< PreviousTwo early-nineteenth-century artists, Raphaelle Peale (1774–1825)1 and John Lewis Krimmel (1786–1821),2 depicted what appears to be Philadelphia queensware in their paintings. While neither artist was a native of Philadelphia, they both found ample subject matter in the city—along with opportunities to develop their abilities and exhibit their work. Both artists pursued categories of painting that were undervalued per the long-established Old World European standards for art that still held sway during this period. Raphaelle findingQUEENSWARE in ArtRebecca L. WhiteRaphaelle Peale (American, 1774–1825) Still Life of Fruit, Pitcher and Pretzel, 1810 Oil on wood panel, 11.75 x 13 inches (27.9 x 33 centimeters) Image by Eric W. Baumgartner, Hirschl & Adler Galleries, New York.60 | Vol 3 | 2018 | River ChroniclesPeale is recognized as the first American still-life painter and John Lewis Krimmel is celebrated for his early depictions of American genre scenes. These two artists provide a rare and colorful glimpse at the events and objects that were part of everyday life in the new republic.Raphaelle Peale was the eldest son of American portrait artist Charles Willson Peale.3 He learned to paint from his father, who is also remembered for establishing the first museum of natural history and art in Philadelphia in 1786.4 Raphaelle assisted his father by painting realistic habitats and preserving natural history specimens for the museum.5 This experience provided young Peale with opportunities to develop and refine the skills he would use later in his still-life paintings. In 1795, the year he turned 21, Raphaelle exhibited eight still-life compositions, along with his other paintings, at the Columbianum exhibition in Philadelphia.6 The painting shown here, Still Life of Fruit, Pitcher and Pretzel, is attributed to Raphaelle Peale and dated to 1810. Although this title does not appear among the still-life paintings Peale exhibited throughout his life, his entries were often recorded without detailed titles or descriptions.7 At first glance, a still-life painting might look like a haphazard display of fruit and old pottery; however, the artist consciously selects and purposely arranges the objects depicted. Beyond imitating objects, still-life paintings explore different textures, symbols, and themes.8 In Peale’s Still Life of Fruit, Pitcher and Pretzel, some viewers might only see a tasty treat waiting to be devoured on a brisk autumn evening—but this might be more than a warmly lit harvest scene. Looking more closely at the subject matter and the arrangement raises questions. Is this still life making a statement? Without obvious symbols like the American flag or eagle, does this painting hint at patriotism? Is the artist showing support for American manufactures? Peale appears to use the plain English creamware plate as the foundation on which he constructs this scene. The apples and pretzel can be read as fruits of labor and the results of a good harvest. The Philadelphia queensware pitcher is shown with the handle turned invitingly toward the viewer, while the spout points in the direction of the light—perhaps toward a bright future for this American endeavor. The realistic portrayal of the apples with their blemishes and the uneven salt on the pretzel help to authenticate the ceramic vessels in this scene. The artistry of the potter who created the pitcher comes shining through in Peale’s depiction. The straight, collared rim with jutting spout, the arch of the handle, rounded shoulder, and ribbed decoration are all characteristic of the archaeological examples recovered during the I-95 project. One small exception to this similarity is that a single raised rib runs along the outer edge on either side of the handle in the painting. The remnants of handles attached to queensware pitchers from the I-95 project have a pattern of narrow ribs (usually nine) running lengthwise over the outer surface. The handle style shown in Peale’s painting is in fact similar to handles from some of the queensware chamber pots recovered during the archaeological excavations. We do not know if Raphaelle Peale owned the pitcher shown in this painting, though he certainly had access to examples from the Columbian Pottery—some of the queensware Alexander Trotter made there was exhibited in Peale’s museum in 1808.9 John Lewis Krimmel illustrates Philadelphia queensware in his genre painting entitled Pepper-Pot: A Scene in the Philadelphia Market. Krimmel was born on May 30, 1786, in Ebingen, Württemberg, Germany, where he received his early education and eventually worked as a commercial clerk.10 In 1809, while working in England, Krimmel may have taken lessons in watercolor painting.11 By November 1809, Krimmel had immigrated to Philadelphia, where he worked in his brother’s business until the following spring, when he began to pursue a career as an artist.12 Pepper-Pot was one of four Krimmel paintings selected for exhibition at the newly established Academy of Arts in Philadelphia in 1811.13 