Full House: Domesticity in the Hopkins Family Home
A project of the students of AMST 1903Z
“Shrine, House or Home: Rethinking the House Museum Paradigm”
Brown University
Fall 2011
Ged Carbone, Elizabeth Gardner, Jane Coleman Harbison, Rachael Jeffers,
Amy Karwoski, Emily McCartan, Katharine Mead, Sarah Reusche, Anna Tifft,
Jessica Unger, Catherine Wallace, Instructor: Ron M. Potvin
Grateful thanks to:
Cherry Fletcher Bamberg, Kim Clark, Elaine Forman Crane, Geralyn Ducady, Dalila Goulart,
Morgan Grefe, Susan Hardy, Dennis Landis, Jenna Legault, Little Compton Historical Society,
Marjory O’Toole, Rainey Tisdale, Rhode Island Historical Society
Co-sponsored by:
The John Nicholas Brown Center for Public Humanities and Cultural Heritage at Brown
University
and The Rhode Island Chapter of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Project Mission
“Full House: Domesticity in the Hopkins Family Home” provides an historical context to explore domestic
relationships and activities in the Steven Hopkins House from 1743 to 1763. An examination of the
interpersonal relationships and daily lives of Sarah Hopkins, Anne Hopkins, enslaved Phebe Hopkins, and
the houseful of adults and children within the Hopkins home will deepen visitors’ understanding of mid18th century gender roles, status, health care, houseways and foodways, and marriage and sexuality.
This interpretation plan will encourage visitors to draw their own conclusions on the ways that domestic
culture has or has not changed in the past 250 years, and it will challenge visitors to understand the
interconnected and complicated nature of the lives of the women who made these houses into homes.
Project Themes
Gender and Status: The roles of the women who shared this house were defined not only by their
gender, but by their status in society and in the household. As the wives of a prominent white merchant
and statesman in the tight-knit community of 18th century Providence, Sarah and Anne Hopkins enjoyed
a relative degree of freedom in the activities they chose to pursue. Opportunities for leisure activities
such as reading, religious expression, and entertaining friends were more available to women of their
class and race than to laboring and enslaved women. For instance, women of greater economic means
had more time to pursue fine needlework as a form of self-expression rather than simply a household
chore. However, higher social status brought its own limitations.
The activities of Sarah and Anne were determined by multiple factors including the limited legal rights
and privileges granted to women, social expectations, and cultural perceptions of propriety. Sarah’s and
Anne’s activities were also dictated to a great extent by the presence or absence of Stephen Hopkins,
whose often frequent travel left household management entirely in the hands of his wife. These women
faced demanding expectations about how their homes, families, and personal conduct reflected upon
their husband, even as the legal system denied them recognition and personal and property rights.
Socializing was a duty as well as a pleasure for a higher class wife, whose social calendar was crucial to
maintaining relationships with her husband’s family, peers, and associates. As a devout Quaker, Anne
Hopkins needed to navigate the complicated terrain of Stephen’s sometimes conflicted relationship with
the Society of Friends.
Phebe’s life, in contrast, was wholly circumscribed by her race and her enslaved position. While Sarah
and Anne Hopkins pursued social activities and dictated the agenda of household activities, much of the
hard labor of cooking and running a busy household fell to Phebe. As a constant presence in a household
under two different mistresses, a frequently-absent master, a fluctuating assortment of children
(including her own), Hopkins family members, and other enslaved persons, Phebe’s skills were essential
to the house’s daily operations.
In contrast to the larger slave-owning plantation households of the American South, the small space and
urban setting of the Hopkins house suggests that enslaved members of the household, especially Phebe
and her family, would have been intimately connected to the daily familial life of their white owners.
2
Despite their close physical proximity, the inherent imbalance of power between Sarah and Anne
Hopkins and Phebe belies any real sense of a collaborative or reciprocal relationship. Imagining how
these often cruel and dehumanizing race- and status-bound relationships worked in the Hopkins
household, in the streets and markets of Providence, and in the broader colonial Atlantic world helps
illustrate the various factors that defined the experiences of women of different classes in colonial
Providence.
Childhood and Childrearing: Raising children was a major component of the domestic duties of an 18th
century wife. While formal education was common for girls and boys in well-to-do families, early
education and life-long moral guidance of children fell squarely within the home. As the Hopkins family
illustrates, childrearing practices encompassed an extremely wide range of relationships that extended
far beyond that of mother and child. When Stephen and Anne Hopkins married in 1753, both were
widowed with children. While Stephen’s oldest children were living on their own, his other children,
ranging in age from four to twenty years, likely still lived at home. In addition, he played an active and
affectionate paternal role in the lives of Anne’s young daughters, Amy and Ruth, whose lives were
undoubtedly shaped by association with their prominent stepfather.
In addition to raising her own children, Anne Hopkins likely had influence in the rearing of Phebe
Hopkins's two enslaved sons, Primus and Bonner, as well as over other young slaves attached to the
household. Wealthy mistresses often felt dual strains of ambivalence and responsibility toward their
young slaves, viewing them as charges to be cared for, albeit at a level always inferior to members of
their families. For enslaved mothers like Phebe, the right to parent their own children was subordinated
to the final authority of the master and mistress of the house, complicating notions about the traditional
structure of relationships in colonial families. At the same time, enslaved women bore significant
responsibility for the care of white children including feeding, dressing, nursing, and many other aspects
of their daily routines.
Houseways and Foodways: Maintaining a house and family took more and harder labor than today. The
home was heated by several carefully managed fireplaces. Cleaning laundry required boiling vats of
water and caustic lye. Cooking a meal required hours of planning and preparation to ensure that the
kitchen fire had the right amount of coals and adequate temperature for what needed to be cooked. In
an urban setting, the Hopkins family may have been able to purchase bread and send laundry outside
the home, but for daily meal preparation and other household tasks there was no substitute for hard
labor over the kitchen fire. While Sarah and Anne Hopkins would have overseen food purchasing and
preparation, they likely left much of the heavy work to Phebe.
Sickness and Health: Throughout the 18th century, urban dwellers were plagued almost incessantly by a
host of illnesses: the common cold, typhus, smallpox, tuberculosis, pneumonia, thrush, whooping cough,
yellow fever, measles, throat infections, ergotism, delirium, bloody diarrhea, vomiting, intestinal
parasites, and many others. This does not include the amount of time people spent simply feeling
unwell from headaches, fevers, chills, stomach pains, and sore throats. Doctors sometimes were called
in for serious cases, but tending the sick was a mostly a domestic duty that fell to women. The emotional
and physical toll of constant illness left a profound mark on colonial families, including the Hopkinses.
Between 1744 and 1753, three of Stephen and Sarah Hopkins's children died. Sarah and two of her sons
died in 1753. Several rooms contain reproduction medical objects that may be passed to visitors by the
3
guides. These include small medicine bottles; a bleeding bowl and a fleam, an instrument used to open
veins for bloodletting; lye soap and a lice comb.
Audience
This project will appeal to a broad audience that includes drop‐in tourists, the Providence community,
local students, and previously under-served audiences. By fleshing out a picture of the domestic life of
the Hopkins house, this project encourages visitors to reflect on the themes of gender, status, childrearing, and household labor from tending the sick to preparing food in eighteenth-century Rhode
Island, and how these themes continue to shape the lives of families today. These themes will appeal to
women and perhaps especially to mothers. In addition, the tour can be adapted to appeal to children
and families.
Project Outcomes
“Full House: Domesticity in the Hopkins Family Home” will add another layer of information to the
interpretation of the Stephen Hopkins House. This interpretation will be able to stand on its own as a
tour program, or guides may choose to “drill down” through previous layers to incorporate information
about Stephen Hopkins's public life and the lives of enslaved persons in the house. The result will be a
richer and more varied experience for guides and visitors. “Full House” maintains the historical integrity
of the site while providing a compelling and relevant story. While Stephen Hopkins is somewhat
minimized in this interpretation, the new layer of stories and people will enhance the interpretation of
the museum by incorporating a complex personal life into his biography.
Use of this Interpretation Plan
This plan is not intended as a verbatim script for docents and interpreters to recite to audiences. Rather,
“Full House” and its 2010 predecessor, “InDependence: Liberty, Slavery & Choice at the Stephen
Hopkins House,” provide broad and detailed resources and suggest language for guides to incorporate
into tours of their own design.
When interpreting the domestic lives of women, children, and enslaved persons in the 18th century,
public historians are burdened by a dearth of primary source material. Women and slaves left few
documents that described their daily lives, and childhood is usually seen through the eyes of parents or
the memories of adults. There is much about the lives of women, children, and enslaved persons that is
unknown. However, the simple act of asking questions can lead to insights as valuable as traditional
evidence.
In this document, some of these questions are indicated by bold print and serve as suggested moments
for guides to engage audiences in deeper thinking about the themes of this program. Guides should also
think about other gaps and “silences” in the lives of these people that are worthy of questioning.
Sensory Interpretive Elements
Sound Installation: The introductory tour for “Full House” featured a sound installation that provided
auditory background to the information imparted by the tour guides and the visual experience produced
by objects, decoration, and architecture. Using a Cables-to-Go wireless sound system, four speakers
4
were placed strategically throughout the house playing continual loop of sounds. The sound clips were
downloaded from Freesound.com and edited using Audacity sound editing software available at
audacity.sourceforge.net. The sound clips and the Audacity software were free of charge. The total cost
of the equipment was less than $200.
The installation included two sound segments of about four minutes each. The first segment overlaid
sounds of laughter, church bells, and ship bells over a background of lapping water and a horse-drawn
carriage, followed by two minutes of silence. The second segment overlaid sounds of coughing,
sneezing, and a crying baby over a background of labored breathing, followed again by two minutes of
silence.
Aroma Installation: The interpretation plan also incorporates use of aroma “vortex cubes” purchased
from Dale Air (daleair.com), suppliers of custom and off-the-shelf aromas used in a variety of
applications including museums. Four aromas were chosen to complement the themes of the tour and
the setting of the house during the period of interpretation: Dirty Linen, Fish Market, Rope/Tar, and
Stables/Horses. Rather than dispersing the odors generally throughout the house, vortex cubes must be
held to the nose to detect the aromas. Dirty Linen and Fish Market were utilized in the kitchen, and
Rope/Tar and Stables/Horses were used in the study. However, because the cubes are small and light,
guides can reposition them easily or carry them throughout the house. The cost of the Aroma
Installation was approximately $100 for eight vortex cubes.
ROOM BY ROOM INTERPRETATION
Orientation
Welcome to the home of the Hopkins family. As with any home, there were times when it was quiet,
and there were times when it was bustling with people, noise, and smells. In 1760, this was a full house
with up to twelve people, six white and six black, living and working together, masters and slaves, young
and old, all under the same roof.
This was a home full of activity and change, just like our own homes today. As you explore the
Hopkinses’ home, we invite you to imagine it as it may have been between 1743 and 1763, and we
encourage you to give special consideration to the lives of the women and children who lived here.

