhoto by Flournoy, Virginia State Chamber of CommerceRosegill—Middlesex CountyThe first Ralph Wormeley, who died in 1651, at the early age of thirty-one, cordially welcomed refugee royalists to Rosegill. Sir Henry Chicheley, Deputy Governor, made his home at Rosegill and died here Dec. 1, 1682. In 1686, the second Ralph Wormeley was host to the Frenchman Monsieur Durand of Dauphiné, who sought in the Colony a haven for the Huguenots, his forlorn compatriots.
Governor Berkeley, a staunch Royalist, made the Cavaliers from across the seas particularly welcome, and as Colonel Norwood recorded, "house and purse were open to all such." Incidently, the termCavalierloosely applied at times to all gentlemen who came to Virginia in the seventeenth century, irrespective of date, was a designation strictly applicable to those of a political party, loyal to the cause of Charles I, and it came into use during the Civil Wars in England nearly thirty-five years after Jamestown was settled.
Not only were guests from far-away places accorded the utmost in hospitality and given every indication that they were welcome, but visitors from neighboring plantations were often honored guests and they were ever the first consideration of their host. On 3 August 1658, Henry Perry of "Buckland" in Charles City County had been subpoenaed to appear in Court as a witness. On that day he had guests, so he addressed a polite note to the Court stating that he had a "company of friends" and therefore could not be present to testify as summoned to do. His courteous note was recorded in the County Court records.
The custom, occasionally adhered to, in the present time, of laying an extra place at the table for the possible coming of an unexpected guest from near or far, had its American origin in the seventeenth century in Virginia. More often then than now the extra place was filled at meal time.
Since all the early Virginia plantations, both large and small, were located either on the rivers or their estuaries, travel was almost entirely by sloop for distances, and by shallop or skiff for brief journeys. The families used such craft to attend church, and the planters to attend Court, the Council or sessions of the Assembly. In the latter half of the century, travel by horseback to the centers, or to attend funerals, or to visit friends, if not too far distant, became popular, especially as horses bred in the Colony had multiplied. The more affluent planters owned numerous horses mentioned in wills and, also, in inventories along with bridles, bits, stirrups and saddles.
In 1679, the Justices of Warwick County noted that a great number of small horses were running wild on "every man's land" and, in consequence, issued an order requiring that horses be penned, in order that the breed in the County "might not be crossed unfavorably." The same year, young Thomas Harris, son of Major William Harris of Henrico County, bequeathed to "mycousin Richard Ligon all my horses, mares or foals that can be proved to be mine ... they not being given by my grandfather into the hands of the overseers." His grandfather, deceased about 1657, was, prior to that time, in possession of horses as the aforesaid entry shows. Colonel Joseph Bridger, of Isle of Wight County, owned fourteen horses at the time of his death. These are shown in the inventory of his estate entered, 1686. Thomas Cocke of Henrico County, who died in 1696, disposed of a large estate in his will, including his horses.
The absence of vehicles, except for a coach, a calash and carts, was due perhaps not so much to cost and the necessity for importing them as to the complete lack of passable roads in the Colony. Cartways, which were the worn and widened Indian trails, over which oxen hauled heavy loads, were the open ways over which travel by land could be undertaken. The bodies of the carts were made in the Colony usually and attached to wheels imported from England. Both the pillion and the side-saddle, the latter an item listed in the inventory of Mrs. Elizabeth Digges, 1692, were used by the women in accompanying the men on journeys. A pillion and a pillion cloth were bequeathed in 1652, by Captain John Upton, of Isle of Wight County, to his stepdaughter.
Notwithstanding the almost complete lack of highways, two Virginians are known to have owned vehicles for travel in the seventeenth century. The commission sent over from England to look into conditions which brought about Bacon's Rebellion complained, 1677, that Governor Berkeley had sent them from his plantation "Greenspring" to Jamestown, a distance of three miles, in his coach with the common hangman as a postillion. William Fitzhugh, a well-to-do planter of Stafford County, owned a calash, a sort of a cab imported from England.
Those who did not own horses considered it no hardship to walk miles to their destinations. Even so, the horse eventually became indispensable to Virginians of all classes, who became very skilled riders at an early age. Their adeptness in this aswell as their knowledge in breeding, training and handling horses passed from generation to generation until the twentieth century. When the automobile supplanted the family surrey, and the network of hard surfaced highways succeeded to the shady, "woodsy," dirt roads, Virginia horses were retired from their long and noteworthy service to Colony and to State.
