ST. AUGUSTINE HISTORICAL RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION COMMISSION
P. O. Box 484 46 St. George St.
ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA
NOTESs On Documentary History of 39 St. George Street.
A careful, documented study effectively supplementing
Arnade with the deeds and 1702-1709 Salazar locations.
1. Quotations and statements are often not documented. Since this is a
controversial house, this is mobt important. See penciled
on margins of text: "Doc?'
Suggest document in footnotes, rather than in text if possible.
Footnotes could be grouped at end.
I suspect most of missing document. is from Zscrituras?
2. Mention should be made of the "Blanco" appraisal, by Cotilla (see
Arnades Architecture of Spanish St. Augustine, p. 175) which
is probably Antonia Avero's, since Blanco's other house
(Puente # ) is auch too small. Comparisons made by Dunkle
with the outlines of the house on Monorief and Rooque are
reasonable. Additional comparisons are needed with Quesdda
appraisal and present building, after archeology. That Cotilla
appraised this house is stated by Antonio Avero (p. 7).
3. No mention of Monorief (which gives English owner). Important because
it confirms the large U-shaped house shown on Rooque as being
of first Spanish, not British original More description, from
the maps, would be helpful.
4. Quesada appraisal (p. 4) very similar to "1803" "Tax List" appraisal,
ubt spar variances. Are these variances of translation, or are
the two lists slightly different, or did Miss Spofford confuse
the tu ?
%. P. 8, lines U-7, This gratuitous statement casts unnecessary doubt,
since the house seems much the same in 1765 and 1789 (Monorief
and Rocque). The evidence that the 179$ walls are the sam is
better than the lack of evidence thdai hey are not.
(There is some evidence of continuity in the arches, which are
appraised in Quesada, and exist today.)
The "walls fallUi down" were more than likely part of the
rear wing, and this may be the tiea (1795-1804) when part
disappeared. (There are still important flat roofed wings
or extra buildings in 1816.)
However, the 1816 appraisal should be compared more carefully.
Woodwork and windows have been renewed, but there are still
flat roofs. I would expect them to have been replaced by
new gable or hip roofs in 1816, unless earlier flat roofs had
On Doeumentary History of 39 St.
George Street Page two
remained, at least in the main section. However, the "Gallery"
is eoupled with the kitchen, which is unlikely to be in the
main heuss. Some of the flat roofed wing ma well have sur-
vived. The main heuse is 15 x 5 varaa, front and bask, 6 x 5
varas on each side -* the approximte diamaionm of the present
house and the front section of the Resque heuse. The "dining
room and entry on the seut", as well as the "gallery and
kitchen" ae apprised separately. Square footage of rats and
floors need to be compared with diamsione derived from walls,
and athe pared with existing hoese and arheology of wing.
6. Distinguish between ArIad refe reaes
Architecture of Ceoonial St. Auguetine
A vero Story (needs more credit as first basic study of boae).
7. Relationship of AOI 58-1-28/66 Aug. 13, 1709 to
AQI 54.-5-U/85 June 28, 1682
8. Page 16. I agree coat of amns should be removed, but in a dooquentary
analysis it would be better rely they have no validity.
9. I dissent from the last two paragraphs as weakening the careful step-
by-step documentation of p. 1-15. The article sormtimes seems
to try too hard to prove that the preset atruature cannot be
the a 1720, or 1763, or 1789 building. This oanneo be dene
frcim the deoae ts assembled here the evidence is inconclusive.
If anything it weighs more in the apposite direction. Until
archeology is dens, and the building itself carefully examined
and compared with the appraisals (sonm of the latter an. be
done now) we eanmt make such statements. In architectural
history p aper dosments are only half the dooeuastation.
10. May I suggest a substitute for the last two paragrapha a follow a
'Prior to detailed examination of the existing walls on the
site, and areheelogy in and around the hemse itself, it is
difficult to state with surety the continuity of the oa 1720,
1763, 1789, 1795, 1816, and present atra tures. Obviously the
present building is only the main section of a ones larger
building as it appears in these docnamnts. All woodwork and
roofs are clearly of the 19th Century or later, a is true of
almost all historic houses in the city.
On Doouamntagry history of 39 St.
George Street Page thra
.1. -ent:ia shouAd be mXad. of hbmas#80 (Geronoaie Josef do NIta Salasar)
since it was thie that Laause eontlased with th preset lot sad
Wilding. OAr laborious land cheeks ade map studies are
available as pr~o that it is 81 and mot 80. We haue further
eam vated the adjaaent lot T& Hits site) ad lhatsed the
Penate-Mmorief two reo owa story tabwy house whioh Private
df Hita had there, but hikh was certainly palleddown by the
british, with neigborlag tabby buildings, as inadequate.
(Also there are the added walls of a larger building, probab
del Caiat'es) The rwur that Fraser plamd the area to destroy
awy areheologieal evidaose emanot tharefere be uatotaiated.
12. There is no mention aof its use as a miaCrean Chapel, which reoaw
nwmroAs times ia the Esorituras and Census of the 1780'9. This
was certainly a temporary use, when the house seemed to be
ouaed by as one, and the Aver. elaii, and de Rits wide eoeupancy
obviously terminated it. (Sew ',. P. aLwreul faor Father camps'
statement of Nov. 9, 1777, and Consus of 1783s Iwie, Capeo,
aeek, Oregal Bserituras SaOnhes et al.