CHAPTER XIV

Chapter 148,190 wordsPublic domain

EARLY AMERICAN ARCHITECTS AND THEIR RESOURCES

Who lived in our old houses and what manner of men they were, we fortunately know. At any rate it is an easy matter to find out. Who planned and built those houses we do not, as a rule, know nor will the most careful search and enquiry always bring to light even the name of the architect or, if they do succeed in doing so much, the information gained is generally so meagre that it does but whet the appetite for more. However, regardless of what we may or may not be able to learn of the designer of this or that house or public building, we shall be quite safe in attributing the design of early American structures to the agency of one or the other of three classes of men. This triple division consisted, first, of amateur architects; second, of carpenter architects and, last of all, of professional architects. In this grouping, the professional architect is given the last place because he was least frequently represented. The first and second classes were by far the most numerous and some of our best eighteenth century buildings, houses, churches and other public structures alike, are the results of collaboration between them.

We shall not be far wrong in ascribing seventeenth century buildings, almost without exception, to the capable and resourceful craftsman who not only preserved conscientiously the traditions he had learned as an apprentice or journeyman in the Mother Country and faithfully perpetuated them by his practice as a master carpenter or joiner in a new land but also showed himself possessed of ready wit and keen perceptive faculties by the alacrity with which he modified and adapted traditional methods and precedents to new conditions and requirements of climate and environment. So far as he could consistently do so, he held by preference to tradition in plan, methods of construction and choice of materials. When necessity or common sense, however, dictated a departure from established usage he was quick enough to follow the promptings of expediency and devise satisfactory substitutes for the deficiencies of past practice. Hence were originated local types without any conscious attempt on the part of the agents to be original.

The methods followed by the seventeenth century American builder showed a close relationship with the practices of mediæval joiners and masons. Furthermore, these early workmen showed an all-round mastery of their own craft, an intelligent understanding of related crafts and a thorough knowledge of the properties and uses of materials that their modern successors would do well to emulate. They respected their calling and took a proper pride in the excellence of their craftsmanship. Hence the work of their hands, however plain and simple, still possesses a dignity and honest beauty that plainly proclaim how they put their hearts into what they were doing and, at the same time, command our reverence and admiration. The old buildings have lasted so well and assumed such an atmosphere of grace because the artisans acted upon the principle that what was worth doing at all was worth doing well and set much store by honest workmanship instead of regarding their occupation as a job to be got through with at a maximum of wage for a minimum of time spent in labour. They got the best out of their materials because they knew and respected the peculiar qualities of their materials. Whether English or Dutch, Welsh or Swedish, the handiwork of these seventeenth century builders, wholly without pretence as it was, expressed faithfully the aggregate of the contemporary phases of the domestic architecture in the countries whence they came and also evidences both the beginnings and development of our own several vernacular manifestations, all of which, to a certain degree, were obscured and discounted by the expansion and increasing popularity of eighteenth century Georgian modes. To the carpenter-architects of the seventeenth century we owe a great debt of gratitude for their faithful preservation of time-honoured tradition in plan and manner of building so that we may easily trace our architectural lineage, for the intrinsic excellence of the structures they erected and the lessons they can still teach us in craftsmanship but, most of all, for the honesty and sincerity of the vernacular forms they developed, forms created by ready ingenuity in response to local needs and void of all pretence and hollow affectation. These forms, one and all, are full of vitality. Their very fitness for the conditions they were designed to meet in the neighbourhoods where they were evolved and the successful event of their application to modern demands for characteristic and informal domestic architecture drive home the extent of our present debt to the forgotten and nameless architect-carpenters of a by-gone generation.

With the dawn of the eighteenth century it becomes easier to connect buildings and the names and personalities of those that designed them. When we are not able to say with certainty that such a structure was designed by such a man, we know, at least, that there were then living in the different cities men of acknowledged architectural attainments, that their work is to be seen in this house or that church as a matter of indubitable record and that there is a strong presumption that their influence is to be traced in the design of houses or public edifices where there is no documentary evidence to support attribution to an individual architect.

One of the earliest personalities known to us in a distinctly architectural connexion is James Portius “whom William Penn induced to come to his new city to ‘design and execute his Proprietary buildings.’” He was “among the most active of the Carpenters’ Company and, at his death, in 1736, gave his choice collection of architectural works to his fellow members, thus laying the foundation of their present valuable library.” This Carpenters’ Company of Philadelphia was the organisation that, at a later date, erected its gild house, known as Carpenters’ Hall, where the Continental Congress for a time held its sessions. It is still in an excellent state of preservation and still houses the collection alluded to. The skill of the resident artisans of early Philadelphia was of no mean order, as their handiwork amply attests to-day, and, in 1724, the master carpenters of the city “composed a gild large and prosperous enough to be patterned after ‘The Worshipful Company of Carpenters of London,’” an organisation founded in 1477. Unfortunately we cannot with certainty ascribe any buildings now standing to the plans of James Portius. We can only make conjectures. It is highly probable that Penn’s house, which originally stood in Letitia Court until its removal to a site in Fairmount Park, was designed and erected by the Proprietary’s architect. The Manor House at Pennsbury was also, in all likelihood, designed by him or at least carried out under his superintendence. It is a source of never ending regret that it was allowed to fall into a state of utter decay and was then demolished. Had it been preserved, we should now have an invaluable addition to the architectural treasures of our country and an interesting commentary upon the work of one of the earliest architects known to have practised his profession in the Colonies.

It is most important to remember that some considerable degree of architectural knowledge or, at the very least, some substantial cultivation of architectural taste and discrimination seems to have been considered an indispensable part of every gentleman’s education in the eighteenth century. Consequently it is not surprising to find that some of our native amateur architects possessed knowledge and ability by no means contemptible. Architectural appreciation was favoured by the fact that not a few of the sons of the wealthy and well-to-do were sent to England to complete their education and usually spent some time afterwards in travel on the Continent. Such broadening influences naturally tended to stimulate and aid the development of architectural taste and, as a certain amount of dexterity in drawing was highly esteemed and practised as a polite masculine accomplishment, a considerable number of men were fitted, to a far greater degree than the majority of so-called well educated people nowadays, to translate their architectural preferences into a form sufficiently intelligible for the master-carpenter to work from in putting an idea into a tangible shape.