The earliest reference to a garment maker in Virginia is a petition entered in the General Court, 1626, through which Alice Boyse, widow, sought to reserve for herself and family indefinitely the services of young Joseph Royall, who had been brought to the colony by her late husband to make apparel for the family and such servants as Boyse retained under him.
The costumes of the seventeenth century followed precisely the prevailing styles in England though dress, through necessity, often was less elaborate. Travel, by the colonials back and forth to England, and the arrival of ships ladened with merchandise of all sorts, kept the planters and their wives abreast of the changing modes in dress. There were three major styles in the seventeenth century: the Jacobean, the Puritan and the elaborate dress of the Restoration.
These styles when reviewed today seem much too elaborate for a wilderness; however, news, circulated in England about the Colony, gave only encouraging accounts of an opulent land; thus, the men and women, who came, brought with them the essentials for a normal home life, and dress was an important aspect of ordinary living in England. Nevertheless, the authorities in Virginia took cognizance of the emphasis on dress, and, in order to encourage expenditures for necessities rather than the luxuries in clothing, the Assembly of 1619 enacted a provision taxing an unmarried man according to his apparel, and a married man according to the clothing possessed by himself and members of his family.
A Lady of FashionPhoto by Thomas L. Williams through courtesy of the Jamestown Corporation, Inc.A Lady of FashionGarbed in a costume typical of the early seventeenth century a lady of fashion displays jewels similar to those brought to Virginia by well-to-do merchants.
During the first quarter of the seventeenth century, men wore less elaborate costumes than the puffed, slashed modes of the Renaissance. The breeches were loose but covered the knee where they were fastened with buttons or a sash of ribbon, which often also decorated the instep of the high-heeled shoe. The doublet had fewer slashes and more padding. A stiff beaver hat, decorated with a white plume, rested on the head, with locks falling around the neck and often over the shoulders. The women as well as the men discarded the huge ruff, replacing it with a flaring collar known as the "falling band." The bodices of the women remained cylindrical in shape with sleeves tight from shoulder to elbow, falling loosely to the wrist where they were often finished with turned back cuffs. The farthingale gave way to the skirt, open from waist to hem in front, to show an elaborate petticoat. Both skirts were short enough to expose the instep and rosette or buckle on the shoe. The women forsook the caps formerly in vogue and adopted also the stiff beaver hats with feathers.
A Gay MoodPhoto by Thomas L. Williams through courtesy of the Jamestown Corporation, Inc.A Gay MoodA young girl displays a seventeenth-century costume with full skirt, cylindrical bodice and falling band (large loose collar).
With the coming of Charles I to the throne, decorative features were added to the fashions. Colored ribbons, displayed in bunches at the knees, on doublets and as ties to hold back flowing locks, came into vogue along with flaring boots elaborately trimmed on the inner side of the flare, which was turned back. The women's costumes also underwent similar elaborations. Gloves appeared, also muffs, and the long circular cape was used as a wrap.
The severity of the regime, as established under the Commonwealth, 1649, was reflected in the dress of both men and women when all finery was discarded. Fabrics became somber in color and unpretentious in texture. Men had their locks shorn close to the head, and women returned to the simple caps or hoods, which held the hair close to the head. Virginia authorities took cognizance of England's turn towards simplicity in dress, and enacted a law prohibiting the introduction of clothing containing silk, or of silk goods in pieces, except for scarfs, silver and gold lace or ribbons interwoven with silver or gold. The law further provided for confiscation of silk articles brought into the colony against the law.
A Virginia artisanPhoto by Thomas L. Williams through courtesy of the Jamestown Corporation, Inc.A Virginia artisan, in the costume of the early seventeenth century, views a woodland scene in the Jamestown area.
After ten years of this severity in dress, the populace in Virginia was ready for the change, which Charles II brought to England with his restoration as monarch. Having spent his exile in France at the brilliant court of Louis XIV, he brought with him, on his return to England, fashions which the colonials sought to adopt, although they were restricted somewhat because of the limited importations of silks and satins, elaborate colored ribbons, fine linen, beruffled shirts, and jeweled garters for the men.
The antecedent of the present-day coat worn by men was introduced in England by Charles II, having been patterned after a Persian coat brought to his attention. This coat, straight and collarless, was buttoned from neck to knees where it ended. The close sleeves were short, and finished with a deep turned back cuff, below which extended the lace ruffles of the shirt sleeve. In cold weather, a greatcoat of frieze (a shaggy-piled woolen fabric) was worn over the costume.
