williamsburg tour - sultana education

Williamsburg Tour

Williamsburg Tour Williamsburg Tour

Previous Page: Rick Guthrie at the workbench in the Anderson Black-smith Shop. Building reconstructed 1984-1986. Photograph by Willie Graham, 1989.

2


ANDERSON BLACKSMITH SHOP1770s-1780s, reconstructed 1984-1986Williamsburg

The James Anderson Blacksmith Shop was reconstructed in the mid 1980s using tradi-tional tools and technology, one of the first projects in

the Historic Area of Williamsburg to be done in this manner. The reconstruction used a number of eighteenth-century build-ing features that had heretofore been excluded or overlooked in work at Colonial Williamsburg. These include the use of riven framing, clapboards, post-and-rail fences with riven parts, and tar as a finish. The segmental appearance of the reconstructed shop reflects expansion due to the rapid growth of Anderson’s business during the Revolution. The recon-struction was heralded at the time as one of the few sites in the Historic Area that tried to create a realistic portrayal of an industrial site in terms of its architecture and work yard.

Anderson purchased the property in 1770 in order to accom-modate his expanding smith’s business. Except for a brief pe-riod when he relocated to Richmond between 1781 and 1783, Anderson operated a blacksmith and armorer’s shop here from the 1770s until he died in 1798. During the Revolution, he contracted with the state for a number of large commissions including the repairing of muskets, swords, and bayonets, and manufacturing nails, axes, and hardware for vehicles.

Archaeological investigations by Ivor Noël Hume in the 1970s revealed that the site consisted of a building erected in phases and in great haste in the 1770s. He discovered the location of the forge hearths and revealed that they were used for a variety of work. Anderson repaired tools and arms, forged new hard-ware, and ran an extensive nail-making operation. Moreover, one forge appears to have been used for casting. The excava-tion also established basic evidence about the character of the building erected by Anderson in the mid to late 1770s. It had solid but relatively sloppy brick foundations, dirt floors, and an interior devoid of plaster.

In the absence of documentary and visual evidence, the impli-cations provided by archaeology had to be interpreted from precedents discovered in fieldwork. Preliminary research car-ried out by Dell Upton followed by more extensive investig-ations by members of the Architectural Research Department was directed toward establishing a system of construction and finish that was consonant with the functional aspect of an industrial site—and one that was added to quickly to meet the exigencies of war. The riven framing, shuttered windows,

and clapboard roof and walls were based on regional proto-types found in a variety of work and domestic buildings not previously recorded by scholars. Although there was unques-tionably much careful craftsmanship in eighteenth-century Virginia, not all buildings received the costly attention that was expended on the original buildings that line the Duke of Gloucester Street. For every dwelling that had a modillion cornice, beaded weatherboards, round-butt shingles, and pan-eled doors, there were scores of meathouses, dairies, kitchens, and smaller houses that were finished in a less genteel manner with riven boards, slab roofs, and sash-less apertures. These construction methods were also part of the Chesapeake legacy, most of which had been overlooked in earlier Williamsburg reconstructions. The Anderson Shop reconstruction was thus a didactic exercise that sought to integrate the full range of eigh-teenth-century building practices so as to reflect a hierarchical ordering evident in the status and function of this building. EAC and CRL

Raising of the blacksmith shop in 1984. Photograph by Willie Gra-ham.

3


BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE1718-19, 1720, restored: 1949-51, 1994-96 Williamsburg

Most dwellings in eighteenth-century Williamsburg underwent significant alter- ations every two or three decades to respond to changing fashions.

Few buildings were immune to the desire to rework an earlier generation’s achievements and this house was no exception. Dendrochronology by Dr. Herman J. Heikkenen indicates that the front portion of the Brush-Everard House was built shortly after 1718 and that construction of the north wing began in 1720. There appears to have been a south wing as well, an appendage that was rebuilt about 1740. This rebuilt wing vanished during the nineteenth century and was reconstructed in the late 1940s by Colonial Williamsburg based on archaeo-logical and architectural evidence.