It is not to be inferred from the foregoing that a large number of men of substance and leisure for the cultivation of polite accomplishments were capable of producing a set of measured drawings, such as professional architects prepare, to turn over to a contractor for execution. They were not. But the division of functions was altogether different. The client, as he would now be termed, showed a more intelligent and constructive appreciation of architectural principles in a proportionately larger number of cases than he does at the present day. He formed a definite conception of what he wished and was capable of conveying his desires lucidly by means of drawings or rough sketches to the head workman charged with the actual task of construction. As the average client was better informed and thought more clearly upon matters architectural than the client of later times, so, on the other hand, the master-carpenter of the eighteenth century was infinitely more capable than the average artisan of like rank to-day. He was not only a skilled master-mechanic, competent to translate rough draughts and sketches into carefully prepared working drawings, but he was also a person of some architectural education and taste and endowed with a nice perception and valuation of architectural merits and proprieties. He was materially aided in his work by a number of valuable and explicit architectural books with measured drawings of whose assistance he did not hesitate freely to avail himself. Furthermore, he still retained a sympathetic respect for his materials and a conscientious appreciation of worthy craftsmanship, inherited by tradition from his mediæval predecessors and wholly apart from modern commercialism. Pride in his calling impelled him to the closest personal supervision and painstaking interest. He would be content with nothing short of the best.

The amateur architects were no mere dabbling dilettanti, flirting with a polite and amiable penchant for architectural amenities. The best of them, and those that left the most impressive memorials of their talent and skill, were, as we shall presently see, busy men of large affairs and serious interests. They, as well as the master-carpenters, were thoroughly conversant with the best architectural books of the period and often had a fair showing of them on the shelves of their own libraries. More than one of them left standing orders with their London booksellers to send them, upon publication, such volumes as were most worth while. Another factor of their fitness is also to be reckoned. It was not unusual for them to possess training and experience as surveyors. Indeed, it was almost imperatively necessary for large landowners to have a knowledge of surveying in order to look properly after their interests. This training gave them an insight into the practice of making accurate measurements and draughting and the effect of such practical and exact education was not without its weight when they addressed themselves to designing buildings.

One of the most striking and eminent figures among the eighteenth century amateur architects was the Honourable Andrew Hamilton, “the day-star of the American Revolution,” as Gouverneur Morris styled him, sometime Attorney-General of the Province of Pennsylvania, Provincial Councillor, Speaker of the Provincial Assembly from 1729 and for a number of successive years afterward and, above all, illustrious jurist and pleader, whose defence of Peter Zenger, the New York printer, in 1735, redounded to his fame both in England and throughout the Colonies. He was a man of exceptional and varied attainments, of catholic cultivation and outlook and endowed with remarkable elegancy of taste. Amid all the distractions and pressing concerns of an exacting legal and public career and the many demands involved in the successful management of a large private estate, he nevertheless found time to devote a good measure of attention to architectural diversions and left an enduring monument to his talents in that direction in the State House in Philadelphia.

The history of the plan for the State House is peculiarly interesting for the light it sheds on contemporary conditions. Determined to erect the State House, a committee of three was appointed by the Assembly, in 1729, to procure suitable plans. Two members of this committee prepared plans for the new building, namely Andrew Hamilton and Dr. John Kearsley, to whom further reference will be made in a following paragraph. Dr. Kearsley, it is true, had achieved considerable reputation as an architect by the plans that he had devised for Christ Church, but Hamilton was not supposed to have any aptitude in that direction. He was a lawyer, much occupied in the public business of the Province. It seems, however, that he had mastered some architectural knowledge while in London where, like so many other illustrious lawyers of the Middle and Southern Colonies, he received his training in the Inns of Court. Being a man of remarkable and sterling ability, combining with his wide versatility and breadth of view a fund of initiative and force, he generally pushed to a successful completion any matter to which he addressed himself. His plan, a rough draught on parchment, which is still to be seen in the collection of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, was submitted to the Assembly and chosen. For assurance of the excellence and soundness of his judgment, one has only to turn their eyes to the fabric of the State House.

In the construction of public edifices, the trials and tribulations of the eighteenth century architects could well compare with the difficulties encountered in some instances by their twentieth century successors. Work on the State House was indeed begun and vigorously pushed forward by Hamilton so far as he was able, but there were all sorts of obstructions to be surmounted and drawbacks and hindrances to be set aside. There were grumbles and growls from influential people who were either wholly opposed to the undertaking or else dissatisfied with the site. There were hostile criticisms of the plan adopted, there were strikes among the workmen, there was, at times, a lack of competent labour, there were wranglings about the necessary funds to pay the costs--everything, in short, combined to retard progress and Judge Hamilton died in 1741 before his plans were fully executed. Although the date of the erection of the State House is given as 1733--the greatest portion of it was built then--its completion, as just stated, was not achieved till eight years later.

Another amateur architect of the period, deserving of mention, was Joseph Brown who was born in Providence in 1733 and died there in 1785. After acquiring a comfortable fortune in a manufacturing business, he devoted himself to the pursuits towards which his tastes for science inclined him. He was particularly interested in electricity and had a comprehensive knowledge of the subject; he was likewise proficient in mechanics and astronomy and held a professorship in Brown University, of which institution he was also a trustee. Of his ability in the architectural field, the First Baptist Church in Providence, erected in 1775, and various houses bear witness.

John Smibert, whose name we always associate with early New England portraiture, also extended his activities into the realm of architecture and designed Faneuil Hall whose evidence is a sufficient guarantee of his skill. John Greene, of Providence, Captain Isaac Damon, of Northampton, and many more might readily be added to a list that is dignified by the great names of Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington is said to have designed Pohick Church, Virginia, of which parish he was a vestryman. It is certain, at any rate, that he was deeply interested in the supervision of its erection as he also was in the erection of Christ Church, Alexandria, where he was likewise a vestryman. His architectural taste is still further to be seen in the fabric of Mount Vernon. In this connexion it ought to be borne in mind how lively an interest he manifested in the laying-out of the Federal City and the planning of its public buildings according to a worthy and comprehensive scheme. Jefferson’s skill as an architect is evidenced in Monticello and in the buildings of the University of Virginia which are chiefly, if not altogether, attributable to him as their designer.

