eisieiwieteiiyer sta perste tote re thietv gs bedtay ie deus bebe ts NW tki4 tea lis fete i: as pots 9 ve NHAURAAA AAA Witiod Mead iy toe nee ss ia aoe anenes Orrterersprrrtiveverrrest STTTILELA TA EREA PaRE ELTA TL TK Tt TIQLERGE Witritiestirsverieiritercrtes SEL rerevetye arse TE Terese eiavenatetarteyetetereteternregagspetetenersanacretcteregnrepernterat trate 585273) Eytan EaagaaadaEAzICaR Lata TATA Tagan etes ' SE ee EE Ae tesa rata tititei ded tt tet PRIA iT apt eset HHPMAHEL HEHE OHH tn HOME ntr ann ntt Saat HE Stee nage SETS SEES fereneeeate er eeeTeRrEEaE i itt HER IR ane tani tet tists i) babies Bhs Het on peter sreerrery Sei bpepeeeerer rdhy Sem eS IECEtRaCeTAEAORREN SMR SETEE TPO eeeitelititileditatne telah Hit PUG eaan See it: aaa i Ring oitidgeginttrt edt tint etitetstitetiat thiaeatitis shit Hat bhi th St iis Bunt aerer atm ped Eatity aati sada pis ” rittereteiatayep at 344 * rece 1 } baliaasaiaid ihad is +e HH SP SRSRELSH TTS enanERnSESSU TRE puead tag i IANn Hr ati si Ri i ii Its esWae TTS HTS EIE ite nS HE airy petit ttt bpeteaiarats beh ekthey HET EERE uRUT EERE Hyatt ; pitt tsi ue ihe Srp rarerereeee yapetels ayer Hhnnhtin sities teat bait rete | i 4 Tiere + Fersesest ela eda pat ages wrertiersirrs Hime tits it Hivbrsestst batt etic tating tita tlt HH Hite ft GH te ' pie it Yaaemroesrenteserrpeeneeteenroeres oe ET TH Ha i t Ht : ‘ crema IDRIS an eC PTRUATRRSRSU RPE RERTE oat tee phat AR GET My i i : ah ¢ 7” H : + | | +.) | itt Ly) 44 st ‘ share * rege + | Beaty: t +H id “ tH pd ’ tt} i ae Th eg LL ao ae He ae He i : hs i Ba et TH FR eT Tee LEE : aB4 1 wit RTE HG i GEESE Har ities ta i} fe & be stat sheteesises $ meststersbseetsteesrotsticaeets tidy ik BABE thr Hi i eeditisiey rid) 13) t ed ei aa aa Ana aR A ae ade $e | hee patsy unt hhh: i i iets } WH + reer iheegh itt ot ty ia} ity 43 Wh Hy if ht tit tty ios it Tee aR TEE ESRaea SEER ERG aE ence RE TESTA Ree on ia Hi Hee Ca sti a i He ch : tf thet bebe stra isest st eartt eitiaitysy rapaeeiettieieeey a + te H ha iets 4 ets rieishd ce Hanae Hit ae i Hy ee Reaamgseeterersisy sues THe ce it titi ntte it a nH SPR ReNreeeSebHT aH iene enced en tty HARE Hi it He cua an HHL, CRT RE ee it tee H Mute ttt ti Peis bara a Hau itu i ih i Ht H ii) | a iit ay rater ith PP Hitt if itt Lina tt Ht at iit reat SaaSaseresueeete th CAESAREA SERRATE gg POPE crataeaR tee ceceaneenas regen tHeRtpeseene Tey Hohempeaeirtstitig iterate teh tees eh Agger eesti brashevneaucartanu testy atheuh tptnehceeebe ban te Rarireteatt : HELE: pete itt hy Ths ibstsases shee t abs Hist i) ie pity rigicis) i it , ratte j he it} Eetrt itt i Be HET atte ite Hi re dioh Jaane Cie HR RRR ER reat He fp SE ath tan ettiiitn Veen. Be AID RR bier n te tite th 4 i t a ee abit ite tinge isa t tt tity i tail : Lsieh ‘ pane | rt! eo th i tf Ms ‘ities ‘ tH ' nih ‘ | Li I t H ia srt os Ys ate ; i i i Berscreseseseeneeseitt rite RAGE PaME SA ee teay op cent ae q ahs { iiiett hh a ‘ Hi * 7 th u th i Seah arti ia it Ht Ht Hil fr t ci, a Hrueit bith i Ha an eet i ea abit ie tht Hi Speers att itt t i firth Spite ett HN EE, ne sis it Ht ibaa ii Rett iapieeitatentenar bab gists serantt etitititi tie iit miisiteeioeen isthe esas sieestet at it 4 i4 bi * 2 vay + * preveaneeeesrtetst tH i mbar i sieeatiitE siitetetstt ih pegiteneaeaatnet it rit eet ttt etre acintiatt tarot nL i ty i ita sit UR BE it ts i itt i ut sete Hateibitibaeh pe satstit ae Ht | ia fa aH Ee etneah th dn a : i ‘ii : at aot itt ra HH He 445 sega y ie reais + ier ¥ nehibi bittadesees re ‘ i) fe SEH ae rie eistet Sirti aeteidias pss: 4 i eheitigtsatetigigs dH: ih a t:* eye etete $85 is o— =~ = ina oa! SS ie ies leaeaetrs SPtsses5a-5 gests reesg is epee fitetere rss sg34 rts ria ase Poe te ees me bom Sten ae bbw ame ae She ha mine we tiecrie liste iasedes — Say — t st + ait ty + : ifs 4 $i ; Ht bere] eisesttt fsiet reetesdeeti sy +; i api i a tf ae if Sra Het byeetsisieisisitian btacacheitrasbaasee ry tee sete he | Hira Ham ine yejesepereslisiei diay, ater aH : SSeS SPSUR aL ICarSROt aT Stat tM tie + i aston — rs z te itietete epHrey days. SiLe ae = ee f SRE tH selebeieee vt 991 ® " f e 7 ah Sy. 44 Saati A peatbattetst Hiehaneacereneouemen bcunean tegen it i a beet