Sarah, Stephen’s first wife, moved here with her husband in 1743 and likely died in this home
ten years later.

In 1755, Stephen Hopkins and his second wife Anne, a devout Quaker, were settling into their
life as a married couple, raising children from both of their previous marriages, which ended
with the death of their respective spouses. Anne brought with her two daughters, Ruth and
Amy, making this a blended family.
What would it have been like for Stephen’s surviving children, Rufus, Lydia, and George, who had lost
their mother and two brothers just two years earlier to be thrust together with a new mother, new
siblings, and new beliefs? What would it have been like for Anne and her two young daughters to
move into this household, inheriting the home, goods, and perhaps routines already established by
Hopkins and his older children?
5

The enslaved people living in this home included Phebe, a woman of about twenty-five years old
in 1755. Phebe had at least two children while she lived at the Hopkins's home. Her husband,
Bonner, lived elsewhere. Bonner may have been a slave owned by Moses Brown, who converted
to Quakerism around 1774, freed his slaves, and became a well-known anti-slavery advocate.
How did Phebe’s life change in 1755 with a new mistress and two additional children to serve?
Compare the Hopkins’ family with that of Phebe, who raised her own children, Primus and Bonner, Jr.,
in her master’s house while their enslaved father lived elsewhere.

We ask you to remember that this was a full house of adults and children, men and women, free
and enslaved, numbering at least twelve at its peak, who worked, fought, gave birth, grew sick,
and died under this roof. Physically, they lived together, but in terms of status, men, women,
and slaves lived in different worlds.
Kitchen 1
The kitchen is often the heart of the home.
Activity is constant and space is used for
almost every purpose including cooking,
washing, socializing and more. In northern
colonies, the kitchen was especially
important on cold winter days as the
constantly burning fire kept the chimney
stack warm, radiating heat into other rooms.
In the Hopkins's home, the kitchen was the
center of labor and the majority of
demanding and dirty tasks.
STORY
Labor
PEOPLE
Anne, Phebe, and others
OBJECTS
Cooking supplies and
implements, dirty laundry scent,
fish market scent, imagined work
schedule for Anne and Phebe
Commerce
Anne
Sugar, “shopping list”
Raising children
Anne, Phebe and children
Children’s toys
Mixed-use space
Everyone
Spoons, plates, rolled mattress
6
LABOR
Food preparation (or supervision) was the main household duty for urban upper class women like Sarah
and Anne Hopkins, who participated in some of the baking and cooking tasks, while Phebe or one of the
Hopkins's other slaves would have done the dirtiest and most difficult, strenuous, and even dangerous
jobs.
Examine this imagined ‘schedule’ for Anne Hopkins, Phebe, and their children, to get a better sense of
how these women may have utilized this shared space. What themes do you see? How was work
divided? Are there any similarities or differences to the ways that women function in a kitchen today?

Ironing was also done in the kitchen. Unlike today, ironing was an incredibly demanding task.
Most fabric-made items, from clothing to bedclothes, needed to be ironed. An iron, which was
already heavy by itself, had to be pressed down with a significant amount of force to be
effective. Ironing was a dirty business since the irons frequently became covered in soot from
being heated over the fire and had to be cleaned frequently.

While rural colonial households washed their laundry inside their homes, it was common for
urban households with means to pay for their laundry to be cleaned outside of the home. We do
7
not know whether the Hopkins family did their own laundry, but the kitchen would still have
been a likely gathering place for dirty clothes and linens on laundry day.

Dishes also were washed in the kitchen, although not the way that we do it today, by
submerging into hot, soapy water and rinsing clean. Instead, plates, serving dishes, and utensils
were wiped clean with a rag and put back on the shelf.
COMMERCE

Wealthy urban women generally worked shorter hours and completed less grueling tasks than
their rural counterparts. Much of this had to do with the availability of commercial goods. The
Hopkins family purchased most of their necessities, such as meat, sugar, bread, and dried fruits.
It is unlikely that they were making their own soap or candles at home here in Providence, as
would be the practice in rural colonial homes.

Women like Sarah and Anne Hopkins were active participants in their local economy. Although
many colonial women (and enslaved people) bought goods using family credit, they were not
simply spending their husband’s money. Many free women contributed to family credit in a
positive way by producing and selling their own goods, and had some control and responsibility
over family finances. For example, if a free man’s credit became ruined within a certain trading
network, a family could continue to trade if his wife opened her own line of credit. Additionally,
a free married woman could be held legally responsible for her husband’s debt after his death,
even though she was legally prohibited from engaging in commerce at the same level as her
husband or other men.
CHILDREN
The kitchen was a multi-use space and point of
intersection for many different people on a daily
basis. The Hopkins children—and Phebe’s children
too—played, learned, sewed, fought, and labored
in this room. Child rearing comprised a large part
of the domestic duties of most 18th century wives.
On average, women of this time experienced a
pregnancy every two years. This meant that
women usually had dependent children in their
homes almost until they died.

When Stephen Hopkins and Anne Smith married, Anne brought with her two children from a
previous marriage, and she also took on the role of stepmother to Sarah’s children, especially
the younger children still living at home.

In 1755, the surviving Hopkins children were Rufus (aged 28), Lydia (22), and George (16).
Anne’s children were Amy (7) and Ruth (age unknown). In addition, St. Jago, a male slave of
about 16, also lived on the property. Primus, Phebe’s first child, who was born in the 1750s,
8
added to this full house. Finally, Stephen Hopkins’s 1761 will mentions two other slaves of
unknown age: a “little Negro boy,” named Adam, and a “Negro lad” named Prince.

Sarah and Anne took charge of their children’s early education and moral upbringing, as well as
the girls’ continuing domestic training. Anne likely felt a sense of responsibility for the health
and well-being of Phebe’s children, Primus and Bonner Jr., although the relationship between a
mistress and slaves was complicated. A mistress felt responsible for her slaves’ welfare and
possibly for their education, but she also saw them as an investment and property. Although
Phebe cared for her own children under the Hopkins's roof, Anne may have exercised ultimate
authority over their upbringing.

Male and female children helped with household chores when they were very young, but
eventually their paths diverged according to gender. In working class families, boys may have
been apprenticed as young as age seven, and girls sent to work in other people’s homes not long
after. In wealthier families, like the Hopkins’s, boys might have been sent out between age
twelve and fourteen to learn a profession, while girls may not have left their home until
marriage, as was the case with Lydia Hopkins and Amy Smith.
How might it have felt for Phebe’s children to watch as the Hopkins children left the house daily to
attend to their educations, their futures, and social functions?

George Hopkins eventually left home to become a mariner, and he spent much of his time away
at sea. Phebe’s children perhaps remained in the home, helping with household labor, until they
were old enough to work elsewhere or were sold.
Kitchen Chamber
It may be tempting to interpret this room as a
distinct space, today separated from other parts of
the house. However, it is important to remember
that this space was by no means private. In this
room, Phebe, her children, and perhaps other
household slaves slept. Other enslaved people
might have slept in outbuildings, in the kitchen, or
close to members of the Hopkins family in case
they were needed in the night. Phebe and her
children kept their meager belongings in this
room, and some of these objects may have linked
them to their African heritage.
However, it would be misleading to call this “Phebe’s Room.” Rather, it was a room like most others in
Stephen Hopkins’s house, used for nightly storage of people rather than goods or furnishings.
9
STORY
Family Life for enslaved people
Ideas of ownership for enslaved
people
PEOPLE
Phebe, St. Jago, Primus, Prince,
Adam, Bonner Jr.
OBJECTS
Furnishings and bedroll
Beads, Combs, Carved Figures

During the 1750s and 1760s, Stephen Hopkins owned at least six slaves: Phebe, St. Jago, Primus,
Prince, Adam, and Bonner Jr. It is unlikely that all of the enslaved people in the house were
related. Phebe was mother to Primus and Bonner Jr., whose father may have been Bonno, or
Bonner, a person enslaved by Moses Brown.

We don’t know what work Phebe was expected to perform during her pregnancies, but it is
unlikely that she was given much reprieve.

Phebe’s first child, Primus (which means “the first” in Latin) was born in the 1750s; her second
child, Bonner Jr., was born about 1762. For Phebe, selecting names for her children was a
contest between competing sources of authority. Latin names, like “Primus,” “Nero” and “Cato,”
were bestowed upon the enslaved by their white owners. This naming convention might have
been a form of mocking, intentionally drawing attention to the enslaved status of the
individual.

That Phebe was able to name her second child after his father may indicate that she had
influence in the home that she did not possess when Primus was born. However, the ways that
she raised her children would always be contested by competing ideas of parentage and
subservience.

Along with acting as a mother to her own children, Phebe may also have served as a surrogate
mother to Prince and Adam, as well as a caretaker of the white children in the household. There
would have been a great divide between what Phebe hoped for the enslaved children, including
her own, and what the Hopkinses might have hoped for their children.
What did Phebe imagine the lives of these children would be like? Did she hope that the growing antislavery sentiment, especially within Quaker communities, would lead to their freedom? How did her
expectations translate into what these children were taught?

Unlike plantation slavery where most slaves lived in quarters far removed from their owners,
the Hopkinses’ relationship with their slaves was complicated by proximity. Living in close
contact might have enabled the Hopkinses to see their slaves as more than chattel. They saw
Phebe raise her children, who interacted with their own children. The Hopkinses might have
seen that enslaved people had senses of humor, loves and losses, and desires and
disappointments that sometimes mirrored their own.
Is it possible for people to own slaves and still recognize their slaves’ humanity?
10
From a household inventory
conducted when Stephen
Hopkins died in 1785, we
have a sense of the bare
necessities that he provided
for the enslaved people in
his house. The furnishings in
this room reflect that
simplicity. Also scattered
throughout the room are a
few personal items similar
to those that enslaved
people like Phebe and her
children may have
possessed.
Facsimile

Some of these objects speak to the African roots of the enslaved people in the house, including
the beads, combs, and figures. Although slaves rarely were able to bring personal possessions
from Africa during the middle passage, they often used New World materials to fashion items
that recalled their cultural heritage.
What did it mean for someone to own property when they were considered property? Is it possible
for a slave to truly “own” anything?

The only thing that Phebe may have truly owned is her name, which may speak to African
traditions. “Phibbi” is a West African “day name.” In many West African cultures, children are
named after the day of the week on which they were born. Female children born on Fridays
could be given the name “Phibbi,” and in the colonies this may have become Phoebe (or Phebe),
a name more familiar to the English.

In fact, we know very little about Phebe or her origins. She was born in about 1730, but whether
it was in Africa, the West Indies, or the American colonies is unknown. She first appears in the
written record in Stephen Hopkins’s 1760 will, in which he planned to bequeath Phebe, or
“Fibbo,” to his wife Anne.

Rhode Island, and especially Newport, played an important role in the 18th century African slave
trade. However, Providence merchants, including members of the Brown family, also sent slave
ships to the African coast. Stephen Hopkins was an investor in some of these ventures.

Most enslaved Africans were sold to owners of sugar plantations in the West Indies or to
growers in the southern colonies. However, full “cargoes” were also sold in the North, and
owners of slave vessels often ordered captains to return to their home port with Africans of a
specified age or gender, either to sell within the local market or to keep for themselves. It is
possible that Phebe or an immediate ancestor came to Rhode Island in this way. We do not
11
know how much of African tradition Phebe remembered from before her enslavement or
learned from her enslaved parents or grandparents.

Likewise, we know very little regarding the nature of Phebe’s relationship with, Bonno, the
father of her children, during their lives as enslaved people. It is unknown whether they were
married during this time, how often they were allowed to see each other, and whether Bonno
was permitted to play an active role in raising his children.

After Phebe was freed in 1781 by the terms of Stephen Hopkins’s will, the historical record
provides clues regarding her relationship with Bonno. In 1789, Hopkins’s former slave, St. Jago,
who received his freedom in 1772, sold a portion of his house to someone named Bonno,
identified in the deed as a former slave of Moses Brown. In 1820, a woman named Phebe Brown
died, and she was identified in the published death notice as the widow of Bonno Brown.

If this was Phebe Hopkins, she would have been approximately ninety years old at the time of
her death, having spent at least a portion of her freedom married to the father of her children.

Studying the lives of the enslaved individuals in the Hopkins House is a challenge, since their
lives were not documented in the same way as Stephen Hopkins and his relations. However, we
should be aware of the essential role that enslaved individuals played in the Hopkins House.
Bed Chamber
This bed chamber represents the people with the
highest status in the house: Sarah and Stephen
Hopkins, and in a second marriage, Anne and
Stephen Hopkins. Stephen Hopkins and his first
wife, Sarah Scott, had seven children together, six
of whom survived infancy. They moved into this
house in 1743, and when Sarah died ten years
later in 1753, they had been married for twentyseven years. In 1755, Stephen Hopkins married
Anne Smith at the Smithfield, RI, Friends meeting
house. Anne Smith and her own two children, Ruth
and Amy, moved into the Providence house.
STORY
Marriage
PEOPLE
Sarah and Stephen, Anne and Stephen
OBJECTS
Bed
Female socializing
Anne, Sarah
Tea Service, sugar
Consumerism
Anne, Sarah
Clothes, tea service, bed hangings
Hygiene
Anne and Stephen
Lice comb, wig, soap, wash basin and
pitcher
Clothes
Anne, Sarah
Chest with clothes laid out, gown on
bed
12
MARRIAGE

Although Stephen Hopkins’s mother was a Quaker, there is no evidence that he or Sarah ever
joined a meeting. Stephen’s marriage to Anne was his first public indication of membership in
the Society of Friends. He may have converted or become a more active member to marry Anne,
who was a professed and devout Quaker.

Although it is tempting to assume that a widower with six children and a household to run
married out of necessity, there are indications of romantic feelings between Stephen and Anne
that today we would call love.

Stephen’s letters to Anne show a man who loved his wife and remained happy with his choice of
a partner in life. A letter dated February 3, 1757, two years after their marriage, concludes,
“Always believe I think twice about you where you think once of him who is in all Truth Love and
Esteem. Your ever loving and ever pleased Husband, Stephen Hopkins.” Anne’s gravestone
reveals Stephen’s sentiments on her death: “O! My Companion... my fellow traveller, thou hast
left me behind.”

For Anne, marrying outside of her faith was a large step, one that the Smithfield meeting may
not have fully supported. There are no indications that Anne or her first husband, Benjamin,
ever owned slaves, so Hopkins’s ownership of enslaved people may also have caused a measure
of discomfort. Also, Anne’s family may not have approved her decision to take on the burden of
a busy household with children that were not her own.

However, the prevailing legal system and social norms in mid-18th century America provided
few options for unmarried or widowed women. In some colonies, women were not permitted to
buy or sell land, and economic opportunities were limited to socially acceptable occupations
such as midwifery, sewing and laundering, and household service, often in the home of a
relative in exchange for room and board.
What do the objects in this room tell you about the role that bed chambers played in the 18th
century? How are these functions different today?
The mid-18th century bed chamber was a more
versatile and multi-purpose space than our
bedrooms today. It served not only as a place for
sleep, but also as a social venue. While Stephen
entertained his guests in the parlor or met with
them in coffeehouses or taverns, Anne was limited
by her gender to socializing within the home,
specifically the bed chamber.
13
SOCIALIZING AND CONSUMERISM

The bed chamber was a place for tea with friends and female family members, for talk of local
news and happenings, and for convivial labor, such as sewing or cross stitching. It was an
important place for Sarah and Anne to showcase their best fabrics and finest tea service as
reflections of their social and economic status.

In the decoration of their home and in their manner of dressing, Stephen and Anne would have
been limited by the “plain style” practiced by Quakers, which avoided excessive displays of
vanity. However, this does not mean that their home was devoid of decoration. It was common
for wealthy Quakers to furnish their houses in keeping with the latest fashions. The tea set and
fabrics on display in this room are similar to what a woman of her Anne’s status would have
used.

Most of the luxury goods in this room were not produced in Providence, but might have come
from as far away as China through global trade routes. Commercial goods entered Providence
by boat and were unloaded into warehouses on Water Street, the original location of this house.
As a woman of high social status and the wife of a merchant and ship owner, Anne was probably
very knowledgeable about the arrival of the newest trends and commercial goods.
HOUSEFUL

Today we value privacy, assuming it to be a basic tenet of our living spaces. In the Hopkinses’
home, this was not the case. Even for the standards of its day, the house was not very large. In
1762, it peaked at twelve inhabitants, six free and six enslaved. Every cough, snore, laugh, or cry
would be heard by the rest of the inhabitants in the house. As Stephen and Anne merged their
children into one family, fights, friendships, and problems would have been general household
knowledge.

Bedrooms were filled to their capacity. It is not realistic to think that Anne and Stephen always
slept alone. Sleeping pallets and rolled up mattresses and blankets moved about the house as
needed by crowding, seasonal temperatures, and illness. Without the personal boundaries that
come with notions of privacy, family relationships likely were both closer and more combative.

Objects and spaces were constantly in use, and people constantly in motion. Imagine the noise
and chaos of a houseful of adults and children in the morning, the bed rumpled and unmade,
Anne and Stephen’s clothing laid out, children weaving in and out of the space as their parents
dressed, Phebe downstairs preparing breakfast. The house was a constant rush of movements,
sounds, and smells.
PERSONAL HYGIENE AND CLEANLINESS

Along with this houseful of people came a constant struggle for cleanliness. Since its origins in
ancient times, the basic formula for soap hasn’t changed. A strong alkaloid, such as lye, added to
any animal fat will make soap. However, how soap was used and how frequently for personal
14
hygiene has varied. In the 18th century, it was a common belief that if a person was too clean
the open pores of the skin would allow disease to enter the body.

Hands and faces were cleaned on a regular basis using a pitcher of water and a wash basin, but
it was rare for people to bathe or shower the way we do today. Instead, different parts of the
body were cleaned at different times.1

Even in homes of higher social standing, lice were prevalent. Lice couldn’t be removed with a
simple washing, and had to be physically removed using a comb with teeth fine enough to
remove the pests and their tiny nits. Or eggs.
Wigs were important signs of status and
commonly worn by lawyers or government
officials like Hopkins to distinguish them from
common laborers. They were also sources of filth
and odor. 18th century wigs were made of human
or animal hair held in place with glue made from
animal hides. Wig maintenance required regular
application of a pomade concocted from animal
fat. With animal fat came messy drips and odors,
especially in warm weather, and with the animal
proteins contained in the glue and pomade came
lice and other insects. At night the wig was placed
on a stand to help preserve its shape.
CLOTHING

An 18th century woman’s clothes would have affected her every movement throughout the day.
Women of Anne’s Hopkins’s class wore a shift, a corset, one or more petticoats, a skirt, a gown,
and an apron. The many layers of fabric were heavy, and the corset would have restricted
breathing, making even moderate exertion difficult. Corsets also restricted range of motion, but
they may also have acted as back support during heavy labor.

Anne and Stephen may have adhered to the plain style of dress, wearing simple clothes with
little decoration but of high quality cloth, likely made elsewhere and purchased in Providence.
Adhering to the “plain” lifestyle was a morally weighted choice, but often left to personal
discretion. There are few mentions of Stephen in the Quaker records, suggesting that he was a
“lukewarm” Quaker at best, and he may have been more liberal in the wearing of fine clothes.

The plainness of Anne’s clothing would have marked her to others as a Quaker, while the quality
of her clothing and its conformity to social norms would have identified her as a women of
means. In much the same way, working and enslaved women were identifiable through the
1
Elizabeth Drinker, a Quaker woman living in Philadelphia in the middle of the 18th century, recorded in her diary
that when her husband finally installed a shower in their backyard, she “bore it better than...expected, having not
been wet all over at once, for 28 years past.” Elaine Forman Crane, The Diary of Elizabeth Drinker, July 1, 1799
entry.
15
relatively poor quality and well-worn appearance of their clothes. Similar to today’s culture,
clothing provided a means to measure and display status.

As a young woman, Amy Smith Hopkins, Anne’s daughter from her first marriage, was criticized
by a neighbor for “partaking of the Amusements and Gayeties of the Fashionable world,”
although later in life she was a devout Quaker and chastised her own young stepdaughter for
coming to visit her “with her head very gaily dressed.”
Exhibit Gallery
The exhibit gallery at the Stephen Hopkins
House provides visitors with an opportunity
to pause and reflect on the themes of the
tour through a set of objects and labels.
Rather than passively listening to a guide, the
gallery challenges visitors to examine their
own preconceptions about the past and to
exchange thoughts and ideas with guides and
other visitors. “Full House” utilizes the
medium of samplers and cross stitch to
examine work, morality, gender, and status
from the perspective of women who created
these objects.
A Life in Stitch
Samplers and Domesticity
Textiles played an important role in Colonial and post-Revolutionary households in America. Not only
did they make homes more comfortable, but they illustrated a family’s wealth and social status.
Embroidery represented the education, virtues, and creative abilities of young girls and women. Anne
Hopkins and the three young women living in the house with her, Lydia, Ruth, and Amy, would all have
made samplers.
In the eighteenth century, the samplers stitched by Anne and her girls functioned as a means to an end.
They were practical objects, teaching young girls about morality, letters, and numbers, and sewing skills,
and they illustrated a potential wife’s desirability through a demonstration of her household skills.
However, in the decades following the American Revolution, samplers came to be valued less for their
practical purposes and more as sentimental objects. They were an activity reserved for women, an
expression of women’s role in an increasingly restricted domestic sphere. The nineteenth century saw a
rise in sentimentality, and samplers became symbolic of this.
Eighteenth century practicality and nineteenth century sentimentality still often limited women’s
creative outlets to the domestic sphere. Despite the many honorable sentiments expressed on samplers,
women’s lives, even those of Anne, Lydia, Ruth and Amy, could not have always lived up to the ideals of
sweet piety and ready obedience expressed in samplers of the day. In understanding the history of
samplers, it is important to consider their contradictory role as both creative outlet and symbol of
woman’s confinement to the home.
16
Marking Samplers
Most of the first samplers a young woman in the Hopkins house completed would have been alphabet,
or “marking” samplers such as the three presented here. As members of an elite and educated family,
the Hopkins children likely attended local day schools. Girls attended separate schools with a curriculum
focused on the “female accomplishments” of music, painting, and etiquette. As the primary activity in
most female school instruction, needlework was how young girls learned to read and practice
arithmetic. In addition to literacy, the instruction from samplers instilled virtues of industry, humility,
and piety. Needlework was also an essential domestic tool for managing a household, as marking
samplers helped teach the skills needed to keep track of household inventory and to engage with the
marketplace, although in a limited way.
“Tabatha W. Hopkins’ Sampler”
Gift of Elisha McCrillis
“Ataresta Learned’s Sampler
rought at twelve years of age
Providence October 4th 1786”
“Abigail Durfey, her sampler
Providence, November 18 1763
in the 13th year of her age”
It seems surprising that an apparently innocuous task
like needlepoint was such an important way of preparing
a young girl for the future.
ASK YOURSELF
What types of activities that you performed as a child
helped prepare you for life as an adult?
Decorative Samplers
When a young girl reached adolescence, her samplers became more decorative and expressive, often
depicting scenes from nature, local buildings, or lines of poetry. These samplers demonstrated a lady’s
talents and accomplishments to potential male suitors, making them a vital tool in the courtship
process. Elizabeth Drinker, a Philadelphia Quaker who kept a meticulous diary throughout her life,
recorded a list of nearly one hundred items of needlework made during the years when she was
courting her future husband. A young lady’s best work would often be hung in the parlor downstairs,
where visiting young men might take notice of her talents. Samplers may have played a role in Lydia
Hopkins's courtship with Daniel Tillinghast, whom she married in 1763. Needlework was one of the only
socially acceptable forms of amusement for a married woman or an unmarried dependent. In one letter
to his wife, Amy Smith Russell, Joseph Russell suggested sewing and knitting as respectable pastimes for
his wife and female servants.
17
Needlework done by Sarah Foster
Mid-eighteenth century
Embroidered Sampler-Wreath
1684
Gift of Miss Lucy T. Aldrich
Decorative samplers played a social function in the 18th century, in
courtship and in the decoration of homes. They were symbols of skill
and pride.
ASK YOURSELF
In what ways do adolescents and adults
“show off” to others today?
Samplers of Virtue
Women of all ages used samplers as a form of expressing their values and virtues through poetic verse.
While in one way this medium provided women with a means to let their voices be heard, the practice
of needlework worked to reinforce the limitations of their femininity. In the decades following the
American Revolution, the culture of republican motherhood associated domesticity with civic duty.
Women became the protectors of society’s values through the maintenance of their homes. The
language of the poetic samplers at this time extolled the virtues of innocence, thankfulness, modesty,
and purity. Women also often addressed themes of mortality and the fragility of life, reflecting anxieties
they held about their own futures. Although the needlework expressed profound emotion, the verses in
their samplers continued to encourage a prescribed set of acceptable behaviors and beliefs.
18
Polly Gould, aged 12 years
1803
“All pleasures are imperfect here below
Our sweetest joys are mixed with bitter woe
The draught of bliss when in our goblet cast
Is dashed with grief or spilt before we taste”
The verse is taken from a poem by Stephen
Duck (1705 – 1756).
Mary Lucas
1798
“On Providence”
“While thro’ this mazy walk of Life,
Of wild confusion toil and strife
I fearless trend the troubled Way.
As dauntless still by Night as Day.
Assur’d my artless Innocence
Protected is by Providence
While in the bloom of Youth array’d
From Morning’s Dawn to Evening’s Shade.
In every Thought which I pursue,
Where e’er I go what e’er I do,
To that last Hour when I go hence,
I’ll own the Power of Providence
Embroidery taught the women of the Hopkins
house how to express the virtues of femininity and
domesticity.
ASK YOURSELF
Do you think these samplers represent an honest
depiction of their makers’ feelings about their role
in the home? What types of frustrations may have
been hiding behind the stitching? In what ways do
you hide or display your own feelings about gender
inequality today?
Assist me thou unerring Guide
O’er all my Actions preside
What ever lot is called for me
Humbly will submit to Thee
Thou who do’st every thing dispense
All Ruling Mighty PROVIDENCE”
19
Subversive Samplers
In the 18th century, the ability for a woman to express herself through her needlework was limited to
predetermined themes. Even the quotations they used were often recycled from the same literary and
biblical sources. In many ways, samplers reflect the limitations of the female domestic “sphere.” Women
sometimes commented on the boredom and drudgery of their lives in their letters and diaries, but rarely
did they reflect on the social conventions that may have led to their discontent—and kept them quiet.
Quaker women sometimes commented through their actions, by actively preaching in meetings and in
their travels, leaving their husbands and children behind. It is impossible to know what Anne Hopkins, a
Quaker, thought about these issues, so the following modern “samplers” seek to demonstrate the types
of ideas and emotions eighteenth-century women may have kept silent. Using the needle as a tool of
their creativity and wit, here are some of the things they might have said.
20
Study
STORY
Gendered space
PEOPLE
Stephen Hopkins, John Hopkins,
Sylvanus Hopkins
OBJECTS
Leather bound books, Sea
Captain’s chest, Quill pen and ink
well
Gendered power
Anne Hopkins, Ruth Smith, Amy
Smith, Anne Hopkins
1760 Will
Education
Stephen Hopkins
Leather bound Books
Stephen Hopkins read and wrote
copiously, both for pleasure and for
business. He needed refuge to conduct
these pursuits, and in a household that
held as many as eleven people it is
possible he found that quiet space here in
this study.
Stephen Hopkins was born in 1707 and
grew up on a farm in Scituate, Rhode
Island, about twenty-five miles from
Providence. Unlike most eighteenthcentury farmers, Hopkins always had
access to books. His mother’s father,
Samuel Wilkinson, kept a small library of
books that circulated among friends and
family. Hopkins had no formal education,
but he learned the surveyor’s trade, most
likely from his uncle, Joseph Wilkinson, a
Scituate surveyor.
At the age of nineteen, Hopkins married
Sarah Scott, a fourth-generation Quaker
from Scituate, and the two soon began a
family that grew to seven children, two of
whom died in childhood.