Because the house is one of the earliest in Williams-burg, its central passage, symmetrical front, and dormer windows have always seemed rather precocious. However, recent investig-ations revealed that with the possible exception of the dor-mers, these are first-period features. The roof was originally covered with riven or split clapboards, some of which have survived in a protected area under the roof of the north wing. The first-period interior finish was quite plain, there being no chair boards, cornices, or paneled wainscoting. Initially, only the two front rooms were plastered—plaster in the passage was not installed until the 1740s. The wall plate remained exposed in the south room (and can still be seen in the buffet to the left of the chimney). The present stair now covers the first-period back door.

Henry Cary, a local undertaker of architecture, acquired the house and added the present stair, the dining room buffet, and all the present trim (excepting the paneled wainscot in the two original rooms) about 1740. Moreover, he replaced flooring in the front of the house with secret-nailed, doweled boards, which can readily be seen in worn spots in the front passage.

As restored, the house reflects the tenure of Williamsburg mayor Thomas Everard who lived here from 1756 until the time of his death in 1789. Everard installed the raised-panel wainscot in the front rooms about 1770, in part to match his new social and political attainment.

Wallpapers in the dining room and chamber were reproduced from fragments recovered during the 1949-50 restoration. The unusual finish of the parlor incorporates a base coat of green paint, followed by several thin coats of verditer glaze. A simi-

lar formula was employed in the dining room as an eye-catch-ing finish for the interior of the buffet. These and the finishes in the house are the result of recent paint analysis. MRW

Dendrochronology indicates that the Thomas Everard House was built shortly after 1718 and that the surviving north wing was com-pleted about two years later. The south wing was built about the same time as the north one, rebuilt about 1740, and demolished in the nine-teenth century. Reconstruction of this wing by Colonial Williamsburg represents the second manifestation of this space. Drawn by Mark R. Wenger.

4


BRUTON PARISH CHURCH1715, 1751, tower, 1769, restored: 1905-07, 1938-42Williamsburg

The principal place to worship in the capital of the province, Bruton Parish Church served a community greater than the small city of Williamsburg.

The present structure was the second on the site. In 1683 John Page erected a church a few yards north-west of the tower (marked by stones in the churchyard). This served the residents of Middle Plantation, a rapidly growing rural settlement located midway between the James and York Rivers. Measuring 28 by 64 feet, Page’s brick church was similar in size, plan, and detailing as two other parish churches erected at the same time—the Newport Parish Church, Isle of Wight County, which still survives, and the Jamestown Church, a later tower of which still stands. As at the Newport Church, the one in Middle Plantation had shaped gables and buttressed walls redolent of seventeenth-century artisan mannerist exuberance.

As the new capital grew in the first decade of the eighteenth century, the old church became too small. In 1711 Governor Alexander Spotswood provided a plan for a much larger structure, a cruciform church measuring 28 by 75 feet with north and south wings, each 22 feet wide by nineteen feet long. There was no liturgical significance to the cruciform plan: the wings simply provided more space for the new capital’s population of artisans, merchants, and officials. Rather than creating a wider building of boxier proportions as would have occurred in other colonies, the plan followed regional predilections for narrow roof spans, eschewing those of more than 35 feet. The roof frame consists of a series of principal rafters with common rafters tied into two tiers of pur-lins. At the original gable ends, kneed or bent principals were used, probably required to accommodate the corbelled brick gables and the bases for their ornaments. (In 1742 the “brick ornaments of the gavel ends” were removed and replaced with wooden rake boards.) Because this was one of the largest clear spans attempted to date in the Chesapeake, builders used massive tie beams that measured fifteen-inches square in cross section. These and the principal rafters were made of tulip poplar. Due to the light weight of this material, deflection was

less of a problem than for oak or yellow pine, the other com-mon framing materials found in the area. Small struts were used to help break the span of the principal rafters.

Because members of the provincial government would be us-ing the church, Spotswood agreed to provide public funds to construct the two wings, but his plan was revised, the wings being trimmed from nineteen to 141⁄2 feet in length. Although the new structure originally had decorative parapeted gables like the first church, the rest of the detailing employed ele-ments commonly associated with late colonial brickwork—Flemish-bond with glazed headers, gauge- and- rubbed arches, and compass-headed apertures. However, the doorways did not have gauged-and-rubbed classical frontispieces, decorative devices that became popular in the better parish churches a decade later.

