Advertisement

Arranging Status

Chapter
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

The architecture, cost, exterior decoration, and situation of gentlemen’s houses all conveyed significant messages about their residents, but it was on the interior that some of the most important aspects of status played out. The next two chapters develop a better understanding of how gentlemen’s houses were laid out and decorated, what rooms they contained, how the function of rooms changed over the period and, perhaps most importantly, how they were furnished with objects that constructed everyday life and social behaviour. Gentlemen’s houses had multiple functions and rooms were flexible. As centres of domestic life, show-pieces of display, and theatres for status construction, they put objects into action repeatedly to reinforce the social position of their owners. Spatial organization and floor plans provided the ‘medium through which society is reproduced’.1 The interrelationship between spatial organization, interior finish, furnishing arrangement, and the ways people interacted with these spaces helped to define social status.

Keywords

Eighteenth Century Service Function Ground Floor Floor Plan Large House 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    A. Flather, Gender and Space in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2007), 2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For discussion of their methodology, see L. Stone and J. F. Stone, An Open Elite? England 1540–1880 (Oxford, 1984), Appendix 2, 437–458.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Worsley Classical Architecture in Britain: The Heroic Age (New Haven and London, 1995), 171 andGoogle Scholar
  4. Reiff, Small Georgian Houses in England and Virginia: Origins and Development through the 1750s (London, 1986), 323, Appendix 2, table 6, contend American houses were larger. The alternate view,Google Scholar
  5. S. G. Hague, ‘Historiography and the Origins of the Gentleman’s House in the British Atlantic World’, in O. Horsfall Turner, (ed.), ‘The Mirror of Great Britain’: National Identity in Seventeenth-Century British Architecture (Reading, 2012), 233–259, table 1, 254.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See, for example, the comparison of double and single-storey entrance halls in Cornforth, Early Georgian Interiors (London and New Haven, 2004), 23–38.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    An unusual example is Tazewell Hall in Virginia, see M. Wenger, ‘The Central Passage in Virginia: Evolution of an Eighteenth-Century Living Space’, Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, vol. 2 (1986), 137–149, 142–145, especially figure 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Ayres, Domestic Interiors: The British Tradition 1500–1850 (New Haven and London, 2003), viii;Google Scholar
  9. B. L. Herman, Town House: Architecture and Material Life in the Early American City, 1780–1830 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2005), 39.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Cornforth, Early Georgian Interiors, 3. The compact floor plan has received its fullest treatment in A. H. Gomme and A. Maguire, Design and Plan in the Country House: From Castle Donjons to Palladian Boxes (New Haven and London, 2008). See alsoGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Girouard, Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History (New Haven and London, 1978), 150–151; Worsley Classical Architecture in Britain, 10–19, 21–31;Google Scholar
  12. N. Cooper, The Houses of the Gentry: 1480–1680 (New Haven and London, 1999), 244–249;Google Scholar
  13. J. Bold, ‘The Design of a House for a Merchant, 1724’, Architectural History, vol. 33 (1990), 75–82;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. P. Smith, ‘Plain English or Anglo-Palladian? Seventeenth-Century Country Villa Plans’, in M. Airs and G. Tyack, (eds), The Renaissance Villa in Britain 1500–1700 (Reading, 2007), 89–110.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    A Klein, ‘Politeness and the Interpretation of the British Eighteenth Century’, The Historical Journal, vol. 45, no. 4 (December 2002), 869–898, 887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 14.
    E. Chappell, ‘Fieldwork’, in C. Carson and C. R. Lounsbury (eds), The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigations by Colonia Williamsburg (Chapel Hill, NC, 2013), 29–47, at 38–39.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (New York, 1992), 7. See also Reiff, Small Georgian Houses;Google Scholar