At the age of 35, Hopkins sold the prosperous farm he had inherited from his father and moved
to Providence, where he continued work as a surveyor, served as the state’s chief justice, was
elected governor ten times, owned a one-quarter share in the Brown family’s prosperous iron
foundry, and invested in seafaring trade including privateers and slave vessels. In the mid-18th
century, he was one of Rhode Island’s most influential and powerful people.
21

As a merchant-trader, Stephen Hopkins earned much of his living from the sea. Although it
made him prosperous, the sea also cost him three sons, two of whom died in foreign ports in a
single year, 1753. His son John died that year in Spain of smallpox; Silvanus survived a shipwreck
on Canada’s Cape Breton, but he was captured and killed there by a group of indigenous people.
In his grief, Hopkins ordered a cenotaph, a gravestone to commemorate the distant dead. He
placed it in the North Burial Ground with an epitaph reading:
“In Memory of Silvanus, son of Stephen Hopkins, Esqr, & Sarah, his Wife, Was Cast away on
Cape Breton Shore & inhumanly Murdered by Cruel Savages on the 23 of April 1753. Aged 18
Years 5 Months and 23 Days. Think not by this, My Grave is Shown, Hard Fate Decreed, I should
have none.”2

Later that year Sarah, Hopkins’ wife of 27 years, also died.
How might the death of his wife and the sudden death of two sons in the same year have affected
Stephen Hopkins? Would he have felt the loss differently than someone today might feel an equal
loss?

Judging from a jesting letter that Hopkins wrote to his second wife, Anne Smith, while courting,
their marriage in January 1775 caused some scandal among the Smithfield Friends meeting, of
which she was a member: “[T]o be a Pirate, a Robber, and companion and even Maker of
Harlots, one would think were crimes enough for any one Man,” he wrote, mocking Smithfield’s
assessment of him. As it turned out, the Society of Friends need not have worried, as their
marriage appeared to be one of love and mutual respect.

Although women were not regularly included in any substantive discussions of business or
politics, upper-class women were aware of and occasionally involved in their husbands’ careers,
although the legal status of women limited this involvement. Shortly after their marriage in
1755, the newly-minted Governor Hopkins wrote to Anne from Newport and reported that, “a
French Schooner that was in here before has been condemn’d,” and that he was likely to receive
“between Two and Three Thousand Pounds...to my Share” of the confiscated cargo.

Hopkins's note implies that Anne was up to speed on the global political situation—in this case,
the French and Indian War, on his own political role in such affairs, and on how intimately their
family’s financial situation was connected with the high-stakes implications of politics and
privateering in the Atlantic shipping business.

The true test of business knowledge and acumen for many women, excluded for most of their
lives from legal and financial matters, came when their husbands died and they found
themselves suddenly responsible for managing an estate that they may not have been prepared
to understand. While widows often served as executors of their husbands’ estates, men with
2
A photograph of the grave and transcription are available online at http://tabigraves.blogspot.com/. Accessed
February 2012.
22
experience in conducting business usually were named as co-executors to assist or oversee the
settlement of wills.

Stephen Hopkins, a very wealthy man, wrote two wills in his lifetime, one in 1760, and one in
1781. In the 1760 will, Hopkins named Anne his executor, along with his sons George and Rufus.
He was extremely generous in his bequests, leaving her,
“all that was hers when I married her and all of
the estate of her former husband Benjamin
Smith that hath ever come into my hands with
all the stock of cattle[,] horses[,] sheep[,]
swine[,] and every other thing on the farm…be
immediately on my decease put into the hands
of my said wife. …I also give to my said wife
three thousand pounds in money old tenor
together with six silver porringers marked with
my name and hers and one half of all such
other household stuff as may have been
brought into the house since I married her as
also my quarter part of the lime kiln…and my
negro woman named Fibbo whom I desire she
may treat in such manner that servitude may
not be a burden to her.”

While it is difficult to say how much knowledge Anne had of her husband’s business affairs,
entrusting her with the majority of his property and with the execution of his will suggests that
he trusted her ability to manage financial matters.
One of the few places in which Hopkins references the women, girls, and slaves in the household is in
the 1760 will in which he awards equal shares of 1,500 pounds old tenor money to a niece, Anne,
“whom I have brought up,” and to his step-daughters Ruth and Amy. In addition, Ruth, his eldest
daughter, was also to receive a slave, “a Negro boy named Priamus.”

Prior to becoming governor, Hopkins served as Chief Justice for the colony of Rhode Island. His
step-daughter Ruth recalled that he sometimes compelled his children and step-children attend
court while he delivered a death sentence, so “that they could learn the majesty of the law.”
23
Ruth remembered the expression on his face as, “the mingled sternness and pity, the force and
the gentleness.”

Five months after his marriage to Anne, Hopkins was elected governor of Rhode Island, the first
of ten, one-year terms that he served before joining the Continental Congress in 1774, and
signing the Declaration of Independence as a member of Congress in 1776.