Members of the congregation entered the church through three doorways—the principal western one and two subsidiary doors in the wings. Each entrance may have been reserved for particular groups of parishioners, as was customary in many communities and would have been in keeping with the prac-tice of creating spaces inside the church that reflected social

5


last major addition was made in 1769 when the belltower and wooden steeple were erected at the west end of the church. Towers were unusual features in Anglican Virginia in the eighteenth century. The cobbled framing of the steeple suggests that builder Benjamin Powell’s workmen had little experience in such matters. To assist in bracing the frame of the tower, a tilted false plate (the only known example in Williams-burg) was reused as a strut. Well into the nineteenth century, all wooden exterior elements, as well as interior trim, were painted reddish brown, one of the most common colors in the region.

As the church of the provincial capital, the design of this building had some influence. A few parish vestries copied the cruciform plan, including St. Paul’s in Norfolk in the late 1730s. Unfortunately, Bruton’s interior was swept away in a series of major renovations. In 1840 a much-diminished Episcopal congregation subdivided the building into a Sunday school and sanctuary. A colonial revival restoration in the first decade of the twentieth century was followed in 1938 by a distinctions. Whereas pews were set aside for the governor,

councilmen, members of the General Assembly, and other im-portant provincial officers, ordinary parishioners were seated according to their rank, sex, and age. In 1716 the vestry or-dered the men of the parish to sit on the north side, the women on the south side, although members of more influential families may have sat together. Locks on many pew doors reminded parishioners of the proprie-tary nature of church seating. From the beginning, students from the College of William and Mary were seated in the west gallery (the only surviving eigh-teenth-century feature that remains in the sanctuary), eventually taking over the entire area for themselves. It seems unlikely that any special space was allotted to slaves, in part because of the ambivalence of many slaveholders felt toward Christianizing them. The few who did attend church must have been relegated to standing or sitting in the aisles or on a back bench.

The church continued to be enlarged, reworked, and rearranged in the late colonial period. Among the more important changes were the enclosure of the churchyard by the present wall and the extension of the east end of the church by 22 feet in 1751. The

Interior of Bruton Parish Church in 1938 on the eve of its second restora-tion. Nivison photograph, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Roof framing detail. Note the use of bent principals on the gable ends. Struts were included with each principal pair to support the extremely long span of the rafters. Measured by Carl Lounsbury, drawn by David Beatty.

6


much more academic restoration by Colonial Williamsburg ar-chitects to provide a colonial ambience for modern Episcopal worship. CRL

“Bruton Church and William and Mary College Williamsburg Virga,” by Thomas Charles Millington, 1834. Swem Library, College of William and Mary.

7


ROBERT CARTER HOUSElate 1740s, 1760s, restored: 1931-32Williamsburg

The Robert Carter House was probably built for Dr. Kenneth McKenzie prior to 1750, for it was standing when it was rented by Governor Robert

Dinwiddie while the Governor’s Palace was being repaired in 1752. Like the Wythe House a short distance to the south, this dwelling stands on two lots, allowing space for an ample garden in the rear (its terraces and ramps are still visible today). To clear the way for this ornamental landscape and to screen it from the unwelcome gaze of persons on Palace Green, outbuildings and service functions were located at or near the front of the property. This manner of organizing the property was unusual in Williamsburg and here it determined the orientation of the dwelling. While most Williamsburg houses unambiguously face the street, this one turns its back on Palace Green—the reticence of its three-bay front stands in marked contrast to the transparency of the five-bay façade facing the garden.

The dwelling’s internal arrangement and decoration responded to and emphasized this orientation. Admittedly, the principal room of reception—called the parlor by the 1760s—stood just inside the passage, immediately accessible to any genteel visitor who entered from Palace Green. Beyond this parlor,

however, an archway divided the passage, suggesting the ex-clusion of all but favored persons from the back rooms. Archi-tecturally, the passage and the parlor were impressive enough to offer an adequate reception for arriving strangers. The best appointments, however, were reserved for the larger of the two back rooms. Superior finishes—a modillion cornice, modern wainscoting, an articulated chimneypiece, and compound moldings at the door panels—all served to express the social importance of the dining room. Secluded beyond the passage archway, this elaborate room enjoyed a superior view look-ing out over a manicured and protected landscape behind the house. Across the passage, a ground-floor chamber, reserved for the mistress and perhaps her husband, shared this view.In a sense, the Carter House faced both ways. While providing for the reception of arriving strangers, it reserved the best ap-pointments and views for those who were invited to dine. The utility of this arrangement in urban settings is clear, and the formula soon was soon identified with the best sort of houses in Annapolis.

View of the Robert Carter House at the turn of the twentieth century, showing its many nineteenth-century accretions. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

8


In the 1931-32 restoration of this house, the portico was removed and the earlier brick casing stripped from the rear of the house. The present front porch as well as the flanking wings and covered ways were reconstructed. On the ground floor of the house, much early finish remains, except in the parlor, where the cornice, surbase, and base are modern—the originals were probably sacrificed in the mid-nineteenth-cen-tury remodeling that saw the addition of the front portico. However, the parlor door, the flooring, the massive chim-neypiece, and a portion of the fireplace interior are early. Colonial Williamsburg added the bookcases in the chamber. Upstairs, the plan was much altered at this time, though a good deal of early finish remains. MRW

Several building campaigns are reflected in the surviving fabric of the Carter house. Below the present floor is an earlier one, which is believed to be the original. This is visible where the cellar stair opening affords an edge-on view of both floor-ing systems.The upper system probably dates to the early 1760s when the house was purchased and remodeled by Robert Carter III of Nomini Hall in Westmoreland County, one of the wealthiest individuals in Virginia. Eighteenth-century finishes associated with this floor probably date to Carter’s period, or some time after. The stair is earlier—notice how the present floor reduced the height of the bottom riser. See too, how this riser, the newel, and the wainscot adorning the stair continue downward past the present floorboards, which are coped around them. The absence of ovolos on this raised-panel joinery is char-acteristic of early work and confirms the supposition that it belongs to the first period of construction. As to the floor itself, everywhere below stairs, the new floorboards were doweled and secret-nailed to elevate the refinement of this surface and of the interior generally. Throughout the first floor, the lami-nating of all doors allowed Carter to upgrade the finish on the inferior faces while the augmented thickness permitted the in-stallation of fashionable mortise locks. To these touches Carter added new wallpaper, which he designated “to hang three parlors of my House in Williamsburg.” His transformation of the dwelling’s interior was complete.

The exterior was altered as well. The original roof of the dwelling had exhibited hipped exterior slopes, hiding a pair of interior valleys, which were open to the weather and con-ducted water back to the exterior. The bones of this system are still visible in the garret. It appears that Carter roofed over the gutters and M roof to create a usable area and in this way changed the silhouette of the house. Dormers were punched through the old roof to light this new space and a partition was erected to divide it.

About 1800, the house again witnessed significant changes after Robert Saunders purchased it. The most visible of these involved the application of a brick veneer to a portion of the house and the addition of a piazza across the rear. From this outdoor space, those who enjoyed the privilege of the dining room could also view the garden in a more intimate and com-fortable way than was possible from within the house. Flush-board wainscoting was added to what had been the chamber and the space was connected to the parlor by a new doorway. These changes suggest that the functions of the chamber had moved to the second floor and that the vacated space was now given over to public use. Upstairs, the plaster cornice and flat-panel chimney treatment of the front room also date to the pe-riod of these changes. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the addition of a large, two-story portico on the street front af-forded an outdoor living space accessible from the upper floor, where families spent an increasing portion of their time.

Robert Carter House, first-floor plan. Willie Graham, after Marcus Whiffen.

9


Peyton Randolph’s house was the product of two major building campaigns. These are most apparent when viewing the building from the rear. The

cubic section at the west end was built for William Robert-son between 1714 and 1718 and was expanded to the east by Peyton Randolph in 1754-55 (these dates were derived by dendrochronologist Herman J. Heikkenen). An early, one-story lobby-entry tenement abutted Randolph’s addition. This was reconstructed in 1939 while the Randolph House was undergo-ing restoration.

Despite its early date, the first phase of the Randolph House had most elements associated with later Georgian build-ings of the region—beaded weatherboard siding, modillion cornice, sash windows, and a shingled roof. An M roof with internal oak gutters was used to span the double-pile depth of the building, although its form was hidden from view by the creation of hipped ends. As a recent innovation, the internal face of the wall posts and studs were set within the same plane to completely hide the framing. However, Robertson never finished plastering or trimming out the interior of his new dwelling.

The first-period house is notable for the disposition of its rooms. A dining room, hall, and chamber were arranged around a central chimney, with an entry providing indepen-dent access to the two public rooms. The house in this form originally faced England Street rather than Market Square. Robertson’s dwelling was quite advanced for its time—houses of two full stories were quite rare, and few Virginians enjoyed the luxury of a dining room at this early date.

About 1724, the house passed by sale to Sir John Randolph and by 1752 his son Peyton Randolph seems to have assumed control of the property. He first finished the interior of the old house, added raised paneling (some of which was made of quarter-sawn oak), walnut doors and trim, wallpaper in one room, and plastered the remaining exposed framing. Then in 1754-55, he added a wing to the east, thereby re-orienting the house with a symmetrical façade facing Market Square. All painted wooden surfaces inside and out were coated with a shellac sealer and painted reddish brown, a concoction made of red lead, Spanish brown, and lamp black. The expansion also provided three new spaces—a stair passage, a large din-ing space, and above this, a new bedchamber suite. The new

PEYTON RANDOLPH HOUSE1715-18, c. 1752,1754-55, restored: 1939-41, 1968, 1999Williamsburg

First-floor plan of the Peyton Randolph House. The west end of the house was erecetd between 1715 and 1718. The center passage and dining room in the east end, and the covered way and the kitchen/laundry/slave quarter to the north were all part of improvements made in 1754-55. Drawn by Mark R. Wenger.

10


passage, lit by a large compass-headed window on the landing, provided an appropriately impressive means of entering from Market Square.

Peyton and Betty Randolph’s new dining room reflected the meal’s growing importance in public life. Abigail Adams could have spoken for many Virginians when she wrote that: “the manners of our country are so intirely changed from what they were in the days of simplicity . . . unless you can keep a publick table and equipage you are of but . . . small consid-eration.” With this fact of life fully in view, the Randolphs created their sumptuous new dining room. When the work was done, the old dining room became Peyton’s library, and the old chamber moved upstairs. This latter move reflected the new tendency of Virginians to draw sleeping spaces deeper into the house as they sought to maintain acceptable levels of privacy while continuing to meet their hospitable obligations.

Archaeology on the site was undertaken when the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation took control of the property and began restoration of the house in 1939. Additional excavations in the late 1970s and early 1980s provided much information concerning the dates, forms, and functions of outbuildings that once existed in the rear yard. Using this record, outbuildings that were part of Peyton Randolph’s reworking of the site are in the process of being reconstructed. Included in this work is a two-story kitchen, laundry and quarter that is tethered to the main house by a 50-foot-long covered way. A dairy and smokehouse, and the eventual reconstruction of a storage building, completes what had been domestic support buildings for the main house in the immediate rear yard. Behind these buildings were more storage structures, an earlier dairy, and a large granary that facilitated a remote plantation operation. Reconstruction of the rear-yard landscape gives Colonial Williamsburg the opportunity to explore the interpretation of the lives of slaves who cohabited with the Randolphs on this property. MRW and WJG

Eaves detail of the 1715-1718 section of the Peyton Randolph House. Note the two bevel outer faces of the false plate, intended to neatly seat a crown molding. Drawing by Willie Graham.

Section through the first-period roof frame showing its original M profile, internal wooden gutters, and a ca. 1735 gabled frame that encapsulated the earlier structure. Measured by Willie Graham and Mark R. Wenger. Drawn by Willie Graham.

11

williamsburg tour - sultana education

Documents