Today, this painting is recognized as “the first oil painted by one of the earliest American genre painters.”14 As seen in this example, a genre painting documents scenes from everyday life, recording details of the people and the setting.15 Krimmel’s painting shows a female vendor in the Philadelphia market serving up pepper pot, a spicy soup made from tripe (cow’s stomach) and vegetables.16 Audrey Lewis, former curator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, described the soup as “unique to the city and invented by African Americans, pepper-pot combined African, Caribbean, and local flavors; it was an inexpensive meal that appealed to a diverse population.”17 Although this painting is full of interesting details, our discussion must be limited to examining the serving bowls. The shape of these vessels is a form similar to English ceramics of this period. The artist made no effort to imitate the pale cream or slight bluish tint of English imported ceramics. The bowl the kneeling woman holds in the foreground seems more refined than the red earthenware bowls many Philadelphia potters made. Krimmel adeptly displays a range of red and russet tones in articles of clothing, the brick market pillars, and the paving to effectively rule out the notion that these bowls represent redware. The two River Chronicles | Vol 3 | 2018 | 61bowls positioned on the wooden table beside the metal pot exhibit the distinctive straw yellow color of Philadelphia queensware. A close inspection of some of the examples in the painting shows a sharply defined foot that also suggests this more refined earthenware. The bowls in Krimmel’s painting match many of the characteristics of Philadelphia queensware. Bowls are also one of the more common queensware forms recovered from the excavations of several sites along I-95, the Red Rose Transit Site in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and the Smith-Maskell Site in Camden, New Jersey. The bowl shown here was recovered from the Remer Site on Shackamaxon Street and represents one of the first pieces of Philadelphia queensware recovered from the I-95 project excavations. By the time Krimmel captured this scene on canvas in 1811, bowls like these were available from the Columbian Pottery on South Street, Columbian’s warehouse at 66 North Second Street, and the Washington Pottery warehouse on High Street, near Schuylkill Sixth Street.18 But did people really use refined ceramics to serve and eat street food? We found an earlier image showing a street vendor using ceramic bowls in the print Woman Selling Salop from The Costume of Great Britain by William H. Pyne, published in 1805.19 Salop was a popular thick drink made from salop root. In the print, a woman is filling a large round cream-colored bowl (probably English creamware), while two customers can be seen holding similar light-colored vessels. Other aspects of this scene suggest Krimmel may have been familiar with the print and perhaps modeled his Pepper-Pot after it.At the time that Peale and Krimmel completed these paintings, Philadelphia queensware may have been so commonplace as to be easily identified by most people in the city. In the intervening 200 years, while these two artists have become better known, the brief success of the Philadelphia queensware industry has faded from view—until recently. It is gratifying to discover these pieces of locally made queensware depicted along with such Philadelphia staples as the soft pretzel, pepper pot soup, and street vendors.This Philadelphia queensware bowl with green decoration was recovered from the Remer Site on Shackamaxon Street during archaeological excavations along I-95. Photograph by Thomas J. Kutys, 2018.cm0502inch62 | Vol 3 | 2018 | River ChroniclesJohn Lewis Krimmel (American, 1786–1821) Pepper-Pot: A Scene in the Philadelphia Market, 1811 Oil on canvas, 19.5 x 15.5 inches (49.5 x 39.4 centimeters) Philadelphia Museum of Art, 125th Anniversary Acquisition Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Edward B. Leisenring Jr., 2001-196-1.Did you know that sturgeon were once a major part of the local Philadelphia fishing industry? This article will provide you with some insight into sturgeon as a fish, their prevalence in the I-95 project archaeological deposits, and how they were utilized in the local economy and diet. For a historic zooarchaeologist (animal bone expert), research questions are primarily derived from one of two angles: either from first looking at the historical record (written sources) and then turning to the faunal remains (animal bones) from archaeological sites to verify and/or contradict the historic literature; or by examining the animal bones from an archaeological site or sites and then further investigating interesting species or patterns that appear in the bones by looking at historic documents. In this case, an interest in discovering more about sturgeon in Philadelphia’s past came from identifying sturgeon bones in the I-95 faunal remains. Sturgeon in the I-95 Archaeological DepositsSturgeon scutes, the bony armor found on all sturgeon, were recovered from Sections 5 and 6 of the I-95 excavations. Both of these sections fall within an area of Kensington known as Fishtown, which got its name because many of the local Philadelphia fishermen lived there with their families. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that when fishermen caught sturgeon, they brought some of them home to their families to be prepared and eaten. Once eaten, the bones were often tossed in backyard trash pits, which AECOM archaeologists later excavated. In the nineteenth century, Fishtown was roughly bounded by Palmer Street, the Delaware River, the Aramingo Canal/Gunner’s Run, and Thompson Street. It was much smaller than what is called Fishtown today. Scutes were conspicuously absent from the excavated areas beyond historic Fishtown’s boundaries. The Rise and Fall of the Philadelphia64 | Vol 3 | 2018 | River ChroniclesBiological History of SturgeonSturgeon are among the oldest fish in the world. The family of fish sturgeon belongs to (Acipenseridae) dates back to the Cretaceous period, more than 120 million years ago.1 They can grow to almost 15 feet in length and weigh over 800 pounds, although a more standard range is 6–8 feet and less than 300 pounds.2 That is one very big fish! Because of their strange appearance and large size, they received the nickname “Franken-fish.”3 There is some dispute as to how the sturgeon got its name. Some say that the name comes from its great size, from the Teutonic word stuhr, meaning great. Others say that it is called sturgeon because, as a bottom feeder, it stirs up the mud as it swims.4 Still others claim that the fish got its name from the German verb stoeren, meaning to wallow in the mud.5 Sturgeon have a very long life cycle, spending part of their lives in salt water and part in freshwater. Juvenile fish stay in the brackish (slightly salty) river waters in which they hatched until roughly the age of six. Once mature, they swim upstream to spawn. Sturgeon may live to the ripe old age of 50 or 60 years old. They do not reach sexual maturity until somewhere in the range of 15–20 years of age, and continue to grow for as long as they live at a rate of roughly 5 inches per year. Females lay 800,000 to 3.75 million eggs in a single year, every two to six years. Due to the late sexual maturity of the sturgeon, once the fish became sought after as food—particularly for caviar—and therefore heavily fished, the population was rapidly decimated.6 There were and are two different species of sturgeon in the waters around Philadelphia—the Atlantic sturgeon or common sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) and the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Of the two species, Atlantic sturgeon were significantly larger; they were commonly about 10 feet in length. The females averaged around 350 pounds, while the males averaged around 65 pounds. The shortnose sturgeon grew to 3–4 feet in length. In the nineteenth century, when they were first fished in great quantities, the shortnose sturgeon was frequently mistaken for juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon historically could be found in all major river systems along the Atlantic coast between Florida and Canada, with the Delaware River—running right between Philadelphia and Camden, New Jersey—having the largest population.7 Uses for Sturgeon PartsWhen a sturgeon was caught, it could be put to a multitude of uses. There were three main methods of preserving sturgeon meat. Because the fish were often quite large, these preservation methods were necessary to ensure that they didn’t go to waste. The fish could be (1) cut into long pieces, salted, and then hung to dry in the sun; (2) cut crosswise into short pieces and pickled in small barrels; or (3) smoked.8 Sturgeon was typically prepared for sale at market by smoking. The flesh was cut into strips, pickled, and then hung on hooks over a slow fire of corn cobs, sawdust, or hardwood overnight. All of these methods keep and travel well, thus lengthening the saleable life of the sturgeon. The wives of sturgeon fishermen, who got the fish direct from the source, recommended two recipes for preparing sturgeon: one calls for cutting the flesh into slices and parboiling them to remove excess oil, then frying them in a thin batter; the second, cutting the meat into 2-inch-thick squares, boiling thoroughly, and then pickling for two days in spiced vinegar.9 These methods were not for commercial use, like the preservation techniques mentioned above, but were for home consumption and would have been applied on fresh fish.Sturgeon oil was used as a substitute for whale oil in lamps, for soap, and in margarine. Isinglass, which was made from the sturgeon swim bladder (the internal gas-filled organ found in most bony fish that allows them to control their buoyancy), was used in paint as a binding agent, as an adhesive, and was considered to be one of the finest animal glues available because it has no particular smell or taste. It produces a nearly pure gelatin and was used for thickening soups and sauces, making sweet and savory jellies, as well as for making beer and wine more transparent. Even the skin of the sturgeon could be tanned and made into leather. And, perhaps most famously, sturgeon eggs, or roe, are put through a salting process to become caviar.10 Sturgeon IndustryTeagan SchweitzerAcipenser sturio, watercolor illustration by Alexander Francis Lydon, in British fresh water fishes, 1879. Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acipenser_sturio_1879.jpg.River Chronicles | Vol 3 | 2018 | 65The Local Fish The abundance of sturgeon in Pennsylvania was recorded early on by William Penn. He wrote: Nor had the Creator been less mindful of the waters in that great country; for they were made to bring forth abundantly of fine fish of various kinds, especially the sturgeon, of which the great river was so full, that at no time could we look on it without seeing numbers of those great fishes leaping from it into the air, not without much fright to the natives, whose canoes they have many a time fallen into and overset.11 Here you see an example of the often described sturgeon habit to leap from the waters into boats, frequently frightening passengers.In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, sturgeon wasn’t a highly prized or sought-after fish in the Philadelphia area. It was easily affordable for lower income households and often served to servants and slaves. Sturgeon roe were considered worthless, except as bait for catching eels and perch or for feeding to the hogs.12 Shad fishermen, whose industry rose to its height prior to the sturgeon industry, looked at sturgeon as annoying interlopers getting caught in their nets and even breaking through the nets, causing them to lose their shad catch.13 A permanent sturgeon industry started to take hold along the Delaware River about 1830 near Bristol, Pennsylvania, and across the river at Bordentown, New Jersey. These early fisheries were not very profitable because sturgeon were initially being sold for anywhere from 12.5 to 30 cents each. Nevertheless, because of the proximity of Philadelphia and New York, there was a large enough foreign population and lower classes willing to eat sturgeon and allow the industry to stumble along. The practice of smoking sturgeon took hold in the 1850s, and people began to purchase it as a good substitute for smoked halibut, creating a more consistent demand for sturgeon. In addition, there was a growing “wagon trade,” in which peddlers would carry fish on carts outside the city into the countryside, where people were more likely to purchase it as a food otherwise unavailable to them.14 White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) grow to a monstrous size compared to Atlantic sturgeon, as seen in this photograph taken on the Columbia River in Oregon. NOAA’s Historic Fisheries Collection, Gulf of Maine Cod Project, NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries, courtesy of National Archives, http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/bigs/fish6946.jpg.A decline in the sturgeon population in Europe was a big impetus for the rise of the sturgeon industry in the United States, and particularly in the Philadelphia area. Starting in the mid-nineteenth century, Philadelphia fishermen recognized that sturgeon eggs, sold as caviar, could fetch a good price in the international and even local markets. Indeed, sturgeon would become so highly prized and sought after, that a single good catch of fish could provide a year’s worth of income for the fishermen. During the local spawning season, in May and June, hundreds—if not thousands—of people flocked to the fishing camps along the river. Sturgeon were sometimes caught by the thousands and the caviar was sold by the barrel.15 The increasing demand for caviar in European markets, especially Germany, spurred the growth of the sturgeon fishing business and was the reason it became so profitable. In 1888, the Delaware River and Bay fishery produced over 6.4 million pounds of sturgeon product. In the same year, a single caviar packer shipped a whopping 50 tons (that’s 100,000 pounds) to Europe. By 1896, sturgeon flesh reached as high as 12.5 cents per pound, where 15 years earlier, in 1881, it had barely reached one cent per pound. In 1882, female sturgeon were sold for $2 apiece at the wharf. By 1896, their standard price was $30–35 each.16 By 1894, the caviar sandwich had become so popular in the United States that the supply was barely able to keep up with the demand.17 In general, consumers preferred sturgeon from Russian or German sources. However, most of the caviar was being harvested in the Delaware Bay and River, including the Philadelphia area. Astonishingly, this led to the development of a trade in which sturgeon eggs were shipped to Russia and Germany, given Russian and German labels, and then shipped back to the United States.18 According to Robert Meehan, “It is stated on good