teeta Hinieuui ah RE teieatat neta Pe a derpelecerent gh Wepeisilaer the et Ht Hid + 1 Hite 1gias tet : f j a3 Aidibbaglpebarae ey ats ‘| or hath +h) Leiahe fOleiths. Hates: didisiaee Sse tetetnies Hite Heth did at { bearbeethtad sas teerbieesta a tates iste Pistia dition etRSTE ih ithe SHRM it rite lsibatiehigisgs Pbrrpigieegat ay tu th } Wield aaa 1 i it ie et { syafey if rina + a ditt ; t bits 4 i Criseasineeretenri tigi erent “4 eth BESSA Hgiieety ! i iit A Rep eirtne Avec eee ae : pet tite rates Hien : pastes aeeepgaaeaeateecbeNcococsevateSpbeaescepteae gn reemDecPURENRETeeRE RE : tettiot ih 13 upsides + ni57 i she has phsbete ery i ihe ibe: ay it tit fy ih it eerie . yey if A }4ide tet eiereisidi +f aaa i i iat ant: fiche } toapeheestn peer att) iy oe ! ry | ; Hye $2 4s aber ag ete sesrttartes erat ty it ate ay aa sa iis sitistel est stbaa tates ated: ith ny Hf sbiaiet ; aptetieeE ‘etd spe Bhatt tt Hides ty Bet Haiti feGd i! Teteletel elas. £ 4 5¢) Sigjeyeoe Sere. titre) Py i pe st teste) ! ; irr TE ha ; ‘Ga ‘ it aye past + ey we re j phe Hi : oe wit 4 a ra j : a eet rh reetrer eshte ¥ hee. Aan : + He be hrrpht nar kre? Saks . 4 i : ; erie ji iperarsrsrs eT SENT ory: Sha eehanabe os pt Phi le Saeinte irs big Seow = eo re ese. oe Te Teess ¥. ra fiw See dead a, 4 te > Sid4 bated eth BALA rOROISES aE Ladd a ‘ : : Pe oe tes ah 2) DEE TS prada tacetart isstas ee trerae Piet T POU teriytS tt Crtxtite sss petri erent ot SOLON AM KSORASKELIZ EG. WALT TD TETOS bine 2Ace, sAgSbdeblarTE por errostete MSL areses AedngiebsEssItIt ie? ave . eres rarer! poget ata let ‘e corp pti ‘ t at peEnrers = a pers + i3 trisipivt Torx O04 et 6 ad o_o be sores aor 4 Z 4 Be, ytd aye wy a ee es bc aS” VS 2) arte ew Ps xi aM, ‘ees fe ied inne ae Je ati : , 2 Dine“ ; ‘ a,” ae : 4 wt r PAD OF | ‘ ., - eae . + "+ 3 ? . ii a ~ ry nf ¥ et “ : s \ w ieee > ad ‘ ‘ - % \ « - / i / . é Ree ee see eA OL Os The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Fe Published on the Foundation Established In Memory of Calvin Chapin of the Class of 1788 Yale College met —_ ~ i) a — . —_— vy } =~ ae aN eae FRONT ENTRANCE GRANT HOUSE—EAST WINDSOR Be pe oe ay or oy cs ca ee cia che ag ors ohn as ays ys oh The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut By J. Frederick Kelly, A.I.A. New Haven: Yale University Press London - Humphrey Milford - Oxford University Press SHS DG Dis cos ss ns ns ee ps Oe Op M dcccec xxiv Se Si SR a a SS a a Sa a a a a GES HIS eIS eis ras es cn ae Hi SESS TS ARS Aa oe Ree he Re RS ce es AIISIW OVIe ess Copyright 1924 by Yale University Press Printed in the United States of America ee ee, | a \ The Calvin Chapin Memorial Publication Fund TuE present volume is the second work published by the Yale University Press on the Calvin Chapin Memorial Publication Fund. This Foundation was established Novem- ber 17, 1916, by a gift to Yale University from Arthur R. Kimball, of the Class of 1877, Yale College, in memory of Calvin Chapin, of the Class of 1788, Yale College, who died March 16, 1851. He was born on July 22, 1763, and at the age of fifteen served for six months as fifer of a militia company in the Revolution. His preparation for College was delayed by the war but was finally completed, and after entering Yale he became one of the best scholars in his Class. Following his graduation he spent two years as a successful teacher in Hartford, Connecticut, and then began the study of the- ology, though meantime continuing to teach. From 1791 to 1794 he served as a tutor in Yale College, and then accepted a call to Stepney Parish in Wethersfield, now the town of Rocky Hill, Connecticut. From 1805 to 1831 he served as a Trustee of the Missionary Society of Connecticut; took a prominent part in the formation of the Con- necticut Bible Society in 1809; and was one of the five organizers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1810, holding the office of Recording Secretary of the Board for thirty-two years. In September, 1820, he was elected a member of the Yale Corporation, serving thereon until his resignation in October, 1846. - ~ ae ans ie alot Ae DEED ESE EY ERNE MIE MeO FRI RII RIAD MRI RICA DE MRS Foreword N undertaking this work, the author fully realized that its chief value would depend in a large measure upon the accuracy with which it was done. It has been his sincere endeavor throughout, therefore, to avoid speculation and to make no generalizations which were not backed either by personal observations in exist- ing work or by authentic documentary evidence. All measurements have been made with the utmost care; and where, as in several instances, it has been neces- sary to depend upon dimensions previously obtained by others from work which no longer exists, the sources of such data have been authoritative. The early Court Records of the New Haven Colony have been comprehensively searched for all allusions to building and building materials, and such information as the author has considered of interest or value has been included in this work. Because of the value of comparative dates, a special attempt has been made to assign the authentic date of building to each house alluded to in the text; and in every instance where such a figure has been obtained from descendants of the origi- nal builder, or from trustworthy documents, it has been placed after the name of the house, in parentheses. Unfortunately, it has proved impossible to ascertain the exact dates at which many of the early houses were built. In such cases, or where there has existed any doubt as to the accuracy of the date generally given a house, the author has endeavored to assign a probab/e date of building, which is given, in parentheses, preceded by the word czrca. In a number of instances it has been nec- essary to arrive at this figure by carefully comparing the house in question with similar ones in the same locality, the dates of which were definitely known. In comparing the dates of the various houses mentioned in this book, the reader must bear in mind that contemporaneous work in different regions varied surpris- ingly, owing to conservatism, the strength of local tradition, and the geographical relation of the locality to the principal routes of communication. He must also realize that in very many instances comparatively little of the house fabric, save the framework, is work of the period during which the house was built. Rooms X Foreword were panelled, ceilings plastered, fireplaces reduced in size, stairs rebuilt, mantels introduced, and entrances changed or added during the years after the original house-building; so that great caution must be used in attributing the date of the house to any of the work within it, with the exception, just stated, of the house frame itself. CPA POE APOC RH POC OEM OEM NOE HOC POC POO WP OCA OCA ND Chapter Table of Contents LisT oF ILLUSTRATIONS . INTRODUCTION . [HE House Pian anp Its DEVELOPMENT . [HE House FRAME AnD ITs ConsTRUCTION . Roor FRAMING . [THE OVERHANG . [THE SUMMER . Masonry . THE OuTSIDE COVERING . WINDOWS . FRoNT ENTRANCES: EaRLy Types . FRonT ENTRANCES: LATER TyPEs . THE Main Cornice . INTERIOR WoopworRK . PANELLING . MANTELS . CUPBOARDS . THE STAIRS . MouLpINGs . HARDWARE INDEX 102 114 123 12 vies) 163 167 1/3 190 04, 209 CER SDERR POCA POCA POCA OEE OCA POCA OCR OC NOC NOCD List of Illustrations Plates Prate I. Norton House: Guilford. Beach House: Montowese. Bradley House: North Haven. Sun Tavern: Fairfield. Pratt II. Facing page 12. Older Williams House: Wethersfield. Starr House: Guilford. Lyons House: Greenwich. Facing page 6. Lee House: East Lyme. Pure 11. Facing page 20. Trumbull House: North Haven. Warham Williams House: Northford. Harrison-Linsley House: Branford. Pitkin House: East Hartford. Prate IV. Bradley House: East Haven. House on Post Road: Madison. Morris House: New Haven. Strong House: Windsor. Piate V. Stone House: Guilford. General Walker House: Stratford. Pardee House: Montowese. Wildman House: Brookfield. Pract VI. Pitkin House: East Hartford. Cowles House: Farmington. Glebe House: Woodbury. Gay Manse: Suffield. Prearr Vil. Hawley House: Ridgefield. Starkey House: Essex. Old House: Hartford. Morgan House: Clinton. Facing page 26. Facing page 36. Facing page 44. Facing page 52. Prate VIII. Facmng page 60. Gleason House: Farmington. Whitman House: Farmington. Hollister House: South Glastonbury. Hyland-Wildman