As a chief justice, governor, and congressional delegate, Hopkins was a relentless campaigner
who likely had to entertain potential supporters, much as politicians do to this day. John Adams
wrote of Hopkins: “He had read Greek, Roman and British History: and was familiar with English
Poetry particularly Pope, Tompson and Milton. And the flow of his Soul made all his reading our
own, and seemed to bring to recollection in all of Us all we had ever read.”
Parlor
This room was added to the house
as part of the expansion that
Hopkins undertook about 1755.
When the family moved here in
1743, the house extended only as
far as the kitchen wall. The addition
of the parlor, study, entry hall, and
the chambers above them
coincided with Stephen and Anne’s
marriage and subsequent
expansion of the family. Perhaps
more significantly, it brought the
house up to date with the current
Georgian style of architecture at
the same time that Hopkins's
political career was taking off.
STORY
Stephen Hopkins's social and
professional life
PEOPLE
Stephen Hopkins, Brown Family,
Esek Hopkins, George Hopkins,
Rufus Hopkins, Anne Hopkins,
Phebe Hopkins, St. Jago
OBJECTS
Decanters, bottles, punch bowl,
clay pipes, candle, drinking glasses,
numerous chairs (“1/2 doz.
Chairs”), Tea table (“round table”)
Social status and expansion of
the house
Quakerism
Stephen Hopkins, Anne Hopkins
Decorations and quality furnishings
Courtship
Lydia Hopkins, Daniel
Tillinghast, Ruth Smith, George
Hopkins
Stephen Hopkins, Anne Hopkins, Small square tea table, China cups
Quaker community
Small square tea table, China cups,
partly-finished sampler
24
As the elegant furnishings and decorative paneling above the fireplace shows, the parlor was the “best
room” of the house, a place to show the family’s status and entertain important guests in a formal
setting. It can be considered the most “public” space in the home, where Stephen Hopkins socialized
with other men, wedding and funeral receptions took place, Quaker committees may have met, and the
young ladies of the house could have received suitors when they were of marriageable age.
MALE ENTERTAINING

By the second half of the 18th century, affluent men were defining spaces within their homes—
parlors, studies, and libraries—where they could conduct business and entertain guests in a
more private and exclusively male setting. The Hopkins House captures a moment when this
social and architectural transition was taking place in Providence.

While this house seems small in comparison with late 18th century mansions like the John
Brown House, which allowed prominent Providence families to entertain on a grand scale, the
addition of a parlor and a study made this into a gentleman’s home, where Stephen could offer
his peers a formal welcome and private conviviality.

For example, although George Washington stayed at the Golden Ball Inn on Benefit Street on his
visits to Providence, 3 he may have paid a visit to the Hopkins home, and would certainly have
been received in this room. However, in colonial America, elite men like Hopkins socialized most
frequently in public venues like taverns and pubs.
SOCIAL STATUS

As the home’s most public room, the parlor’s fine furnishings and decorations showcase
Hopkins's wealth and status. The two chairs with needlework seat covers belonged to Hopkins,
and exemplify the kind of quality workmanship he would have displayed in the best room of the
house. Similarly, luxuries similar to the China trade porcelain on the table and in the mantle
alcove were direct products of his career as a global shipping merchant, and made it clear that
while the house may be modest, the Hopkins family was up to date with the fashions and
commodities of the day.

Beyond what it displays about Stephen Hopkins's social habits and professional standing, the
parlor offers an interesting view into how Hopkins's career and social life intersected with his
family and the enslaved members of the household.
3
Thomas Jefferson’s letters and other correspondence note that Washington and members of his cabinet stayed
at the Golden Ball on a visit to Providence in 1790. While it is not certain where he stayed on prior visits, it was
presumably at the same place. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., “Rhode Island,” The Thomas Jefferson
Encyclopedia. Available online at http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/rhode-island. Accessed
February 2012.
25
At least half of the area created by the 1755 addition did not add to the living space used by the majority
of the Hopkins family. This seems counterintuitive since over the next ten years the house sheltered as
many as twelve people at the same time. That the two new rooms downstairs, the study and the parlor,
were reserved for formal occasions or for Stephen Hopkins's personal use underlines the centrality of
male status in determining the patterns of domestic colonial life.

Anne Hopkins's social position would have been a direct function of Stephen’s rising
prominence. In turn, she played a significant role in helping manage how his home reflected and
amplified his public image.

While Anne may not have been present on many occasions when Hopkins entertained male
guests in the parlor, she would have been judged a “notable” housewife based on the comforts
of the room and the quality of the meal. Her behind-the-scenes presence enabled her husband’s
activities. In the eighteenth century, a “notable” woman was one whose household ran
smoothly, economically, and pleasantly. It was a high compliment for a wife whose chief duty
was to create a comfortable domestic space for her husband and family.

Anne Hopkins was not obliged to do most of the actual work of preparing the parlor, cooking,
serving food and drinks, and cleaning up afterwards when Stephen entertained. Phebe, working
in the kitchen, would likely have handled food preparation, while Hopkins and his guests were
probably served in the parlor by Saint Jago or another male slave acting as a manservant.
26

Hopkins was known as a gregarious host, fond of drinking, reading aloud, and talking with his
peers. John Adams reported from Continental Congress that Hopkins “kept Us in Conversation
till Eleven and sometimes twelve O Clock.”

At home, such a lingering gathering would have meant extra hours on their feet for the person
waiting on the party, as well as a late night for Phebe, who probably cleaned up after the guests
had gone and Hopkins had retired. Regardless of how late Hopkins had stayed awake
entertaining, the parlor would likely have been set to rights by morning, so that the household
was prepared to receive formal callers immediately if the need arose.
COURTSHIP

While the parlor was primarily at Stephen Hopkins's disposal, it was probably also the setting for
one of the most important scenes in the lives of the young women in the family, courtship.

Lydia Hopkins, Sarah and Stephen’s only surviving daughter, married Daniel Tillinghast in 1763 at
age 30. While little is known about Lydia’s life, she lived in her father’s home until her marriage,
which was somewhat late in life for women of the period.

If Daniel, a widower, had come to visit her while they were courting, they may have sat in the
parlor to have tea and talk, at a little remove from the bustle of the house. The parlor, the most
socially “public” room in the house, was also one of the few spaces in the home that could have
afforded a couple a degree of privacy, albeit one safely within supervision to ensure propriety.

Lydia may have also have embroidered on a sampler while she visited with Daniel. Samplers and
fine needlework were one way an upper-class woman could demonstrate her accomplishments
and her potential to be a “notable” wife. To do so in the presence of a suitor would have
increased her qualifications as a wife and partner.

There was a tension between the public and private nature of courtship in colonial America,
which played out repeatedly in the letters and diaries of courting couples. For both men and
women, choosing a spouse was a momentous decision that required balancing the personal
factors of romance and affection (increasingly important concepts in the late-18th century) and
the crucial importance of choosing a spouse who could fulfill the economic and social demands
of marriage (which often meant deferring to the advice of parents).

For women, marriage was a particularly fraught decision. Divorce was extraordinarily difficult for
women to obtain, and a husband’s absolute legal authority meant that the choice of spouse
could wholly determine the nature of the remainder of a woman’s life.

Lydia may have delayed getting married because of these concerns—whether her own or her
parents’—about finding an appropriate husband, but the prospect of lifelong dependency of an
unmarried woman on her relatives must have created some pressure to find a suitable spouse.

In a 1759 letter to her 13-year-old stepsister Ruth, who was visiting Newport, Lydia counseled
her that “there is so many agreeable Gentlemen in Newport that I would advise you to make
Choice of Some of them.” While she may have been writing in jest, there was perhaps a bitter
27
kernel of real counsel in the note from a woman who at age 26 was still without a home of her
own.

For Lydia’s stepsister Ruth, the path to marriage was more direct, although probably also
fraught with uncertainty and drama, given the close confines of the house. Ruth eventually wed
her stepbrother, Hopkins's son George. Whether a formal courtship took place in the parlor,
when they shared the living spaces of the entire house, is interesting to speculate upon.
Today, marrying a step-sibling would be scandalous, and perhaps illegal. In the 18th century, marriage
to a close relative was not uncommon. Why might these marriages have been viewed as acceptable—
and even necessary—in the 18th century?
QUAKERISM

A final facet of family life that surfaces in the parlor is the Hopkinses relationship with the
Providence Society of Friends. Anne and Stephen, at least after 1755, were both Quakers, like
over half of their fellow Rhode Islanders. Anne Hopkins came from a prominent Quaker family
and appears to have practiced devoutly throughout her life. Stephen’s mother was a Quaker,
but his commitment to the faith seems to have been somewhat lax.