authority that fully nine tenths of the alleged Russian caviar sold in the markets of the United States came originally from American sturgeon eggs, and a good proportion of the supply comes from the Delaware River.”19 The 1890s saw a steady decline in sturgeon catches across the United States. In the Delaware district, the average catch per net, for example, dropped from 60 fish in 1890 to less than 30 in 1896.20 Within just a few years, the sturgeon boom was over. The species’ population collapsed because of overfishing and pollution in the river. By the turn of the century, there were very few sturgeon left in the Delaware River. The industry managed to limp along until the 1920s or ’30s, after which it collapsed entirely.21 cm0502Atlantic sturgeon scutes recovered from the Fishtown neighborhood during the I-95 archaeological excavations. Photograph by Thomas J. Kutys, 2018. River Chronicles | Vol 3 | 2018 | 67The Play Place of Our Early Days1. John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, Being a Collection of Memoirs, Anecdotes, & Incidents of the City and Its Inhabitants from the Days of the Pilgrim Founders (Philadelphia and New York: E. L. Carey, A. Hart, and G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1830), 379. Watson’s Sketch George Cress and Samuel A. Pickard1. John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, Being a Collection of Memoirs, Anecdotes, & Incidents of the City and Its Inhabitants from the Days of the Pilgrim Founders (Philadelphia and New York: E. L. Carey, A. Hart, and G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1830), 379–381.2. Watson, Annals, 381–382; Harrold E. Gillingham, “Some Early Brickmakers of Philadelphia,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 53, no. 1 (1929): 10–12; Philadelphia County Deed Books F 8:202, F 9:168.3. Deborah Dependahl Waters, “Philadelphia’s Boswell: John Fanning Watson,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 98, no. 1 (1974): 4–5.4. Watson, Annals, 379.5. Yi2/1069 Watson’s Annals MS, p. 280, Print Department, Library Company of Philadelphia.6. Martin P. Snyder, “William L. Breton, Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia Artist,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 85, no. 2 (1961): 187–188; Waters, “Philadelphia’s Boswell,” 19–21.7. Watson, Annals, 735.8. H. F. Cary, ed., The Poetical Works of William Cowper (London: William Smith, 1839), 95–102.9. Watson, Annals, 381.10. Ibid.11. Ibid., 383; John Thomas Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1609–1884, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co., 1884), 999.12. Watson, Annals, 235, 379, 396; John W. Jordan, ed., Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania, vol. I (1911; repr., Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2004), 193, citations refer to the Genealogical Publishing Co. reprint; Philadelphia County Deed Book F 9:168; Clement Biddle, comp., The Philadelphia Directory (Philadelphia: Clement Biddle, 1791), 113.13. Jennie Holliman, American Sports, 1785–1835 (Durham, NC: The Seeman Press, 1931; repr., Mansfield Center, CT: Martino Publishing, 2003), 165–166, citations refer to the Martino Publishing reprint; Watson, Annals, 380. The Archaeological Excavation of Pegg’s Run Daniel B. Eichinger III1. John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, Being a Collection of Memoirs, Anecdotes, & Incidents of the City and Its Inhabitants from the Days of the Pilgrim Founders (Philadelphia and New York: E. L. Carey, A. Hart, and G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1830), 379.2. Watson, Annals, 383; John Thomas Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1609–1884, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co., 1884), 1000.3. James Robinson, Philadelphia Directory for 1809 (Philadelphia: James Robinson, 1809), unpaginated, William Burr; Jane Aitken, Census Directory for 1811 (Philadelphia: Jane Aitken), 150, Elizabeth Hill; Philadelphia County Deed Books EF 8:74 and EF 10:674.The Geomorphology of the Pegg’s Run North Site Elisabeth A. LaVigne1. The Bulletin of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Volume I (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Thompson, 1848), 121.2. John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, Being a Collection of Memoirs, Anecdotes, & Incidents of the City and Its Inhabitants from the Days of the Pilgrim Founders (Philadelphia and New York: E. L. Carey, A. Hart, and G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1830), 379.3. History Making Productions, “Fix Pegg’s Run, Northern Liberties residents pleaded,” Philadelphia Inquirer, August 29, 2013, accessed March 1, 2018, http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/TODAY-IN-PHILADELPHIA-HISTORY/Fix-Peggs-Run-Northern-Liberties-residents-pleaded.html.4. Watson, Annals, 379–385. 