k 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 i
|