House: Guilford. Pruate IX. Facing page 62. Drop: Whitman House, Farmington. Drop and bracket: Older Cowles House, Farmington. Drop from a demolished house: Farmington. Drop: Moore House, Windsor. RrATE OX: Facing page 64. Bracket: Gleason House, Farmington. Corbel: Caldwell House, Guilford. Corbel: Hyland-Wildman House, Guilford. Corbel: Hollister House, South Glaston- bury. Prate XI. Facing page 66. Whitfield House: Guilford. Welles-Shipman House: South Glaston- bury. Hart House: Saybrook. Colonel Hitchcock House: Cheshire. Pratre XLT: Osborn House: Southport. Bartlett House: Guilford. Shelton House: Stratford. Griswold House: Guilford. Facing page ‘70. Pruate XIII. Facing page 72. Webster House: East Windsor. Hale House: South Glastonbury. Chaffee House: Windsor. Colonel Barker House: North Haven. XIV List of Illustrations Pruate XIV. Facing page Keeping room: Lee House, East Lyme. Fireplace: “White Farm,” Long Hill. Panelling: Peck House, Lyme. Chimney foundations: Hale House, South Coventry. PiatE XV. Facing page Fireplace: Allyn House, Windsor. Fireplace: Hyland-Wildman House, Guilford. Fireplace: Warner House, Chester. Chimney of a collapsed house: Cheshire. Prats XVI. Knapp House: Fairfield. Fairchild House: Stratford. Bishop House: Guilford. Hurd House: Moodus. Facing page Prate XVII. Facing page Gable: Pardee House, Montowese. Front entrance: Morris House, Morris Cove, New Haven. Portico: Bradley House, New Haven. Knell House: Stratford. Prate XVIII. Facing page Rankin House: Glastonbury. Beers House: New Haven. Hayden House: Essex. Stanton House: Clinton. PratEe XIX. Facing page Window: Warner House, Chester. Window: Pitkin House, East Hartford. Window: Welles-Shipman House, South Glastonbury. Window: Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. PratEe XX. Facing page Inside shutter: Brooks House, Stratford. Window: MacCurdy House, Lyme. Window: Deming House, Wethersfield. Window: Warham Williams House, Northford. 7. 80. 82. 84. 86. 92. 96. Puiate XXI. Pruate XXII. Pirate XXIII. PiaTE XXIV. PLATE XXV. Prater AXVAG Facing page 100. Palladian window: Cowles House, Farmington. Linsley House: Stratford. Palladian window: Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. Gay House: Sufheld. Facing page 102. Front entrance: Humiston House, Hamden. Front entrance: Welles-Shipman House, South Glastonbury. Front entrance: Old Tavern, Rocky Hill. Entrance of an old house: Windsor. Facing page 108. Front entrance: Robinson House, Southington. Front entrance: Thompson House, Farmington. Front entrance: Old Inn, East Windsor. Front entrance: Griswold House, Guilford. Facing page 112. Front entrance: Rankin House, ~ Glastonbury. Front entrance: Hill House, Glastonbury. Front entrance: Bassett House, Hamden. Front entrance: “The Parsonage,” Monroe. Facing page 114. Front entrance: Colonel Hitchcock House, Cheshire. Entrance of an old house: Redding Ridge. Entrance: Old Tavern, Straitsville. Front entrance: Major Talmage House, Guilford. Facing page 116. Carved capital: Whitman House, West Hartford. Front entrance: Colonel Lewis House, Essex. Front entrance: Chamberlain House, Guilford. Carved capital: Deming House, Farmington. List of Illustrations XV Pirate XXVII. Facing page 120. Pirate XXXII. Facing page 140. Entrance motive: Deming House, Litch- Panelling: Bidwell-Mix House, West field. Hartford. Entrance motive: Wheeler-Beecher Wainscot: Osborn House, Southport. Panelling: Lee House, Brookfield. Panelling: Welles-Shipman House, South House, Bethany. Entrance motive: Prudence Crandall House, Canterbury. Glastonbury. Entrance motive: Warner House, Chester. PuaTE XXXIV. Facing page 144. Pirate XXVIII. Facing page 124. Panelling: Burbank House, Suffield. PiLatTeE XXIX. PiatTE XXX. Pirate XXXI. Pirate XXXII. Front entrance: Robbins House, Rocky Hill. Window: Chaffee House, Windsor. Front entrance: General Cowles House, Farmington. Window: Robbins House, Rocky Hill. Side entrance: Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. Side entrance: Champion House, East Haddam. Side entrance: Grant House, East Windsor. Side entrance: Ely House, Ely’s Landing. Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. Prudence Crandall House: Canterbury. Bassett House: Hamden. Major Talmage House: Guilford. Hart House: Guilford. Bishop House: Guilford. Davenport House: Davenport Ridge. Stone House: Guilford. Inside door: Sherman Parsonage, Fair- field. Panelling: Miner House, Hamburg. Inside door: Burbank House, Suffield. Panelling: Hyde House, Norwich. PLATE XXXV. Facmg page 126. Pirate XXXVI. Facmg page 128. Pirate XXXVII. Facmg page 130. Facing page 134. Pirate XXXVIII. Panelling: Silas Deane House, Wethers- field. Panelling: Phelps Tavern, Simsbury. Panelling: Mack House, Hamburg. Facmg page 148. Mantel: Ely House, Ely’s Landing. Mantel: Griswold House, Blackhall. Mantel: Rankin House, Glastonbury. Mantel: Belden House, Wethersfield. Facing page 152. Mantel: Tuttle House, Guilford. Mantel from a demolished house: New Haven. Mantel: Bassett House, Hamden. Mantel: Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. Facing page 156. Mantel from a demolished house: New Haven. Mantel: Champion House, East Haddam. Mantel: Waid House, Lyme. Mantel: Barnabas Deane House, Hartford. Facing page 160. Mantel: Whitman House, Farmington. Mantel: Rankin House, Glastonbury. Mantel: Griswold House, Guilford. Mantel: Welles-Shipman House, South Glastonbury. XV1 PraTE XXXIX. Facing page 164. Cupboard: Tuttle House, Guilford. Cupboard: Benton House, Guilford. Cupboard: Older Cowles House, Farm- ington. Cupboard: Talcott Arnold House, Rocky Hill. Prare Al) Facing page 166. Cupboard: Whittlesey House, Saybrook. Cupboard: MacCurdy House, Lyme. Cupboard: King House, Suffield. Cupboard: Beers House, Stratford. PrATeecL Facing page 170. Cupboard: Tyler House, East Haven. Cupboard: Welles-Shipman House, South Glastonbury. Cupboard: Robbins House, Rocky Hill. Cupboard: Comstock House, East Hart- ford. Prate XLII. _ Facing page 172. Cupboard in an old house: Simsbury. Cupboard in an old house: West Hartford. Cupboard: Beardsley House, Huntington. Cupboard: Judson House, Stratford. Prate XLIII. Facing page 174. Stairs: Brockway House, Hamburg. Stairs: Pardee House, Montowese. Stairs: Hill House, Glastonbury. Stairs: Older Williams House, Wethers- field. List of Illustrations Pirate XLIV. Facing page Stairs: Seward House, Guilford. Stairs: General Walker House, Stratford. Stairs: General Johnson House, Guilford. Stairs: Hyland-Wildman House, Guil- ford. Priate XLV. Facing page Stairs: Hyde House, Norwich. Stairs: Noyes House, Lyme. Stairs: Huntington House, Norwich. Stairs: Hart House, Saybrook. Pirate XLVI Facing page Stairs: Grant House, East Windsor. Stairs: Grant House, East Windsor. Stairs: Webb House, Wethersfield. Stairs: Silas Deane House, Wethersfield. Pirate XLVII. Old Tavern: Straitsville. General Cowles House: Farmington. Warner House: Chester. Talmadge House: Litchfield. Facing page Pratre XLVI Facing page Stairs: Deming House, Farmington, Bronze knocker: Chester. Knocker: “Historical House,”’ South Norwalk. Knocker: Champion House, East Haddam. Figures in Text Figure Page 1. Plan: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme 6 2. Plan: Norton House, Guilford 7 3. Plan: Bushnell House, Saybrook 8 4. Plan: Older Williams House, Wethersfield 8 5. Central-chimney type of plan 8 6. Cross section: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford 9 7. Leanto framing: Tyler House, Branford 10 8. Cross section: Acadian House, Guilford 10 g. Plan: Hempstead House, New London Il Figure 10. Plan: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme 11. Plan: Graves House, Madison 12. Cross section: Bidwell-Mix House, West Hartford 13. Plan: Warham Williams House, North- ford 14. First-floor plan: Rev. Dr. Huntington House, South Coventry 15. Second-floor plan: Rev. Dr. Huntington House, South Coventry 176. 180. 184. 190. 198. Page 12 12 13 14 15 15 List of Illustrations Figure 16 17 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Central-hall type of plan Plan: Burnham-Marsh House, Wethers- field Plan: Pitkin House, East Hartford Plan: Raymond House, Rowayton Plan: Morris House, Morris Cove, New Haven Plan: Sheldon Woodbridge House, Hart- ford Cross section: Talcott Arnold House, Rocky Hill . Typical Framing Diagram . Sill framing: Norton House, Guilford . Sill framing: Moulthrop House, East Haven . Cross section: Older Bushnell House, Say- brook . Posts . Post framing: Tyler House, Branford . Post framing: House at Windsor . Post framing: Stilson House, Newtown; Lyon House, Greenwich . Post framing: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford . Post framing: Starr House, Guilford; Stevens House, West Haven . Chamfering: Caldwell House, Acadian House, Guilford . Framing detail: Bidwell-Mix House, West Hartford . Summer framing: Evarts Tavern, Northford . Cross section: Older Williams House, Wethersfield . Gable framing: Hall House, Cheshire . Leanto framing: Bradley House, East Haven . Leanto framing: Evarts Tavern, Northford . Typical first-floor framing plan . Typical second-floor framing plan . Framing details: Allen Smith House, Mil- ford . Attic framing plan: Moulthrop House, East Haven . Framing detail: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford Page 16 17 18 18 19 20 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 =k 38 39 39 XV Figure Page 45. Leanto attic framing: Glebe House, Woodbury 40 46. Plank frame: Hill House, Glastonbury 4I 47. Framing detail: Evarts Tavern, Northford 41 48. Typical framing diagram 42 49. Rafter framing 44 50. Roof framing: typical common rafter system 45 51. Rafter framing 45 52. Roof framing: typical purlin system 46 53. Rafter footing 46 54. Roof framing: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford 47 55- Roof framing: Moulthrop House, East Haven 47 56. Cross section: Moulthrop House, East Haven 48 57. Leanto rafters: Moulthrop House, East Haven 49 58. Roof framing: Bradley House, Branford 50 59. Roof framing: Bidwell-Mix House, West Hartford; Older Williams House, Wethersfield 51 60. Cross section: Evarts Tavern, Northford 52 61. Cross section: Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss House, Cheshire 53 62. Attic framing plan: Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss House, Cheshire 54 63. Attic framing: Hall House, Cheshire 54 64. Leanto framing: Hall House, Cheshire 55 65. Cross section: Forbes-Barnes House, East Haven 56 66. Leanto framing: Forbes-Barnes House, East Haven (ay 67. Attic framing: Allen Smith House, Mil- ford 58 68. Governor Treat House: Milford 59 69. West end gable: Hempstead House, New London 59 70. Roof framing: typical gambrel system 60 71. Gambrel roof framing: Glebe House, Woodbury 61 72. Clark House: Farmington 63 73. Plan: English Cottage 65 74. Chamfered girts: Hubbard House, Guil- ford 66 XV111 Figure 75: 76. co _ 104. 10S. 106. Chamfered summer: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford Chamfered summers: Seymour-Steele House, Hartford; Lathrop House, Norwich; Dudley House, Guilford . Underpinning: Orton House, Farmington . Floor plans: Captain Johnson House, Hamburg . Hall fireplace: Buckingham House, Mil- ford . Chimney foundation: Butler House, West Hartford . Fireplace: Older Williams House, Weth- ersfield . Chimney: General Walker House, Strat- ford . Brick bond: “Elm Fort,” Suffield Brick filling: Tuttle House, West Hart- ford . Moulded brick: “Old South Middle,” New Haven . Riven oak clapboards . Oak clapboards: Graves House, Madison . Bevel-edged siding . Weather-boarding . Quoins: Eno House, Simsbury . Casement window: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme . Casement window: Shelley House, Madison . Casement sash: Guilford . Double-hung sash: Guilford . Typical double-hung window . Window: Moulthrop House, East Haven . Window: Belden House, Wethersfield . Window: Cheshire . Muntin 100. LOL, 102, 103. Window: New Haven Window: Cornwell House, Cheshire Elevation showing fenestration Palladian window: Ely House, Ely’s Landing Palladian window: McEwen House, Stratford Window: Old Gay Manse, Suffield Outside shutters: Linsley House, Stratford Page 67 68 71 72 74 03 76 at 19 79 80 82 83 83 84 85 87 88 89 go gI Q2 93 94 95 95 96 97 98 99 100 IOI List of Illustrations Figure 107. 108. 109. 110. III. 112. 113. II4. rete: 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122) 123) 124. F25: 126. 127, 128. 129. 130; 131; 132; 133. 