5. Ibid., 379.6. Ibid.7. Yi2/1069 Watson’s Annals MS, p. 280, Print Department, Library Company of Philadelphia.8. Watson, Annals, 380.9. Ibid., 381.10. Ibid.Endnotes, Citations, & References68 | Vol 3 | 2018 | River ChroniclesBottles to Bankruptcy Samuel A. Pickard and Thomas J. Kutys1. To read more about Dr. Dyott and the Dyottville Glass Works in Kensington, see River Chronicles 2 (2017), http://riverchronicles.com/journal-02-final-dig/.2. Helen McKearin, Bottles, Flasks and Dr. Dyott (New York: Crown Publishers, 1970), 39, 42; Helen McKearin and Kenneth M. Wilson, American Bottles & Flasks and Their Ancestry (New York: Crown Publishers, 1978), 239.3. Bill Lockhart, Beau Schriever, Pete Schulz, Bill Lindsey, and Carol Serr, “Other ‘E’ Marks,” in Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s Marks on Glass Containers, D–E (Germantown, MD: Society for Historical Archaeology, 2013) 322–324, accessed August 2017, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/EOther.pdf.4. “Pennsylvania, Philadelphia City Death Certificates, 1803–1915,” entry for Wm. R. Claridge, March 30, 1893, FamilySearch database accessed August 2017, https://www.familysearch.org; 1850 United States Federal Census, entry for Wm. R. Claridge, 5th Ward, Kensington District, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017, http://www.ancestry.com; 1860 United States Federal Census, entry for William Eldridge [Claridge], Northeast Division, 18th Ward, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017; 1870 United States Federal Census, entry for Wm. R. Claridge, 2nd enumeration, District 53, 18th Ward, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017; 1880 United States Federal Census, entry for Wm. R. Claridge, Enumeration District 337, 18th Ward, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017; “Pennsylvania, Compiled Marriage Records, 1700–1821,” entries for Philip Claridge and Hannah Santloe, April 26, 1795, Christ Church, Philadelphia, 1709–1806, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017; “Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Naturalization Records, 1789–1880,” entry for Philip Claridge, September 22, 1804, Court of Common Pleas, Comment 16253, Ancestry.com database accessed August 2017; note that in the 1850, 1860, and 1870 federal censuses, William claimed to have been born in 1817.5. James Robinson, The Philadelphia Directory, for 1810 (Philadelphia: James Robinson, 1810), 60, Philip I. Claridge; James Robinson, The Philadelphia Directory, for 1816 (Philadelphia: James Robinson, 1816), unpaginated, Philip I. Claridge; James Robinson, Robinson’s Original Annual Directory for 1817 (Philadelphia: James Robinson, 1817), 111, Philip I. Claridge; Robert DeSilver, DeSilver’s Philadelphia Directory and Stranger’s Guide, 1829 (Philadelphia: Robert DeSilver, 1829), 33, P J Claridge; “Leghorns,” advertisement, Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], May 2, 1822, 3; “To The Afflicted,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian [Philadelphia], March 15, 1833, 4; “Communication. Magna est Veritas,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, May 9, 1833, 4; “The Celebrated Depurating Syrup,” advertisement, Commercial Intelligencer and Literary and Political Journal [Philadelphia], May 12, 1834, 3.6. A. McElroy, A. M’Elroy’s Philadelphia Directory, for 1837 (Philadelphia: A. McElroy, 1837), 37, William R. Claridge; ibid. 1839, 43, William R. Claridge; “The Celebrated Depurating Syrup,” advertisement, Commercial Intelligencer and Literary and Political Journal, May 12, 1834, 3; “To The Afflicted,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, July 24, 1834, 1; “Caution,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, October 28, 1834, 3; “To The Afflicted,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, January 2, 1835, 4; “Claridge Compound Syrup of Parilin,” advertisement, West Jersey Observer [Bridgeton, New Jersey], October 17, 1835, 3; “Claridge’s Compound Syrup of Buckthorn,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, January 19, 1836, 3; “The Peruvian Extract,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, March 31, 1836, 4; “Claridge’s Depurating Syrup,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, June 16, 1836, 7; “Claridge’s Compound Syrup of Parilline or Sarsaparilla,” advertisement, Pennsylvanian, May 10, 1837, 4; “Copartnership,” advertisement, Public Ledger [Philadelphia], February 14, 1838, 3; Joseph W. England, ed., The First Century of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, 1821–1921 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, 1922), 56, 107.7. “Ten Thousand Cases,” advertisement, Public Ledger, March 5, 1839, 3; “Claridge’s Depurating Syrup,” advertisement, Public Ledger, April 8, 1839, 3; “Died,” death notice for Philip J. Claridge, Public Ledger, July 15, 1839, 2; “Syrup of Buckthorn, Compound,” advertisement, Public Ledger, February 6, 1840, 3; McElroy, A. M’Elroy’s Philadelphia Directory, for 1837, 130, Wallace Lippincott; ibid. 1839, 149, Wallace Lippincott; ibid. 1840, 43, William R. Claridge, 118, T. I. Hotchkiss, 147, Wallace Lippincott; River Chronicles | Vol 3 | 2018 | 69Next >