Dr. John Kearsley and Dr. William Thornton were two busy and intensely active eighteenth century physicians who found time to acquit themselves most creditably in the field of architectural endeavour as well as to do their full share in the discharge of sundry public duties which their fellow citizens entrusted to them. Dr. Kearsley, arriving in Philadelphia in 1711, soon built up an extensive practice and, at the same time, undertook the instruction of a younger generation of medical men whom he is said to have enrolled as apprentices for a seven years’ term of tutelage, a relation that the “apprentice” students apparently found “both onerous and exacting, as it seemed to include the duties of a servant, coachman, messenger-boy, prescription clerk, nurse and assistant surgeon.” Apart from his labours as a physician, he was engaged in civic and Provincial activities of the first order and long occupied a seat in the Assembly of the Province. As an architect, he is entitled to the highest praise for the masterly and surpassingly beautiful design of Christ Church, erected from his plans in 1727, and inspired to some extent, so it appears, by Saint Martin-in-the-Fields, in London.

Dr. William Thornton is to be remembered as the designer of the first Capitol at Washington whose erection he likewise superintended. When Latrobe restored the building, after its partial demolition by the British troops in the War of 1812, he adhered very largely to Dr. Thornton’s plan. During a long residence in Philadelphia, he took an active part in public affairs, was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society and designed the old Philadelphia Library, which was completed in 1790. Many houses are also to be ascribed to Dr. Thornton’s agency. His connexion with the federal buildings necessitated his removal to Washington where he continued to live for the remainder of his life, occupying a position as first head of the Patent Office.

Interesting as it might be to prolong this biographical chronicle of amateur architects of the eighteenth century, it is necessary to pass on to a consideration of the carpenter-architect. Samuel Rhoads, sometime Mayor of Philadelphia, the designer of the Pennsylvania Hospital, a structure of which any architect in any century might well feel proud, occupies a middle ground between the amateur and the carpenter-architect and his history throws valuable light on conditions affecting the methods and practice of both. According to the Quaker theory that every boy should be brought up to a trade, no matter what calling he might afterward intend to pursue, Rhoads “became a carpenter and builder, though he did not confine his attention exclusively to this business, but appears to have branched out into mercantile adventures, speculations in real estate” and the like. “He was an early member of The Carpenters’ Company of Philadelphia, and from 1780 until his decease” was its master. He was exceedingly public-spirited and took an active part in all enterprises for civic betterment. For a number of years he sat in the Provincial Assembly where he served on numerous important committees and was chosen one of the Pennsylvania delegates to the First Continental Congress. A contemporary writer, in describing the members of that body, said of him that “he was a respectable merchant of Philadelphia, belonging to the Society of Friends--without the talent of speaking in public, he possessed much acuteness of mind, his judgment was sound, and his practical information extensive.” In October, 1774, he became Mayor of Philadelphia. When Benjamin Franklin reorganised the American Philosophical Society, in 1743, Rhoads was one of the officers and for several years served as one of the vice-presidents.

From the foregoing memoranda it may be seen what manner of man Samuel Rhoads was and in what esteem he was held by his fellow-citizens. But what chiefly concerns our present purpose is his connexion, in the capacity of “carpenter and builder”, with the designing of an exceptionally fine piece of eighteenth century architecture. When the Assembly of Pennsylvania, in 1751, passed an act founding the Pennsylvania Hospital, he was elected a manager by the contributors and continued on the board for thirty successive years. Ground was secured and “this purchase being made, a complete plan of the buildings was directed to be so prepared that a part might be erected, which could be occupied the ensuing season. [1755.] Samuel Rhoads, one of the managers, was very zealous in the work and, after consulting the physicians in regard to the situation of the cells and other conveniences, he presented a design of the whole building, in such form that one third might first alone be erected with tolerable symmetry. After due consideration,” the plan was adopted and, not many years afterward, the whole design of this carpenter-architect became an accomplished fact to the lasting satisfaction of succeeding generations.

One of the worthiest of the carpenter-architects was Asher Benjamin of Massachusetts. Although his work was almost wholly domestic and many of his commissions would nowadays be classified as “unimportant”, he nevertheless exerted a markedly beneficial influence upon the architecture of his day, an influence for which we have reason to be grateful. He seems to have begun his career as a carpenter in Greenfield, Deerfield and neighbouring Massachusetts towns. While working in Greenfield, he published “The Country Builder’s Assistant”, 1796, a book of “simple and practical” scope, containing much suggestive and useful material. Afterwards, removing to Boston, he published, partly in collaboration with one D. Raynerd, and partly by himself, several architectural works of a more ambitious nature. The trade of carpenter-architect and builder was likewise creditably represented by numerous other eighteenth century mechanics in New England and the other parts of the country who, although they did not essay to publish technical books, were nevertheless far more than mere commercial-minded artisans perfunctrily “doing the jobs” appointed them and they achieved the commissions they were entrusted with in a manner to merit the praise and emulation of modern designers. Nor may we forget the earlier carpenter-architects of the seventeenth century who created standards of excellence as a precedent for their successors of the eighteenth century. Chief among them must be named John Allis of Braintree, born in 1642, who both designed and executed many houses and churches in Massachusetts in the latter part of the seventeenth century; likewise, due acknowledgment must be made to John Elderkin, a contemporary of Allis, who left a deep and beneficial impress upon the architecture of southeastern Connecticut.

It is exceedingly difficult to draw a sharp line of distinction between the carpenter-architects and the earliest representatives of the professionally trained architects whose occupation consisted mainly in designing buildings and supervising their erection. During the greater part of the eighteenth century, the many able amateur architects and the capacity of the carpenter-architects to translate and embody acceptably in tangible form the conceptions supplied by their employers would naturally militate against the success of a numerous class of men whose sole occupation was to design and supervise. It is not at all improbable, therefore, that some of the men, whom we should be disposed to regard as the early representatives of the professional architect class, judging from the importance and visible evidence of the structures attributed to them, played the rôle of contractors as well for the erection of the buildings they designed, even though they did not share in the manual labour. We know, for example, that Richard Munday first appears in active career as the partner of one Wyatt in a building or contracting business. His capacity, however, shown by the Town House or State House in Newport, built from his plans in 1743, entitles him to a high rank among early American architects.

