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.
FAMILY TRAVEL
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 "my cousin 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 as well 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 FASHIONS
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.
[Illustration: Photo by Thomas L. Williams through courtesy of the
Jamestown Corporation, Inc.
A Lady of Fashion
Garbed 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.
[Illustration: Photo by Thomas L. Williams through courtesy of the
Jamestown Corporation, Inc.
A Gay Mood
A 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.
[Illustration: Photo 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, a beaver 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."
JEWELRY
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 "great want 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 L11 4_s._ 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 "_best_ diamond 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
L19 7_s._, while the diamond ornament brought only L15. 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." Arthur Smith 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. These items, 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."
FESTIVITIES, RECREATION AND SPORTS
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."
[Illustration: Drawing by the late Bessie Barclay, based on a study of
the original John White drawings made in 1653 and now in the British
Museum. Through courtesy of the _Daily Press_, Newport News.
Christmas at Kecoughtan 1608
A group of colonists from Jamestown bound for Powhatan's seat on the
York River put in at Kecoughtan after encountering adverse weather.
There they spent Christmas with the Indians who entertained them in the
native arched bark-house with feasting and a tribal dance.]
Christmas in the seventeenth century was celebrated on the day known to
the present as "Old Christmas," that is the sixth of January.
The dry, smoky houses of the Indians were long, arched structures with a
framework of bent saplings, over which was secured a close covering of
bark, while the roof was covered with mats or reeds. A fire built in the
middle of the habitation, with smoke curling through an opening above,
afforded both warmth and fuel for cooking. Mats and skins, hung at the
entrance and exit, kept in the heat and also some of the smoke, but shut
out the rough weather. Several families slept, ate and carried on their
indoor activities in these ample shelters.
And, here, it was that the colonists, with only the Indian maids to
provide feminine company, celebrated the first Christmas, of which
there is a record in the new world. After the feasting and the passing
of the pipes, as a token of friendship, there was probably a customary
Indian oration of welcome. Then, the Indian dancers appeared with their
rattles, and beating time to the tom-toms with their feet, they gestured
wildly with their arms. As a participant became weary, another took his
place and this exhibition, first stimulating in its activity, then
soothing in its cadence, carried far into the night, as, one by one, the
audience of white men and natives drifted off to the hurdles that served
as beds, and to sleep.
When the weather broke, and before the colonists resumed their journey,
they likely were entertained by their hosts in a deer-hunt staged
according to the Indian custom. Several Indian runners left, early in
the morning, to drive up the deer and herd them on a narrow peninsula,
of which there are many between the James and the York Rivers and
elsewhere in Tidewater Virginia. Canoes, with native hunters and their
white men guests, awaited in the waters nearby, and when the drivers,
pursuing the deer, forced them into the water, the frightened animals
were slaughtered in numbers. Ladened with the spoils, hosts and guests
returned to the bark houses to cook and feast upon their game.
Firearms played an important part in all celebrations in the seventeenth
century as every planter possessed one or more "pieces" which were used
to give dash to the frolics. A proclamation, issued in 1627, warns
against "spending powder at meetings, drinkings, marriages and
entertainments." Thus, it is certain that the colonists were wont to
assemble and celebrate as occasions warranted.
One of the most colorful of these occasions took place at Middle
Plantation (later Williamsburg) in 1677; Sir Herbert Jeffreys, having
been sent over with 1000 English soldiers to look into the state of
affairs in Virginia and to put an end to the Rebellion led by Nathaniel
Bacon, found Bacon dead and the Rebellion over. Shortly thereafter,
Governor Sir William Berkeley, who had caused so much grief by hanging
Bacon's chief associates, was summoned back to England, whereupon
Jeffreys ordered a celebration. The King's birthday provided the
occasion which he promoted, not only to honor the Sovereign but to
assemble the people, to heal the wounds and promote peace with the
Indians. Not only the colonists and the English troops gathered, but all
the leading Indian chieftains and queens of Tidewater and their retinues
were invited, and attended in ceremonial regalia. That there was not
only formal recognition of the important day, but much firing of arms,
drinking and hilarity on the side may be certain.