  18. B. B. Mooney Prodigy Houses of Virginia: Architecture and the Native Elite (Charlottesville, VA, 2008).Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Hall, ‘Yeoman or Gentleman? Problems in Defining Social status in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Gloucestershire’, Vernacular Architecture, vol. 20 (1991), 2–19, 5, 8. It should be noted that Hall’s sample is not restricted to classical houses. Rooms and room use are also explored inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Overton, J. Whittle, D. Dean, and A. Hann, Production and Consumption in English Households, 1600–1750 (London, 2004), chapter 6.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    My calculations based on P. Jenkins, The Making of a Ruling Class: The Glamorgan Gentry, 1640–1790 (Cambridge, 1983), Appendices 2 and 3, 292–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 19.
    E. T. Cooperman, ‘Historic Context Statement: Cluster 1: Frankford, Tacony Wissinoming, Brideburg’ (Unpublished report for Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, July 2009), 10–12.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    A. Gomme, ‘Halls into Vestibules’, in M. Airs and G. Tyack, (eds), The Renaissance Villa in Britain 1500–1700 (Reading, 2007), 38–63, quote on 40. Cornforth argues that in larger country houses, the main door was seldom used, with the preference for side entrances. The number of entrances in compact plans tended to be rather smaller, suggesting that this practice was less likely to have been true of gentlemen’s houses. Cornforth, Early Georgian Interiors, 19–20.Google Scholar
  24. 32.
    A. Vickery Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England (New Haven and London, 2009), 203.Google Scholar
  25. 35.
    For rooms in Chesapeake houses, see Carson and Lounsbury (eds), Chesapeake House, 132–140, 334–342; Sweeney, ‘High Style Vernacular: Lifestyles of the Colonial Elite’, in C. Carson, R. Hoffman, and P. J. Albert, Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Charlottesville and London, 1994), 1–58, 18–20; Bushman, The Refinement of America, 118–120.Google Scholar
  26. 37.
    R. Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia 1740–1790 (Chapel Hill, NC, 1982), 75.Google Scholar
  27. 39.
    R. B. St George, ‘Reading Spaces in Eighteenth-Century New England’, 90–103 and K. Lipsedge, ‘“Enter into thy Closet”: Women, Closet Culture, and the Eighteenth-Century Novel’, 107–122, especially 109–112, in J. Styles and A. Vickery, (eds), Gender, Taste, and Material Culture in Britain and North America 1700–1830 (New Haven and London, 2006); J. Bold, ‘The Design of a House for a Merchant, 1724’, 80; Vickery, An Englishman’s Home Is His Castle?’ 147–173.Google Scholar
  28. 41.
    Ayres, Building the Georgian City (New Haven and London, 1998), 120.Google Scholar
  29. 44.
    Weatherill, Consumer Behavior and Material Culture 1660–1760 (London, second edition, 1996), 11–13.Google Scholar
  30. 46.
    Saumarez Smith, Eighteenth-Century Decoration: Design and the Domestic Interior in England (New York, 1993), plates 37, 73, 76, 81, 89, 90, 105, 106, 133, 137, 138, 157.Google Scholar
  31. 55.
    J. M. Vlach, Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery (Chapel Hill, NC and London, 1993), chapter 4.Google Scholar
  32. 58.
    A. Bantock, The Earlier Smyths of Ashton Court from their Letters 1545–1741 (Bristol, 1982), 256–257.Google Scholar
  33. 61.
    Whyman, Sociability and Power in Late-Stuart England: The Cultural Worlds of the Verneys 1660–1720 (Oxford, 1999), especially 100–107.Google Scholar
  34. 62.
    Despite Ian Bristow’s work cited below, paint analysis is lacking for British interiors especially at the level of housing considered here. This is an area where more technical investigation could yield rich research results. See H. Hughes, (ed.), Layers of Understanding: Setting Standards for Architectural Paint Research (London, 2002);Google Scholar
  35. M. A. Jablonski and C. R. Matsen, (eds), Architectural Finishes in the Built Environment (London, 2009).Google Scholar
  36. 65.
    Ayres, Domestic Interiors, 86–90; C. Gilbert, J. Lomax, and A. Wells-Cole, Country House Floors, 1660–1850 (Leeds, 1987). Leech, ‘Clifton Wood House’, 17.Google Scholar
  37. 66.
    I. Bristow, Architectural Colour in British Interiors, 1615–1840 (New Haven and London, 1996), 53.Google Scholar
  38. 73.
    Will of Thomas Goldney II, quoted in P. K. Stembridge, The Goldney Family: A Bristol Merchant Dynasty (Bristol, 1998), 111; UBL/DM1398/A: Copy Inventory of furniture and effects at Goldney House, 1768.Google Scholar
  39. 74.
    A. Bowett, ‘The Commercial Introduction of Mahogany and the Naval Stores Act of 1721’, Furniture History, vol. 30 (1994), 116–123;Google Scholar
  40. C. Edwards, Eighteenth-Century Furniture (Manchester, 1996), 77–78.Google Scholar
  41. 75.
    M. Reinberger and E. McLean, ‘Isaac Norris’s Fairhill: Architecture, Landscape and Quaker Ideals in a Philadelphia Colonial Country Seat’, Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 32, no. 4 (Winter 1997), 243–274, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 81.