While some of the early professional architects--the term is not altogether felicitous but seems necessary for the sake of differentiating them from the other two classes--were doubtless self-trained to a great degree, a few appear to have had instruction in England under competent masters. Notable among them was Peter Harrison, the architect of the Market or City Hall of Newport, built in 1760, who was sometime an assistant to Sir John Vanbrugh and is said to have been a pupil of James Gibbs. McBean, the designer of St. Paul’s Chapel of Trinity Parish, New York, erected in 1764, is also thought by some to have been a pupil of Gibbs, although there seems to be no trustworthy base for such a supposition.

Charles Bulfinch, so deservedly revered in Boston and other New England cities for the graceful and enduring memorials of his skill there to be seen on every hand, will always occupy an exalted position among our early American architects. Probably no one man ever left a stronger impress upon the architecture of the community in which he lived. His influence in Boston and the vicinity is quite comparable to the influence of Sir Christopher Wren upon the appearance of London and we can readily understand this when we remember that during a half century of practice he designed in the neighbourhood of forty churches, libraries, theatres and other public structures in New England, besides his contributions to domestic work. A discussion of the characteristics of his individual style is to be found in Chapter X of this volume. Suffice it here to say that he represented and upheld all the best traditions and ideals that enter into the making of a worthy architect’s career. He was fortunate in his environment and made the utmost use of his opportunities. Born in Boston, in 1763, the son of Dr. Thomas Bulfinch, an eminent physician, he was educated in the city of his birth, graduating from Harvard in 1781. He afterwards travelled in Europe, pursuing, as he went, the study of architecture. This course he was well calculated to profit by to the fullest extent from naturally keen powers of observation and discriminating taste. In 1786 he returned to Boston and thereafter devoted himself to the practice of his profession. As elsewhere noted, the old Boston Library, the first Boston theatre, (1793), and the State House on Beacon Hill were among his early contributions of importance to architecture in his own city but the scope of his professional activities was not confined to Boston or New England for, in 1817, he was called to be supervising architect for the rebuilding of the national Capitol in Washington and retained that post until its completion in 1830. As one of the fathers of American architecture, Charles Bulfinch will always stand in a preeminently honourable place.

Another of the “fathers of architecture in the United States” was Benjamin Latrobe, a man of extraordinary mental endowments, an accomplished linguist and scholar, an eminent engineer and architect, a gallant soldier and a typical gentleman of the old school with all the best that such a designation implies. Born in 1767, the son of an English Moravian clergyman in Yorkshire, he was educated in England and achieved a promising position in his profession, being at one time Surveyor of Public Offices of the City of London. In 1796, on the eve of his coming to America, he was offered the post of a Crown Surveyor at the annual salary of £1000 but, fortunately for American architecture, he preferred to migrate. During the course of his professional career, he carried many important engineering projects to a successful issue and executed many notable architectural commissions. In this connexion he is perhaps best known as the designer of the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Baltimore, the Bank of the United States in Philadelphia and by his work upon the Capitol building at Washington which he was called upon in 1803 to complete and which James Madison, in 1815, asked him to rebuild after its partial demolition by the British troops in the War of 1812. His pupil William Strickland of Philadelphia, by structures of his own designing which included the old Maritime Exchange, the old Mint and the Philadelphia Naval Asylum, buildings full of substantial dignity and grace, paid a fitting tribute to Latrobe’s mastership and inspiration.

In the honourable roll of early American architects we must also remember Major L’Enfant who so ably laid out the plan for the City of Washington; James Hoban, whose Dublin training and youthful familiarity with the best of English and Irish Georgian work peculiarly fitted him for success in his treatment of the old State House at Charleston, South Carolina, and the White House in Washington; John McComb, among whose best known works are the City Hall of New York and St. John’s Chapel, Varick street, and many more designers whose names and individual achievements one would gladly recall did space permit. The reader, however, notwithstanding the lack of further specific reference, cannot fail to recognise from the memoranda already set forth how worthy has been our architectural past, how able were the men to whom we are indebted for it, how they worked and how fit are the examples they have left for our study and emulation.

INDEX

Adam, Brothers, 111, 152, 170; creations, 179; elegance, 176; influence, 105, 111, 119, 146, 151, 175; mantel, 148, 149; mode, 179; _motifs_, 153; oval, 148; phase, 168, 170; school, 173; type, 164.

Adams, John, 123, 189.

Alexandria, Va., 159, 221.

Allis, John, 269.

Alterations, 39.

American Philosophical Society, 266.

André, Major, 200.

Annapolis, Md., 203, 209.

Anne Arundel Co., Md., 96, 162, 163.

Architect, carpenter, 252, 255; early American, 252 _et seq._

Architectural, books, 135; continuity, 42; evolution, 42.

_Architectural Record_, 35.

Architecture, Colonial, definition of, 7, 8; Georgian, definition of, 7, 8.

Armorial bearings, 211.

Arnold, Benedict, 93, 141.

“Bait,” horses, 77.

Bake House, Salem, Mass., 53, 54, 55.

Bala, Pa., 69.

Baltimore, Md., 273.

Baluster spindles, 110, 165.

Balustrade, 185.

Barge-board, 73.

Bartram house, 244.

Bartram, John, 132, 133, 151.

Beacon Hill, Boston, 177.

Bedchamber, 91; groundfloor, 94, 96.

Beds, truckle or trundle, 45; “let down,” 45.

Bells, church, 216.

Belmont, Fairmount Park, Phila., 134, 244.

Belvoir, Anne Arundel Co., Md., 162.

Benjamin, Asher, 268.

Bergen County, N.J., 15.

Berkeley, Governour, 87, 91.

Bermuda, 86.

Bethlehem, Pa., 76.

Beverley, 95.

Bond, 238; Dutch cross, 238; English, 238; Flemish, 137, 186, 221, 222, 223, 225, 238; Liverpool, 238; running, 238.

Boston, Mass., 52, 54, 209, 271; Library, 272; Massacre, 190; State House at, 177.

Boyd, John, T. Jr., 35.

Braintree, Mass., 269.

Brick, 23, 88, 137, 219, 221, 223, 225, 233; building regulations, 84; Dutch, 86, 241, 242; English, 86, 239, 240; imported, 240; making in Virginia, 84, 85; New Haven Colony, 240; prices of, in Virginia, 86; use of, in Virginia, 87.