As the century wore on, women's dress became increasingly elaborate also. The skirts were looped high at the sides over trailing petticoats, the fronts of which were covered with fancy aprons of silk, linen or lace. The bodice was usually laced across the front with ribbons. Red-heeled shoes added a note of interest to milady's outfit.
Children's dress was patterned identically after that of their elders and, as may be imagined, very little freedom of movement was afforded.
The inventory of Philip Felgate, Gentleman, of Lower Norfolk County, entered on the records, 1646, shows that some of the more elegant styling in dress had been brought to the Colony at that time. He possessed a black cloth suit, two buff suits and a buff doublet, a short cloth coat and a coat of squirrel skins. To complete his costume there were two pairs of silk stockings, a pair of silk stirrup hose and black silk garters, five pairs of shoes, abeaver hat, a silver hatband. Evidently, Felgate was of the military service, for he had brought with him, to the colonies, a suit of black armor with a headpiece of white armor and a sword with a gold hilt. He owned also a musket and a rest for it, and was outfitted with a "suite of bandoleers," the latter, seldom listed in inventories, was a belt arrangement with loops, usually twelve, in which were fitted small pierced metal cases for carrying the slow matches (actually fuses), by which the charge for firing the gun was ignited. Three Monmouth caps, customarily worn by soldiers and sailors of the period, were among his possessions.
Major Croshaw's stepdaughter, upon the eve of departure from England, 1661, for Virginia, had been furnished with a scarf, a white sarcenet and a ducape hood, a white flannel petticoat, two green aprons, three pairs of gloves, along with a riding-scarf, a mask and a pair of shoes. Mrs. Sarah Willoughby of Lower Norfolk County, who died 1673, left a wardrobe valued at 14 pounds, 19 shillings. It included five petticoats, a red silk, a blue silk and a black silk, another of India silk and worsted prunella and a fifth of linen and calico. Also, the lady left a black silk gown, a scarlet waistcoat, a sky-colored satin bodice, a pair of red paragon bodices, a worsted mantle, two hoods, a striped-stuff jacket, seven handkerchiefs, six aprons, three of fine and three of coarse Holland.
Daniel Hopkinson, merchant, who died in Virginia, 1636, bequeathed to relatives and friends beaver hats, which had become very much the vogue during the reign of James I. Similarly, Robert Nickolson of London, who died on a voyage to Virginia, bequeathed to relatives in the Colony and to several of his associates, kid gloves, buckskin gloves and cordovan gloves.
In the seventeenth century clothes were not discarded as they are today for the garments, particularly for "Sunday wear" were carefully made. The more affluent planters had clothes made in England, William Fitzhugh having ordered from London, 1697, two suits, one for winter and one for summer.
It was not uncommon to find clothing bequeathed in wills. In 1676, James Crewes, ill-fated associate of Nathaniel Bacon in the Rebellion, bequeathed to young Daniel Llewellyn, his "best suit and coat."
The reader may wonder when and where jewels could be worn in seventeenth-century Virginia when, even at the close of the century, there were no centers, other than church at which a lady might attend to display her ornaments. Yet, the feminine frailty to covet the beautiful, whether in gems, in fine household furnishings, linens or silver, was perhaps even stronger than it is today. Possession of jewels was a mark of distinction, and, even though the precious baubles could be shown at functions but rarely, there was satisfaction in ownership and compensation in the admiration they elicited when worn.
The colonials possessed a great deal more jewelry than might be imagined. The opulence of the English merchants, trading in all parts of the world, in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, had enabled many to invest their surpluses in jewels, which fluctuated less than the unsteady values in the media of exchange, and, therefore, were an investment rarely decreasing in value. Moreover, jewels could be transported more readily than either gold or silver and, since the goldsmiths in England and Holland were the early bankers, they often advised their customers, particularly those about to embark upon a voyage to Virginia, to invest their profits in gems, easy to carry, not likely to fluctuate and always desirable.
The unusual purposes, to which jewels might be put, is recounted in a record of the sale of Mrs. Moseley's jewels to Colonel Francis Yeardley, who desired them as a gift to his wife, Sarah (Offley), widow successively of John Gookin and Adam Thoroughgood. William Moseley, his wife Susan and two sons Arthur and William arrived in Virginia, 1649, from Holland and settled in Lower Norfolk County. By reason of the family's "greatwant of cattle," Mrs. Moseley, the following year, sold some of her jewels: a gold hat band enameled and set with diamonds, a jewel of gold (probably a pendant) enameled and set with diamonds, and a diamond ring. In a letter to the purchaser, she stated that they were genuine, having been examined by a goldsmith in The Hague, and were worth £11 4s.In exchange, the Moseleys received five cows and four oxen. Having still in her possession a ruby ring, a sapphire and an emerald ring, Mrs. Moseley could be gracious in parting with her gems and wrote Colonel Yeardley, she had rather his wife wear them than any gentlewoman she yet knew in the country, and wished her "health and prosperity" in her display of them.