    Bristow, Architectural Colour in British Interiors. Descriptions of painting techniques and materials can be found in I. Bristow, Interior House-Painting Colours and Technology, 1615–1840 (New Haven and London, 1996). E. Chappell, ‘Fieldwork’, in Carson and Lounsbury, (eds), Chesapeake House, at 40, and chapter 15 in the same.Google Scholar
  43. 84.
    W. Salmon, Palladio Londinensis (London, 1734), 57–58. Prices ranged from ‘best white lead’ at 4d. per pound to 2s. 6d. per pound for ‘fine deep green’. Paint costs drawn from surviving accounts can be found in Bristow, Architectural Colour in British Interiors, 35, and Interior House-Painting Colours and Technology, Appendix A.Google Scholar
  44. 85.
    L. C. Keim, ‘Stenton Room Furnishings Study’ (MS report, 2010, on file at Stenton); M. Mosca, ‘Stenton Paint Analysis’ (Unpublished report, 2000, on file at Stenton); J. G. Volk, (ed.), The Warner House: A Rich and Colorful History (Portsmouth, NH, 2006), chapter 2, figure 2.7.Google Scholar
  45. W. Graham, ‘Architectural Paint Research at American Museums: An Appeal for Standards’, in Jablonski and Matsen, (eds), Architectural Finishes in the Built Environment (London, 2009), 3–18.Google Scholar
  46. 91.
    E. S. Cooke, Jr, (ed.), Upholstery in America and Europe from the Seventeenth Century to World War I (New York and London, 1987);Google Scholar
  47. P. Thornton, Authentic Décor: The Domestic Interior, 1660–1920 (New York, 1984), especially 57 and 100 for window curtains.Google Scholar
  48. F. Montgomery, Textiles in America 1650–1840 (New York, 1984) has much to say of relevance to England.Google Scholar
  49. 93.
    GA/D45/F2: Inventory and valuation of goods of Richard Whitmore of Lower Slaughter, 31 January 1687/1688; For slips, see M. M. Brooks, English Embroideries of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries in the Collection of the Ashmolean Museum (London, 2004), 94.Google Scholar
  50. 101.
    G. Beard, Upholsterers and Interior Furnishings in England 1530–1840 (New Haven and London, 1997).Google Scholar
  51. 102.
    G. Saunders, Wallpaper in Interior Decoration (London, 2002);Google Scholar
  52. Hoskins, (ed.), The Papered Wall: History, Pattern, Technique (New York, 1994, also new and expanded edition, 2005), especially chapters 2, 3, and 7;Google Scholar
  53. R. C. Nylander, Wallpapers for Historic Buildings (Washington, DC, second edition, 1992); Ayres, Domestic Interiors, 160–162. Ayres comments that taxation may have resulted in high cost hence low use of wallpaper, 160; Vickery Behind Closed Doors, chapter 6, suggests that Ayres has ollered ‘too pessimistic an assessment of the dissemination of paper’, 168, fn 5. The accounts on which her chapter is based, however, are from 1797 to 1808, by which time wallpaper was much more commonly available. C. Taylor, ‘“Figured Paper lor Hanging Rooms”: The Manufacture, Design and Consumption of Wallpapers lor English Domestic Interiors, c. 1740 to c. 1800’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, The Open University, 2010).Google Scholar
  54. 103.
    One house in Gloucestershire, Berkeley House, had hand-painted Chinese-style wallpaper dating from 1740–1760, which is now housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum. This remarkable survival demonstrates that at least some wealthy merchants had access to this form of adornment, although it may have been comparatively unusual. G. Saunders, ‘The China Trade: Oriental Painted Panels’, in L. Hoskins, (ed.), The Papered Wall: History, Pattern, Technique (London, new and revised edition, 2005), 42–55, who dates the paper to c. 1740, see 55. Images of England 128159 and Victoria and Albert Museum No W.93–1924 Berkeley House.Google Scholar
  55. 106.
    J. Anderson, Glorious Splendor: The 18th-century Wallpapers in the Jeremiah Lee Mansion (Virginia Beach, VA, 2011).Google Scholar
  56. 107.
    E. C. Carter, (ed.), The Virginia Journals of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1795–1798, 2 vols (New Haven, 1977), vol. 1, 75–76.Google Scholar
  57. 108.
    G. Priest, The Paty Family: Makers of Eighteenth-Century Bristol (Bristol, 2003), 51–60; BRO/09467/12/a: ‘Notes and Receipts for House Building at Chiton 1746–47–48–49 + 1750 + c’;Google Scholar
  58. A. Gomme, M. Jenner, and B. Little, Bristol: An Architectural History (London, 1979), 174;Google Scholar
  59. Mowl, To Build the Second City: Architects and Craftsmen of Georgian Bristol (Bristol, 1991), 64 fn 10, 71–73, cautions against the Stocking attribution at Royal Fort.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen Hague 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rowan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations