Two things should be kept in mind when reading this:
1. The directory compilers were human and often made mistakes with the names, though in those days of non-standardized spelling and considerable illiteracy they may not have been considered mistakes. The situation was compounded by typesetters reading the compilers' notes by the light of a window or candle and then setting the type-- which had to be done backwards for the finished product to read forwards. For example, there is considerable evidence that the well-known silversmith Philip Syng, Jr., lived on Arch Street between Front and 2nd Streets; MacPherson got that right but somehow got his name down in print as Philip Lyng. I have attempted to overcome this and reconcile the two directories' listings. I have been as careful as I could be, double-checking line by line, not to make it worse by mistakes of my own. Nevertheless, these listings should be taken as evidence-- not proof. I have eliminated some extraneous things that don't accord with modern usage, so that "Chesnut-street" became "Chestnut Street," and I standardized spelling of some non-proper nouns, like "cabinetmaker."
2. The directories do not line up perfectly, for several reasons. One was geographical scope. Francis White, with an eye toward expedience and practicality, included very few who lived outside the city limits, which until the city and county were consolidated in 1854 (making Philadelphia its present size) were South Street to Vine Street, south to north, and the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, east to west. White did include some who lived on Market as far west as between 12th and 13th Streets, but very few actually lived in the city to the west of there except such people as ferry keepers. It may have been for this reason that John MacPherson only went as far west as 10th Street. Conversely, MacPherson did include many who lived in Southwark and Northern Liberties (as their names suggest, the suburbs immediately adjoining the city to the south and north, respectively); this north-south focus of his was more in line with the actual geography of the city as occupied. Another reason for disharmony between the two directories was systematic; MacPherson included at least one person for each address where the door was answered, but gave the profession only of subscribers to his directory (which, interestingly, included Francis White, though as White ran what he called an "intelligence office," perhaps this is not so surprising). White gave almost everyone's profession that he listed, including such poor folk as laborers, but listed curiously few people on each block compared to MacPherson. White may have charged a small enough sum that laborers could afford it simply to be listed (not to receive a copy of the finished work) but which some thought not worth it. No one knows for certain; until now very little work has been done on the directories and their makers. Finally, sometimes surnames on a given block line up but the first name does not; since several people would have lived at any one address, it may simply be that the compiler put down the name of whoever came to the door. For example, the Richardson brothers, silversmiths Joseph Jr. and Nathaniel, were working on Front Street between Market and Arch in 1785, but MacPherson records only a "Widow Richardson" there-- almost certainly the widow of silversmith Joseph Richardson, Sr., who had died in 1784. For most listings, research into other records-- of marriages, for example-- may help clarify this.
It will be apparent from some perusal of the listings that I have taken MacPherson as the more accurate of the two; his systematic method and more comprehensive scope, as well as White's admitted hurry to get his work to the press, resulting in an incomplete alphabetization, convince me that any errors in location are likely to have been White's. As with the conclusions I draw about which listings should be associated with one another, this should be not be taken as definitive. My goal has been to present the data and analyze it, not to make statements of proof or sweeping generalizations.
To be systematic, I have in all cases proceeded east to west and south to north, except in the following list of links to east-west streets, which appear in the order they normally do on a map. I add them as I complete them.
the Northern Liberties:
The city of Philadelphia:
A street which cannot really be categorized as north-south or east-west is Dock Street. Dock Street ran beside (and beginning apparently in the 1780s, over) Dock Creek, which ran from the Delaware River between Spruce and Walnut in a meandering fashion more-or-less northwest. The street follows its course, and ends at a point in 3rd Street between Walnut and Chestnut, playing havoc with William Penn's orderly grid-patterned layout of the city. Why was it not built over after it was covered over in the late 18th century? Almost certainly, because it was the physical boundary of many individual people's property lots adjoining Dock Street; large-scale construction as we know it today did not exist back then except for public projects like the State House (Independence Hall), which was built on a piece of land then at the edge of the city and thus not already heavily built-upon like the land near Dock Street. The Merchant's Exchange (built in the early 1830s) stands at the upper end of Dock Street, as an example of that kind of large-scale building, but until the middle of the 20th century most buildings on Dock seem to have followed the 18th century plots, more or less.
Southwark:
18th century Philadelphia alleys, courts, lanes, etc.
North-south streets that continue north and/or south of the city:
The Waterfront
Return to the main page.