At the same time, Mrs. Sarah Yeardley, the daughter of a well-to-do English merchant, and the spouse successively of three prosperous husbands, possessed other jewels. Her will dated, 1657, directed that her "bestdiamond necklace and jewell" should be sent to England to purchase six diamond rings and two black tombstones, the latter to be placed over her grave and that of her second husband, at the churchyard at Lynnhaven. Since all things ornamental were under a ban during the Commonwealth in England, it is not surprising that Mrs. Yeardley's necklace did not bring even the price of the two tombstones, which cost £19 7s., while the diamond ornament brought only £15. Yet, the tombstones, the inscriptions on which are extant, have left to posterity a permanent record of Mrs. Yeardley and her three husbands. After all, values are relative, and could Mrs. Sarah (Offley-Thoroughgood-Gookin) Yeardley view today the position she enjoys in the romance of Virginia's seventeenth century, she likely would not regret having traded diamonds for tombstones.
One of the earliest records of jewelry in Virginia is in the will of Mrs. Elizabeth Draper of London, dated 1625, in which she bequeathed to her granddaughters, Elizabeth and Mary Peirsey, daughters of the cape-merchant Abraham Peirsey, each, a diamond ring, Mary's set "after the Dutch fashion." ArthurSmith I of Isle of Wight County made a bequest, 1645, of his "seal ring of gold," to his son Thomas. This much worn ring has passed from generation to generation, and remains today in possession of a descendent in the county in which the testator died. He also bequeathed mourning rings to the overseers of his will. Such bequests, as the latter, were frequently made and were inscribed, or carried a locket in which hair or some other memento could be placed. Mrs. Elizabeth Digges' inventory listed among her possessions: eight gold mourning rings, probably bequeathed to her by deceased relatives, a diamond ring, a small stone ring, a parcel of sea-pearls and a bodkin, the latter an ornamental hairpin.
In 1651, Robert Nickolson of London, merchant, dying on a voyage to Virginia, made en route a will with numerous bequests, among them, a diamond ring and a gold ring to Mistress Beheathland Bernard, daughter of Mrs. Mary Bernard and granddaughter of Robert Beheathland, who had come to Virginia with the first settlers in 1607.
In 1673, Mrs. Amory Butler, nee Elizabeth Underwood (Taylor-Slaughter-Catlett) left to legatees a collection of jewelry probably assembled, in part, during her four ventures in matrimony. These jewels included her wedding ring—to which husband is not known—two big stone rings, a blue enameled ring, two mourning rings, a small diamond ring and a large diamond ring, a small pearl necklace and a necklace with large pearls, a silver bodkin and a gilded bodkin, a pair of silver buttons, and a pair of silver buckles. The year following, Mrs. Rose Gerrard, widow, of Westmoreland County, made several gifts to her eldest daughter, Sarah, wife of William Fitzhugh, and among them were "one necklace of pearls."
Colonel Thomas Pitt, of Isle of Wight County, had the forethought, before he died in 1687, to leave to his wife her wedding ring along with her wearing apparel, and also title to her two diamond rings, an enameled ring, and a necklace of pearls. Theseitems, otherwise, could have been accounted in his estate for division among heirs, for the law gave a woman no title to her possessions during the life of husband. Colonel Bridger also left to his wife, 1683, all "her apparel, rings and jewels."
Although clocks are listed in seventeenth century inventories, one of the earliest mentions of a watch was in 1697, when Richard Aubrey of Essex County, bequeathed two silver seals and his "pendilum watch."
That Christmas was an occasion to be enjoyed, both with comfort and merriment in the Colony, is indicated in an account, recorded in 1608, when a group of the first settlers in two ships undertook to visit Powhatan at his seat Werowocomoco on the Pamunkey (York) River. Setting sail from Jamestown they encountered rough weather and were forced to put in at Kecoughtan (now Hampton), where they spent Christmas with the Indians. Their scribes recorded that they were "never more merry, nor never had better fires in England than in the dry, warm, smoky houses of Kecoughtan."