Quaker marriages were subject to organized scrutiny by members of the congregation, who
determined whether the match was a suitable one in the eyes of the Meeting. Quaker women
oversaw family-related issues within their community of believers. They dispatched committees
to meet with each prospective spouse within their homes to ascertain the compatibility of the
couple and each person’s suitability for marriage. It is likely that a Quaker committee met with
Lydia in this parlor, and later with Ruth and George, perhaps interviewing one of them while the
other was elsewhere in the house.

Anne, as the more active Quaker, may have been a member of a committee and hosted
meetings in the parlor. Likewise, if a committee from the church came to reprimand someone in
the Hopkins family, as they probably did Stephen later in his life, they would almost certainly
have been received here.

Quakers were discouraged from owning slaves, expected to adopt plain styles of dress, eschew
cards, gambling, and drunkenness, and refuse to bear arms. As a prominent figure in the
complicated local and national politics of the mid-1700s, Stephen Hopkins often found the
needs and expectations of his career in tension with the demands of his religion.
28
This conflict came to a head for
Hopkins in 1772, when the
Philadelphia Yearly Quaker Meeting
forbade Quakers from owning slaves.
Hopkins was “read out,” or
excommunicated, for failing to
manumit one of his slaves, probably
Phebe. While Hopkins manumitted
St. Jago in 1772, apparently in
compliance with the Quaker edict, his
1781 will ensured that Phebe would
remain enslaved until his death.
By 1772, Phebe had served the
Hopkins family long and apparently
well. It is tempting to presume that
manumitting Phebe would have been
a gesture of gratitude for Phebe’s
many years of service. However, her
value to Hopkins as a financial
investment and a highly capable
household manager was likely the
overriding factor in her remaining
enslavement.
Manumission of St. Jago, 1772. Courtesy of Seth Kaller Inc.

Like other prominent Rhode Island Quakers of the time, Hopkins voiced opposition to slavery,
but in practice he found that the high moral ground conflicted with a successful livelihood built
on slave owning and the slave trade. Also, Hopkins may have agreed with the racial theories of
the time, that Africans were inherently inferior and best suited for a life of servitude. If a
committee from the Quaker meeting came to admonish Hopkins for his failure to comply with
the anti-slavery rule, it is likely that they encountered Phebe, Saint Jago, or another of Hopkins’s
slaves, and perhaps were served tea by them in the parlor.

It is also worth speculating on the challenges that Stephen’s troubles with the Quaker
community might have presented to Anne, further complicated by the social ties that the
Quaker community provided and her own personal piety, another esteemed virtue in colonial
women. However, Anne’s lifestyle was just as dependent on slave labor and the slave economy
as her husband’s.

It is not known whether Anne encouraged Stephen in his political steps to limit slavery in Rhode
Island (for instance, signing laws as governor to prohibit the export of slaves into the colony, and
supporting the gradual emancipation act of 1782) or to free their personal slaves in his 1781
will. Likewise, it is not known whether Stephen’s falling-out with the Quakers had ramifications
for Anne’s standing among the Friends.
29

As a space where the private lives of Stephen Hopkins and his family intersected with the public
sphere, through business, parties, courtship, religion, and politics, the parlor throws into relief
the many ways in which domestic colonial life was shaped by the hierarchies of status, power,
gender, and race in the broader society.
Kitchen 2
We return to the kitchen or “keeping room”
to think about hygiene—or the lack of
hygiene—and how our living habits, both
then and now, can lead to illness. After all the
purchases were made, dinners eaten, and
guests departed, how did Phebe wash and
clean in a kitchen with a fireplace but no
running water, electricity, or refrigerator?
What was considered clean in 1755 might be
considered filthy today. However, 250 years
from now, our old, soggy kitchen sponges or
cats’ litter boxes may disgust people in the
same way that chamber pots or infrequent
bathing in the 18th century might provoke a
similar reaction from visitors to the house
today.
STORY
Hygiene and cleanliness
PEOPLE
Sarah Hopkins, household
OBJECTS
Chamber pot, fireplace, pot
scrubber, dish towels
HYGIENE AND CLEANLINESS

When Phebe cleaned the Hopkins House, she used different methods than we use today. Dirty
plates were wiped clean and put back on the shelf rather than carefully washed. Chamber pots
came through this room on their way to being emptied in the privy, and were placed in front of
the fireplace to dry, close to areas where food was prepared. A dishtowel served many
purposes: wiping the kitchen table, drying sweat from a child’s forehead, rubbing dirt from
potatoes and carrots, or even cleaning a filthy boot.

Still, Sarah and Anne Hopkins, like any notable wife, took great pride in showing off a clean
home to guests. Floors were swept, beds made, furniture arranged, and everything kept orderly
to demonstrate that the governor and his family kept a clean and comfortable home, for guests
as well as themselves.

The Hopkins’s home lacked the modern conveniences that we enjoy today to help us keep our
home controlled, such as running water, electricity, and appliances. Consider the effort that
18th century daily tasks involved. Washing clothes, bathing, and cleaning house required
fetching buckets of water from the closest source. One gallon of water weighs more than eight
30
pounds. Imagine filling a bathtub with buckets, walking outside for each refill when the weather
was cold or rainy.

Although the original location of this house was near the Providence River, on Water Street,
clean sources of water were difficult to find. The river was brackish and contaminated by refuse
dumped from ships, piers, warehouses, laundresses, and tanners, and from urine and fecal
matter that made its way from gutters and privies into the river.

Horses were everywhere, and they created piles of smelly waste long before any kind of “vehicle
emissions test.” Each time it rained this waste flowed into water sources. Wells weren’t safe
either. When a new privy was dug, old privies were covered over and they inevitably
contaminated ground water supplies.

Contaminated water caused many illnesses in the 18th century including cholera, dysentery, and
typhoid fever, and it also led to infections by intestinal parasites. Just like your cats or dogs
today, the residents of this house were at risk of getting worms. For all these reasons, drinking a
cup of water when thirsty was not at all common.

The only clean drinking supply available to the Hopkins family contained alcohol in the form of
wine, beer, rum or other distilled spirits, although people in the 18th century were unaware of
alcohol’s antiseptic properties.

Understanding of disease and its causes was limited. Scholars of the 18th century believed that
sickness was caused by imbalances in the body’s four essential humors (yellow bile, black bile,
blood, and phlegm), odors, and even strong emotions. Viruses and bacteria had not been
discovered. Today we still live in a world without cures for cancer, AIDS, and many other
diseases. In the 18th century, that list of unknown cures and causes was much longer.

In this house in the mid-18th century, it is likely that one of the adults, enslaved or free, treated
most illnesses and relieved discomfort as best they could. Folk remedies were common, and
other treatments were derived from formulas available in popular home medical texts such as
John Tennent’s Every Man His Own Doctor (first printed in 1734) or John Theobald’s Every Man
His Own Physician (first printed in 1764).

These treatments included “physicks” (medicines), clysters (enemas), and plasters that created
painful blisters in the belief that the body’s poisons were being drawn to the surface. Remedies
were created from various herbs and natural ingredients such as barks, flowers, fruits, seeds,
and essential oils, and often included ingredients that we consider dangerous or poisonous
today such as hemlock, borax, lead, and mercury.

Laudanum—crushed opium mixed with other ingredients that usually included distilled spirits—
was commonly prescribed to ease pain and other ailments. It could be taken alone or
administered as part of an enema. Patients took laudanum in a carefully measured number of
drops, since it was highly addictive. Despite precautions some patients still abused the
treatment to the detriment of their health.
31

Many other treatments were home remedies that we continue to use today. Various teas were
consumed to bring comfort to a troubled stomach, while “chicken water” (the 18th century
version of today’s chicken soup remedy), obtained by boiling half a chicken in a half gallon of
water for a half hour, was commonly prescribed to ease the symptoms of a fever.

On the rare occasion of a hot bath, the tub was prepared in the kitchen, close to the fire where
the heavy pots of water could be heated. As the master of the house, Stephen Hopkins took the
first dip in clear, hot water. With up to twelve people in this modest house, it’s hard to imagine
any kind of privacy, even when bathing. All twelve people used the same water, which grew
dirtier with each person, until Phebe and her children were the last to soak in cold, grey,
disease-ridden water as a way to get just a little cleaner than they were before.

As you move next into the “Coming and Going” room, think about all the children that lived in
this house. Women on average had one child every two years, so children would be in the house
for the majority of a mother’s life. The lack of modern hygiene was most difficult for children,
who were more susceptible to infection and disease.
“Coming & Going” Room
The “Coming and Going Room”
represents the life cycle of the
Hopkins family and the enslaved
persons in the house.
Reproductions of medical tools
and objects provide a platform for
the discussion of sickness, health,
death, and childbirth in the
Hopkins household in the middle
of the 18th century.
STORY
Sickness/Health
PEOPLE
Sarah Hopkins, Simon Hopkins,
Phebe
OBJECTS
Bleeding Bowl and fleam, image
of tooth key
Childbirth
Phebe and Primus
Bed, birthing stool
Food Storage
Barrels, sack of meal, other
commodities
32

The project team deemed this space the “Coming & Going Room” because of the varied
purposes it served for the Hopkins household including a place for birth and death. In Stephen
Hopkins’s 1785 household inventory, this room was called “The bedroom below,” and it is
probably the room in which Stephen Hopkins died.

Because of its proximity to the keeping room hearth, this room was valued for its warmth and
for the convenience of people who tended to the sick. It likely served as a place for the sick and
the dying. With a houseful of people living under the constant threat of illness, this room would
have been frequently occupied for this purpose.
Also because of its proximity to the kitchen, this
room likely served as a place for storing food and
other household necessities. In the warmer
months, food might have been stored in the cellar,
where cooler temperatures helped to delay
spoiling. However, in the cold New England
winters, it would have been more convenient to
store food in barrels closer to the keeping room
where meals were prepared. It is possible that the
room was used simultaneously as a bedroom for
the sick and for storage.
Throughout the 18th century, urban dwellers were
plagued almost incessantly by a host of illnesses:
the common cold, typhus, smallpox, tuberculosis,
pneumonia, thrush, whooping cough, yellow fever,
measles, throat infections, ergotism, delirium,
bloody diarrhea, vomiting, intestinal parasites, and
many others. This does not include the time that
people spent simply feeling unwell from
headaches, fevers, chills, stomach pains, and sore
throats.

Dental ailments were constant sources of agony for people in the 18th century. Home remedies
might be applied to help with the pain and swelling, but often it was necessary to “draw” or pull
the infected tooth. The 18th century equivalent of a dentist used an instrument, sometimes
called a tooth key, to rock the tooth and break it free from its roots so that it could be extracted.
The popularity and availability of sugar and the inefficiency of methods to clean teeth made this
painful procedure a common occurrence.

Female slaves in New England often served as nurses to sick members of their masters’ families,
and Phebe may have assumed responsibility for caring for the Hopkins household when they
were ill, leaving us to wonder who cared for Phebe when she was sick.
33
Although most medicine was performed
in the home, at least one trained doctor
was available in mid-18th century
Providence to treat seriously ill or chronic
patients. On November 26, David
Vanderlight recorded in his ledger a
charge of nine pounds, five shillings to
Stephen Hopkins for “Sundry Medicyns,
visits, and [to] attend” to Anne Hopkins
for an unknown illness.
David Vanderlight ledger. Courtesy of the John Carter Brown
Library at Brown University

Vanderlight was born in Holland and trained in medicine at Leiden before immigrating to Rhode
Island, where he married Mary Brown, sister of the four Brown brothers, John, Joseph, Nicholas,
and Moses, business and political associates of Stephen Hopkins.

Sarah Hopkins died on September 9, 1753, nearly a year after treatment by Vanderlight. It is
unlikely that Sarah’s treatment by Vanderlight and her cause of death were related, unless she
suffered from a chronic or lingering illness.

Many Quakers found peace with death in their religious beliefs. Amy Smith Russell, Anne’s
daughter, turned to her faith for comfort on her deathbed in 1784. She told her stepfather
Stephen that she was “willing to die and the grave was no Terror to her.” She then recited the
Song of the Redeemed from the Book of Revelation: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou
art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast
redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
Most often, physicians were called in to “let
blood.” Bloodletting was extremely common
in the 18th century to treat many illnesses.
Bleeding was believed to allow the body to
purge illness, and a great deal of attention
was paid to the color and consistency of the
blood as an indicator of the nature and
seriousness of the disease. An instrument
called a fleam was used to open an artery or
a vein to remove several ounces of blood,
where it drained into a bleeding bowl to be
examined and measured. Sometimes heated
cups or leeches were applied to the cut to
improve flow.

In the 18th century, it was a common practice to bleed a pregnant woman, as it was widely
believed that pregnancy caused an overabundance of blood due to the cessation of
menstruation.
34

Although Sarah and Anne did not give birth in this house, Phebe’s son Primus was born here in
the 1750s, and her son Bonner was born around 1762. Whether or not Phebe gave birth in the
“Coming & Going room” or in the slaves’ quarters upstairs is a matter for speculation. We know
very little about the childbearing practices of enslaved women, but slaves contained value for
their owners, and it is likely that Hopkins wanted to protect his investment by providing Phebe
with adequate care during childbirth.
If Phebe had given birth in this room, it is
unlikely that she would have used the bed.
During this period, women typically gave
birth while sitting on a stool, her back
supported by helpers, with the midwife
kneeling on the floor. Lying on a bed is a
modern convention, parallel with the practice
of giving birth in hospitals.
Although a common event, childbirth was still
quite dangerous for mother and child.
Increasingly throughout the 18th century,
doctors and or nurses assisted women in
labor, and may have bled the mother or
prescribed laudanum to ease labor pains.
Since childbirth was such a frightening
experience, women in labor were often
surrounded by female friends and family
members.
Who would have assisted Phebe during labor? Would it have been Sarah or Anne, Dr. Vanderlight, or
a midwife? Would the midwife have been a white woman, or someone from Providence’s enslaved
community? Would Phebe’s husband, Bonner, have been allowed to be present for the birth of his
son? Who, if anyone, would have helped to take care of Phebe and her newborn son?

Because of the lack of detailed records for enslaved people, we may never know the answers.
But these questions highlight the complicated issues of gender, status, and race in 18th century
New England.
35
Bibliography
Bill Bryson, At Home: A Short History of Private Life (New York, Doubleday, 2010).
Cherry Fletcher Bamberg, “Amy (Smith) Russell and her Family,” Rhode Island Roots (2011), 57 - 78.
Cherry Fletcher Bamberg, “Hopkins Family Letters (Part One),” Rhode island Roots, Journal of the Rhode
Island Genealogical Society, Vol. 37, No. 3, (September, 2011).
L.H. Butterfield, ed., The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1961).
Howard M. Chapin, Rhode Island Privateers in King George’s War: 1739-1748, (Providence: Rhode Island
Historical Society, 1926).
Elaine Forman Crane, ed., The Diary of Elizabeth Drinker: The Life Cycle of an Eighteenth-Century
Woman, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010).
Antoinette F. Downing, Early Homes of Rhode Island (Richmond, VA, 1937).
Nicole Eustace, “‘The Cornerstone of a Copious Work’: Love and Power in Eighteenth-Century
Courtship,” Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring 2001).
William Eaton Foster, Stephen Hopkins, A Rhode Island Statesman: A Study of the Political History of the
Eighteenth Century (Providence: Sidney S. Rider, 1884).
The Gaspee Virtual Archive, “Governor (and Chief Justice) Stephen Hopkins.” Available online at
http://gaspee.org/StephenHopkins.htm. Accessed February 2010.
Ellen Hartigan-O’Connor, The Ties that Buy: Women and Commerce in Revolutionary America
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).
Donald R. Hopkins, “A Slave Called St. Jago,” Rhode Island History (Winter/Spring 2011), 31 – 40.
“InDependence: Liberty, Slavery & Choice at the Stephen Hopkins House.” Available online at
http://brown.edu/Research/JNBC/presentations_papers/Liberty_Slavery_Choice.pdf. Accessed February
2012.
“Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island (1707 – 1785),” A genealogy prepared by the Descendants of the
Signers of the Declaration Independence. Available online at
http://www.dsdi1776.com/Signers/Stephen%20Hopkins.html. Accessed February 2012.
Susan E. Klepp, Revolutionary Conceptions: Women, Fertility & Family Limitation in America, 1760 – 1820
(University of North Carolina Press, 2009).
Jessica Kross, 1999, “Mansions, Men, Women, and the Creation of Multiple Publics in EighteenthCentury British North America,” Journal of Social History, Vol. 33, No. 2.
Mary Beth Norton, Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750 – 1800
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980).
36
Jane Nylander, Our Own Snug Fireside: Images of the New England home, 1760‐1860 (New York:
Knopf, 1993).
Sandra Oliver, Food in Colonial and Federal America (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005).
Ron M. Potvin, “Washington Slept Here? Reinterpreting the Governor Stephen Hopkins House,” History
News (spring 2011), 17 - 20.
Betty Ring, Let Virtue be a Guide to Thee: Needlework in the Education of Rhode Island Women, 1730 –
1830 (Providence: The Rhode Island Historical Society, 1983).
Slavery and Justice: Report of the Brown University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. Available
online at http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/report/index.html. Accessed February 2012.
Patricia St. Aubin, unpublished paper, “The Social History of the Providence Library Co.: 1753-1764,”
unpublished paper, Providence Athenaeum.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England,
1650 – 1750 (New York: Vintage Books, 1991).
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife’s Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on her Diary, 1785 – 1812
(New York: Vintage Books, 1990).
Robert V. Wells, “Family Size and Fertility Control in Eighteenth-Century America: A Study of Quaker
Families,” Population Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (March 1971), pp. 73 – 82.
Patricia West, Domesticating History: The Political Origins of America’s House Museums (Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1999).
37