Bricklayers, 83.

Brickwork, 185, 196.

Brown, Joseph, 263.

Brown University, 263.

Bruce, Philip, 94.

Bruton Parish Church, Williamsburg, Va., 209, 220.

Bulfinch, Charles, 105, 111, 174, 175, 176, 201, 271, 272; influence of, 271; Statehouse, 191.

Bulfinch, Dr. Thomas, 272.

Burials, 211.

Byfield, Mass., 107.

Byrd, 94.

Byrd, William, 157.

Byrd, Col. William, 158, 159.

Capital, 188, 227; carved, 106; Corinthian, 234; Ionic, 244.

“Captains’ walks,” 2.

Carolina. See SOUTH CAROLINA.

Carpenter, architect, 179.

Carpenters’ Company of London. See WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF CARPENTERS.

Carpenters’ Company of Phila., 256, 266.

Carpenters’ Hall, Phila., 202, 256.

Carpentry, books on, 135.

Carter, Robert, 208, 221.

Carters’ Grove, Va., 162, 163.

Casement, leaded, 53.

Cathedral, Baltimore, Md., 273.

Catskills, 19.

Cedar Grove, Harrogate, Phila., 134.

Cedar Park, Anne Arundel Co., Md., 96, 98.

Cellar, 88.

Chamberlayne, Major Thomas, 88, 91.

Chambers, Sir William, 146, 148, 152.

Chandler, Joseph Everett, 52, 190.

Charleston, S.C., 230.

Chesapeake Bay, 96.

Chester, Pa., 195.

Chew, Chief Justice, 93, 123, 124, 143.

Chimney, 20, 87, 144, 247, 248; breast, 146; brick, 88; brick and stone, 89; central, 49; clay, 52; exterior Southern, 89; exterior New England, 89; offsets, 89; outside, 80, 89; pieces continued, 148; quadruple, 142; sloped weatherings, 89; stone, 49.

Chippendale, Treatise on, 146.

Christ Church, Alexandria, Va., 159, 221, 223, 224, 264; Lancaster Co., Va., 208, 221, 222; Philadelphia, Pa., 119, 125, 186, 210, 211, 216, 226, 227, 229, 230, 262.

Church, bells, 216; city, 209; “Court”, 209; Colonial period, 205 _et seq._

Church of England, 207.

Cipriani, 147.

City Hall, Newport, R.I., 192; New York, 274.

Clapboard, 23, 246, 247; casing, 50; first use of, 50; tradition, grafting of, 103; in gable ends, 28.

Classic, element, 99; formality, 101; Revival, 11, 12, 105, 111, 112, 115, 116, 165, 166, 169, 170, 171, 173-175, 177-180, 191, 201, 203, 235.

Classicism, 101, 169, 171, 173; Renaissance, 128; revived, 203.

Climate, 252; influence of, on architecture, 80.

Climatic conditions, 237.

Cliveden, Germantown, Phila., 93, 124, 143, 144, 150, 152, 244.

Clothing, 214.

Clouston, Treatise on Chippendale, 146.

Coffee houses, 196; London, Phila., 196, 197; Bradford’s, Phila., 196, 197.

Colonial architecture, definition of, 7, 8.

Colour, contrasting, 202; of interior paint, 149; Dutch 36.

Column, 178; Corinthian, 172.

Congress Hall, Phila., 189.

Connecticut, 49, 269.

Cooper River, S.C., 96.

Cornice, 72, 108, 138, 233.

Coultas, Col. James, 139, 141.

“Country Builder’s Assistant”, 268, 269.

Country seats, 132.

Court House, Phila., 193, 194.

Craftsmanship, methods of, 80.

Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., 24, 29, 243.

Croton River, 118.

Custom House, Salem, Mass., 192.

Dale, Sir Thomas, 86.

Damon, Capt. Isaac, 264.

Danish strain, 79.

Declaration of Independence, 183, 186.

Deerfield, Mass., 107, 268.

DeLancey, 116.

Delaware, 4, 8, 74, 161, 195; County, Pa., 61; Georgian, 120, 121.

Door, 138, 143; batten, 30; divided, 30; Dutch, 30; house, 92, 96, 97.

Doorway, 140, 163, 169, 185; Dutch, 35; elaborate, 106; plain, 106; round arched, 109.

Dormer, 76; sharp peaked, 89; long, 89.

Drinker, Elizabeth, 196.

Dummer house, Byfield, Mass., 107, 108.

Dutch, brick, 86; Colonial type, 12 _et seq._, 29, 31, 115; Colonial tradition, 115; houses, characteristics of, 24 _et seq._; houses in New Jersey and Long Island, 28; of Hudson Valley, 21; settlers on Delaware, 58.

“E” Plan, 48.

Earle, Alice Morse, 45, 210, 214.

Eaton, Governour Theophilus, 47; house, 47; inventory, 47.

Eaves, 27, 96, 138, 139; flaring, 27.

Economic conditions and architecture, 101.

Eggleston, Edward, 9, 39.

Eggleston George Cary, 239.

Elderkin, John, 269.

Ellsworth, Oliver, 189.

Embury, Aymar, 28.

Empire, style, 12.

England, 100.

English, brick, 86; spoken in America, 78.

Entablature, 108.

Entry, New England, 92.

Environment, 252.

Ephrata, Pa., 76.

Episcopalians, 125.

Esopus River, N.Y., 19.

Essex County, N.J., 15.

Fairfax County, Va., 221.

Fair Hill, Phila., 134.

Fairmount Park, Phila., 131, 141, 257.

Faneuil Hall, Boston, 183, 189, 190, 264.

Fan light, 142, 145.

Farm, buildings, 161; houses, brick, 74; houses, Dutch, 21.

Fatland, Montgomery Co., Pa., 151.

Field stone, 69.

Fireplace, 138, 146, 151; Dutch, 34.

First Baptist, Providence, R.I., 263, 264.

Fitzhugh, William, 83, 91.

Flemish, bond, 137, 186, 221, 222, 225, 233; scroll, 110, 186.

Forbes, General, 211.

Fort Nassau, N.J., 58.

Framing, 245.

Fraunce’s Tavern, N. Y. City, 116, 117, 192.

French, influence of, 166.

French Revolution, 12.

Frieze, 108.

Gable, 89, 139, 143, 163.

Galleting, 244.

Gallery, 209, 224, 225, 229, 230.

Gambrel, 97; roof, 25, 26, 27, 75; Southern, 90.

Gardens, Philadelphia, 128.

Georgian, architecture, definition of, 7, 8; American phase, 154; buildings, 220; churches, 221; churches of N. Y., 231; influence, 10; local adaptations, 102, 103; Middle Colonies types, 146, 188; mode, beginning, 102; mode, character of, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114; New England, 157; period, 120; Philadelphia, 128, 129, 130, 154; Southern, 156; Southern, character of, 162; tradition, 190, 228; types, 149.

German, principalities, 100; sects, 207.

Germans, 60; character of settlers, 63; influence of, 71, 72; as farmers, 65, 66; settlers, 62, 63; Pennsylvania, 74.

Germantown, Phila., 63, 148; Road, 71; stone, 143.

Gibbon, Grinling, 110.

Gibbs, James, 119, 148, 230, 271.

Glass, 249.

Gloria Dei, Phila., 224.

Gloucester Point, N.J., 58.

Graeme Park, Horsham, Pa., 69, 93, 106, 126, 135-138, 146, 149, 188.

Grange, the, Montgomery Co., Pa., 134.

Greek Revival, _v._ Classic Revival, 165.

Greene, John, 264.

Greenfield, Mass., 268.

Green Spring, Va., 87, 91.

Grosvenor Road, Westminster, London, 106.

Grumblethorpe, Germantown, Phila., 134.

Gunston Hall, Va., 162.

Hadley, Mass., 107.

Half-timber, 85; methods, 51.

Hall, 91, 92, 138, 140; central, 96; great, 92.

Hamilton, Honourable Andrew, 134, 260, 262.

Hamilton, William, 145.

Harrison, Peter, 192, 271.

Harriton, Bryn Mawr, Pa., 69.

Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., 191, 272.

Hatfield, Mass., 107.

Haverford, Pa., 61.

Hayward, Nicholas, 83.

Hempstead, L.I., 16.

Henrico, Va., 86, 88, 91.

Henry VIII, 101.

Highlands, the, Whitemarsh Valley, Pa., 134, 144, 148, 150-152.

Hingham, Mass., 232, 234.

Hoban, James, 177, 274.

Hoffmann house, Kingston-on-Hudson, N.Y., 25.

Holland, 16, 22, 100, 148.

Hood, overdoor, 70.

Hope Lodge, Whitemarsh Valley, Pa., 69, 93, 106, 135, 137, 188.

Horsham, Pa., 93, 126, 135.

Hospital, Pennsylvania, Phila., 201.

House, bedchambers in early New England, 44; character of early New England, 44; Dutch Colonial, 28, 32, 33; plan of early New England, 50; sleeping arrangements in early New England, 45.

House of Burgesses, Va., 209.

House of Seven Gables, Salem, Mass., 53-55.

Howe, Lord, 200.

Hudson, Hendrick, 58.

Hudson River, 2, 16; Valley of, 15, 22, 115.

Hurley, N.Y., 16, 17, 19; cheeses, 18.

Independence Hall _v._ State House, Phila., 183.

Indian trails, 65.

Inn yards, 195.

Irving, Washington, 21.

James River, Va., 162.

Jamestown, Va., 86, 87, 205, 206, 207, 209, 218.

Jay, John, 189.

Jefferson, Thomas, 159, 160, 164, 177, 203, 264.

Johnson, Norton, 145.

Joinery, 52.

Jones, Inigo, 101, 128.

Jumel Mansion, New York, 118, 119.

Kearsley, Dr. John, 134, 227, 261, 264, 265.

“Keeping-room”, 47.

Keith, Sir William, 93, 106, 126, 135.

Kemp, Secretary, 86.

Kenmore, Va., 160.

Kent, 148.

Kentucky, 77.

Keyblock, 109.

King’s Chapel, Boston, Mass., 213, 214, 233, 234.

King’s College, N.Y., 192.

Kingsessing, Phila., 139, 244.

Kingston-on-Hudson, N.Y., 16, 25.

Kitchen, early New England, 45, 46; detached, 93, 139, 162.

Lambert, Edward E., 48.

Language, vitality of old forms, 78.

Latrobe, Benjamin, 177, 265, 273.

Lean-to, 49; additions, 47.

Lee house, Marblehead, Mass., 103, 109.

L’Enfant, Major, 174, 177.

“Lie-on-your-stomach” windows, 30.

Logan, James, 93.

Log-cabin, 43.

London, 83, 151, 271; fashions 102, 155.

London Coffee House, Philadelphia, 196, 197.

Long Island, N.Y., 15, 22.

Loyalists, 167, 212.

Macphaedris-Warner House, Portsmouth, N.H., 107, 108.

Macpherson, Captain John, 93, 141.

Madison, James, 273.

Manor House, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., 24, 29, 243.

Mantels, 98.

Marble, Pennsylvania, 185, 186; Scotch, 138.

Marblehead, Mass., 54, 103, 109.

Maritime Exchange, Phila., 274.

Maryland, 3, 4, 8, 75, 77, 96, 162, 163, 207.

Masonry, 226; English and Welsh traditions, 68, 243; Phila., 243; rubble, 243.

Masques, 186; grotesque, 118.

Massachusetts, 49, 107, 214, 232, 268, 269.

Materials, 23, 83-85, 103, 127, 236; choice of, 252.

McBean, 271.

McComb, John, 177, 274.

McIntire, Samuel, 105, 111, 176, 235.

Medford, Mass., 103.

Mediæval, characteristics, 42; survivals, 54, 100.

Meeting house, New England, 231; Old Ship, Hingham, Mass., 232, 234; Old South, Boston, 232; Quaker, 207, 230.

Merion, Pa., 61; Lower, 69.

Mey, Captain Cornelius, 58.

Middle Colonies, 11, 22; architectural diversity, 66; church architecture, 230; churches, 207; clannishness and isolation, 58; diversity in nationality and speech, 57; early types, 57, 80; Georgian forms, 120, 127, 184; roads, 65; trading, 64.

Montgomery Co., Pa., 61.

Monticello, Va., 161, 164, 165, 264.

Moore Hall, Chester Co., Pa., 212.

Moore, Judge, of Moore Hall, 212.

Moravians, 76; buildings, 63, 64; churches, 231.

Morris, Anthony, 145.

Mortar, 28, 245.

Mouldings, 108, 151, 222; Dutch, 36; profiles, 144, 152, 153.

Mount Pleasant, Phila., 93, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151, 264.

Mount Vernon, Va., 264.

Mulberry Castle, S.C., 97, 98.

Munday, Richard, 192, 270.

Music, New England, 216.

Nassau, Fort, N.J., 58.

Naval Asylum, Philadelphia, 274.

Netherfield, Phila., 134.

New England, 4, 5, 10, 77, 88; Colonial type, 38; Georgian, 99, 103, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112; survivals of Queen Anne influence, 102.

New Hampshire, 107.

New Haven, Conn., 47.

New Jersey, 8, 16, 74, 120 _et seq._

New Kent Co., Va., 218, 219.

New Netherlands, 16, 17, 20, 21.

Newport, R.I., City Hall, 271; State House, 270.

New York City, 114, 209, 230; City Hall, 274; of Colonial Days, 193.

New York, Georgian, 113.

New York State, 8.

Nieuw Dorp, N.Y., 19.

Northampton, Mass., 264.

North Church, Boston, 234.

Old Dominion, 84, 218.

Old Ship Meeting House, 234.

Old South Meeting House, Boston, Mass., 232.

Old State House, Boston, Mass., 119.

Old Swedes Church, Philadelphia, Pa., 224.

Old York Road, Pa., 135.

Overhang, 54, 55; in South, 90; in New England, 90.

Overmantel, 108, 110, 141, 146, 147, 151, 188; decorations, 153, 155.

Oxford, Pa., 224.

Paint, 249, 250; colour of in XVIIIth century, 149, 150.

Palladian window, 109, 142, 144, 150, 185.

Panel, bevel flush, 141; overmantel, 141; 34, 98, 108, 119, 138, 147, 250, 251.

Park Street Church, Boston, Mass., 235.

Parlour, 92, 141.

“Parson Williams’s” house, Deerfield Mass., 107.

Pediment, 97, 140, 142, 143, 164, 188, 222; segmental, 108; Swan’s neck, 108.

Pencoyd, Bala, Pa., 69.

Penn, John, 211.

Penn, William, 59, 61, 135, 211, 256, 257.

Pennsbury Manor House, Bucks, Pa., 257.

Pennsylvania, 3, 8, 74, 76, 77, 93, 106, 161, 195, 243; Colonial types, 67-76; gardens, 133; Georgian, 107; Georgian characteristics, 121, 152-155; Georgian houses, 120, 127, 130-152.

Pennsylvania Historical Society, 262.

Pennsylvania Hospital, 266, 267.

Penthouse, 28, 70, 139, 196.

Peters, Judge, 244.

Pews, 210, 211, 212, 213, 232; family, 208; Royal Governours’, 210.

Philadelphia, Pa., 3, 58, 93, 177, 209, 210, 271; commercial prosperity, 130; Colonial metropolis, 121; Country houses, 122; fox-hunting, 122; Georgian types, 128-155; life, 122; “Republican Court”, 125; seat of national government, 189; XVIIIth Century architects of, 134.

Philadelphia Library, 135, 266.

Philadelphia Naval Home, 274.

Philipse house, near Tarrytown, N.Y., 116.

Philipse Manor House, Yonkers, N.Y., 117.

Pilaster, 63, 106, 111, 138, 169; Ionic, 145, 148.

Pillar, 111, 145, 164, 201; attenuation of, 176; Tuscan, 229.

Pine Street Market, Phila., 194.

Plan, balanced, 99.

Pohick Church, Va., 159, 221-224, 264.

“Pokes” of tobacco, 77.

Pompeian refinements, 111.

Porch, origin of, 28, 29.

Portico, 145, 150, 164, 172, 201, 223.

Portius, James, 135, 256, 257.

Portsmouth, N.H., 107.

Post-Colonial types, 166-181.

Powel house, Phila., 124.

Precedent, English, 88.

Preferences, hereditary, 80, 83.

Presbyterians, 125.

Providence, R.I., First Baptist Church, 263, 264.

Public buildings, 182-204.

Pugging, 52, 246.

Quaker, 60; hostility to theatre, 200; influence, 122; predilections, 106; scruples, 107.

Queen Anne, 101, 107, 116; New England affinities, 107; Middle Colonies Georgian affinities, 152; tradition, 75; urns, 152.

Queen Anne’s Gate, Westminster, London, 106.

Quoin, 24, 219, 223; brick, 141.

Radnor, Pa., 61, 212, 224, 225.

Raynerd, D., 269.

Renaissance, 100, 170, 173; classicism, 128; feeling, 220.

Restorations, 52, 53, 190.

Revere, Paul, house of, Boston, 54; household, 44, 45.

Rhoads, Samuel, 266-268.

Rhode Island, 49.

Roof, 76, 87, 89, 119, 139, 140, 143, 224, 226, 230; gambrel, 25, 26, 75, 138; Dutch gambrel, 26; New England gambrel, 26; hip, 142, 186, 232, 234; hipped gambrel, 97, 138; jerkin-head, 196, 197; mansard, 97; pitch, 88, 96, 97.

Rosicrucians, 63.

Roughcast, 244.

Royall house, Medford, Mass., 103, 107.

Rubble, 23.

Rutledge, John, 189.

Saint Anne’s, Annapolis, Md., 209.

Saint David’s, Radnor, Pa., 69, 212, 213, 224-226.

Saint John’s Chapel, Varick St., N.Y., 274.

Saint Luke’s, Smithfield, Va., 218, 219.

Saint Martin’s-in-the-Fields, London, 227.

Saint Michael’s, Charleston, S.C., 230.

Saint Paul’s Chapel, N.Y., 230, 271.

Saint Peters, New Kent Co., Va., 218, 219; Phila., 228-230.

Salem, Mass., 176, 192.

Saxon, strain of, 79.

Schuyler house, Albany, N.Y., 118.

Schuylkill River, 58, 131.

Scroll, 147; Flemish, 110, 186; Ionic, 132.

Seating, in churches, 209, 210, 211.

Servants’ quarters, 92, 93, 139, 143.

Seventh Day Baptists, 76.

Shingles, 247; cypress, 88.

Shutters, Dutch, 36.

Skippack Creek, Pa., 63.

“Slawbank,” 45.

Smibert, John, 264.

Smith, Capt. John, 205.

Smithfield, Va., 218.

“Soaked” bread, 77.

Society of Friends, 122, 154.

South Carolina, 8, 96, 164, 274.

Southern Colonial, 162; characteristics, 79; house plan, 90, 91, 92; house surroundings, 94, 95; type, 77, 96; type, brick houses, 96; type, plan, 87; type, materials, 85.

Southern Georgian, 156, 159; characteristics, 162; peculiarities, 161.

Southern planters, 157.

Southwark, Phila., 199, 200.

Staircase, 110; winding, 49.

Stairway, 139, 140, 226; Dutch Colonial, 33.

State House, Annapolis, Md., 203; Bulfinch, Boston, Mass., 189, 191, 272; Charleston, S.C., 274; Newport, R.I., 192, 270; Old, Boston, Mass., 183, 189, 190; Philadelphia, Pa. (Independence Hall), 119, 183, 184, 186, 189, 198, 261, 262, 263.

Stenton, Phila., 93, 106, 137, 138, 149, 163, 188.

Stone, 23, 152; cut, 127; dressed, 23, 127; field, 243; quarried, 243.

Stonework, 244; Welsh, 226.

Stratton house, Va., 91.

Strickland, William, 177, 273.

String course, 72.

Stucco, 23, 24, 91, 244, 245.

Stuyvesant, Peter, 17.

Sweden, 100.

Swedes, character of, 59; settlements of, 58, 59, 65; influence of, in Pennsylvania, 59.

Textures, of Walls, 236.

Theatre, first Philadelphia, 199, 200; American Company, 200; first, Boston, 272; “New,” Phila., 201.

Thornton, Dr. William, 177, 264, 265, 266.

Thoroughgood, Adam, house, 88, 89.

Torus, 108.

Town Hall, Chester, Pa., 195; Newcastle, Del., 195.

Tradition, force of, 39; half-timber, 52; identity of, 40; persistence of architectural, 42, 78, 79; preservation of, 252; Southern, 84.

Transom, 75, 138; small light, 106.

Trappe Meeting House, Pa., 231.

Trims, brick, 140; door and window, 24, 141, 149; wood, 237.

Trinity Church, Newport, R.I., 234; Oxford, Pa., 224, 226.

Trinity Parish, N. Y. City, 271.

Tuckahoe, Va., 162, 163.

Tulip Hill, West River, Md., 163.

Tympanum, countersunk, 108.

Upsala, Germantown, Phila., 144, 145, 148, 150, 152.

Urn, 140, 144, 152.

Ury House, Fox Chase, Phila., 134.

Vanbrugh, Sir John, 192, 271.

Van Cortlandt, 116; Park, N. Y. City, 118; Manor House, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., 118; house, N. Y. City, 119.

Van Rensselaer house, 118.

Varick Street, N. Y. City, 274.

Vaux Hill, Montgomery Co., Pa., 151.

Virginia, 3, 4, 8, 75, 77; brick-making and export, 85, 86; churches, 220; church architecture, 218; Economic Hist, of in XVIIIth cent., 94; families, 81; flowers and bushes imported, 94; manner of life in early, 82, 83; settlers’ characteristics, 82; social distinctions, 82; University of, 203, 264.

Wainscot, 138.

Wales, 100.

Walls, 75, 139; texture of, 152.

Warder, diary of Anne, 123.

Ware, 148.

Washington, city of 274; capitol at, 177.

Washington, George, 159, 200, 221, 264, 272; equipage of, 125; leave-taking of army, 116; second inauguration, 189.

“Wattle and dab,” 52.

Wayne, Anthony, 213.

Wayne Isaac, 213.

Waynesborough, Paoli, Pa., 69.

Welsh, architectural peculiarities, 68; as immigrants, 60, 61; influence of, 61, 62; masonry, 67, 68.

Welsh Barony, Pa., 61, 67, 213.

Wemyss, Lady Williamina, of Moore Hall, Pa., 212.

Westminster, London, 107.

Westover, Va., 157.

West River, Md., 163.

Whitby Hall, Kingsessing, Phila., 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 152.

White House, Washington, 274.

Whitemarsh Valley, Pa., 93, 135, 148.

William and Mary, 101.

Williamsburg, Va., 209, 220.

Wilton, 147.

Window, 143, 233; basement, 141; casing, 108; church, 221, 230; circular, 163; diamond-paned, 48; dormer, 72, 142; double hung sash, 53; early forms of, 108; elliptical, 222; glazing, 91; heads, 137; “lie-on-your-stomach,” 30; leaded, 249; Palladian, 109, 142, 144, 150, 185, 223, 228, 229; treatment of, 145.

Wissahickon Creek, Phila., 63.

Woodlands, Phila., 133, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151.

Woodwork, 127, 138, 141, 163, 188, 228.

Workmen, 83.

Worshipful Company of Carpenters, London, 135, 257.

Wren, Sir Christopher, 101, 129, 221, 228, 272; feeling, 230.

Wren, James, 221.

Wyatt, Governour, 84.

Wyck, Germantown, Phila., 71, 72, 73, 245.

Wynnestay, Phila., 67, 68, 69, 72, 73.

Yonkers, N.Y., 116.

York County, Va., 91.

FOOTNOTE:

[A] It should be plainly stated that Mr. Chandler, in the course of his investigations and restorations, feels that he has discovered no evidence sufficiently convincing to warrant an assertion, _positive beyond all peradventure_, that clapboards were applied to the oldest houses at a date subsequent to their original construction and as a remedy for the structural shortcomings of half-timber methods when subjected to the rigours of the New England climate. Clapboards, it is true, were used at a very early date and may, perhaps, have been employed from the first as a coating over an underlying half-timber base. Of one thing, however, there can be no question--the existence of half-timber construction beneath the clapboards in many of the oldest buildings. In view of this assured fact and the early settlers’ habitual fidelity to traditional practices, it seems a not unwarrantable presumption that half-timber work antedated the use of clapboards by some years until the poor quality of the pugging and the warping of unseasoned timbers compelled the adoption of some satisfactory remedy.