134. ae 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. Entrance doorway: Hull House, Shelton Front entrance: Philo Bishop House, Guilford Front entrance: Stratford Front entrance: William Judson House, Tyler House, Branford Stratford Inn Samuel Mather House, Front entrance: Front entrance: Lyme Front entrance: Trumbull House, North Haven Front entrance: Northford Front entrance: North Haven Comparison of orders Warham Williams House, Colonel Barker House, Front entrance: Hawley House, Monroe Front entrance: Cornwell House, Cheshire Detail of leaded glass Lead ornaments Lead ornament: Ely House, Ely’s Landing Lead eagle : Side entrance: Barber House, Simsbury Front cornice: Evarts Tavern, Northford Front cornice: Smith House, Milford; Linsley House, North Branford Front cornice: Older Williams House, Wethersfield Front cornice: Stephen Hotchkiss House, Cheshire Cross section: Allen Smith House, Milford Attic framing plan: Allen Smith House, Milford Cornice treatment Main cornice: New Haven Main cornice: Cornwell House, Cheshire Crown moulding gutter Wooden leader head Cornice rake Floor boards: Moulthrop House, East Haven Door: Graves House, Madison Door: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford Door: Loomis House, Windsor Door: Older Williams House, Weth- ersfield Page 102 103 104 105 106 107 109 I1I 112 115 116 118 119 119 120 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 BE 128 129 129 130 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 List of Illustrations Figure I4l. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. ora k. 152. 154. Ww 154. Ise. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. ae P72: Door: King House, Suffield Exterior door: Jabez Huntington House, Norwich Interior door evolution Interior door: Lyme Panel section Door: Older Williams House, Wethers- field Door casing: Moulthrop House, East Haven Interior trim detail Casing of girt Panelled summers: Noyes House, Old Lyme; Williams House, Northford Hall cornice: Deming House, Colchester Interior cornices: Sherman House, Yantic; Gay House, Suffield Interior plaster cornice: Patten House, Hartford Inside shutters: Chaffee House, Windsor Wainscot joint: Dudley House, Guilford Wainscot:. Strong House, East Windsor Wainscot joint: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme Wainscot: Linsley House, North Branford Wainscot: Backus House, Yantic Wainscot: Philo Bishop House, Guilford Baseboard: Rectory, Monroe Parlor panelling: Forbes or Barnes House, East Haven Panelling: Welles House, Lebanon Roll mouldings: Welles House, Lebanon; Benton House, Guilford; Jabez Hunt- ington House, Norwich; Jonathan Bulkley House, Fairfield Bolection moulding: Chaffee House, Windsor Comparison of mouldings: England and Connecticut Panelling: Taintor House, Colchester Panelling: Mather House, Lyme Panelling: Hayden House, Essex Panelling: Deming House, Wethersfield Panelling: Webb-Welles House, Weth- ersfield Panelling: Deming House, Colchester Page 136 137 137 138 138 139 139 140 140 14! 142 142 143 144 145 146 146 147 147 148 148 149 150 151 152 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Figure £74: 174. a7 5. 176. 1973 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186, 187. 188. 189. 190. Igl. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 20 _ 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207 Panelling: Bliss House, Norwich Detail: panel section Detail of panelling Panelling: Champion House, East Haddam Mantel: Ruth Hart House, Guilford Mantel: Whitman House, Farmington Mantel: Pratt Tavern, Saybrook Corner cupboard: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford Corner cupboard: Tyler House, Branford Corner cupboard: Hayden House, Essex Stairs: Deming House, Farmington First-floor plan: Brockway House, Ham- burg First-floor plan: Samuel Webster House, East Windsor Hill Stairs: Captain Lee House, Guilford Detail: moulded string Stairs: Moulthrop House, East Haven Newel: Captain Robert Ely House, Saybrook Stair detail: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford Stairs: Russell House, Stratford Early and late balusters Stairs: George Griswold House, Guilford Handrail sections Detail of newel cap Newel: Bushnell House, Saybrook Newel: Benjamin House, Milford Newel pendants: Governor Trumbull House, Lebanon; General Walker House, Stratford; Coit House, Norwich Stair details: Huntington House, Norwich; Barnabas Deane House, Hartford Stair details: Barnabas Deane House, Hartford; Chaffee House, Windsor . Baluster: Dr. Richard Noyes House, Lyme Cellar stairs: Moulthrop House, East Haven Cellar stairs: Beckley House, Berlin Attic stairs: Pierpont House, New Haven Stair construction: Bushnell House, Say- brook Attic stairs: Hawley House, Monroe Cross section: Hawley House, Monroe X1X Page 159 160 161 162 163 165 166 168 169 171 173 174 174 175 176 177 178 178 179 180 181 182 182 183 183 183 184 184 185 185 186 186 187 188 189 XX | List of Illustrations Figure Page Figure Page 208. Comparison of early and late mouldings 191 225. Door hinge: Trumbull 201 209. Moulding section 193 226. Iron latch: Hadlyme Ferry 202 210. Iron latches: Isle of Wight, England, and 227. Iron latch: Stratford 202 Windsor, Conn. 194 228. Iron latch: West Hartford 202 211. Brass latch: Windsor 195 229. Iron latch: Chaffee House, Windsor 202 212. Iron strap hinges 196 230. Iron latch: Norwich 202 213. “Snake hinge”: Guilford 196 231. Iron latch: Colchester 202 214. Iron hinges: Wethersfield and Branford 196 232. Iron latch: Middle Haddam 203 215. Iron hinge: Long Ridge 197 233. Iron latch: Shelton 204 216. Iron hinge: North Lyme 197 234. Iron latch: Pitkin House, East Hartford 204 217. Half-strap hinges 198 235. Wooden latch: Guilford 204 218. Butterfly hinges: Guilford 198 236. Iron latch: Beckley House, Berlin 204 219. Iron hinges: Guilford 198 237. Iron bolts: Norwich 205 220. H and H-and-L hinges 198 238. Wooden lock: Norwich 205 221. Iron hinges: Guilford, Stratford, and 239. Wrought-iron nails 205 Windsor 199 240. Iron knocker: Fairfield 206 222. Iron hinge: Hamden 199 241. Blind catch 206 223. Cock’s head hinge: Beckley House, Berlin 200 242. Escutcheon: Backus House, Yantic 207 224. Door hinges: Colchester 200 FR IR IRR IR IR IR IRR IR IR IR IR IR FRR IR FR IIR II I II II III IIHR The Early Domestic Architecture of Conneéticut Chapter I. Introduction styles which have, at one time or another, achieved popularity, those memorable few which most creditably bear the test of time are precisely the ones which re- flect, faithfully and without distortion, the economic and social conditions out of which they sprang. An architectural style, if it is to be true, vital, and enduring, must clearly and candidly exhibit the spirit of the time in which it flourished—the spirit which is implicit in all the characteristic transactions of the time, and which may almost be defined as the sum of its manners, customs, and mode of living. The early domestic architecture of the American colonies, judged by this criterion, was unmistakably pure and virile. The most superficial examination of the period is enough to prove that it was productive of a “true” style in architecture. Its building is honest, straight- forward, devoid of affectation and sham. The early Colonial houses were true in two respects, both of crucial importance. First, they expressed with entire simplicity and di- rectness the conditions which produced them. Secondly, and hardly less important, their implication was always intensely intimate, domestic. They were true to their milieu; and they were equally true to their purpose. The phase of the Colonial period or style which had its inception in Connecticut dis- played a number of striking peculiarities, to be presented and analyzed, by text and illustra- tion, in the subsequent chapters of this book. But, speaking broadly and non-technically, the early Connecticut houses shared the fundamental characteristics of contemporaneous work in the other New England colonies. They were extremely simple, and their sim- plicity was the natural result of a frank and forthright solution of problems which were intrinsically anything but complex. The product of the period, despite its plain utility and simplicity—or rather, perhaps, because of these very qualities,—never missed achieving the fine Colonial dignity—a rugged and vigorous integrity due in large measure to what may almost be called the crudity of the construction. Consciously or unconsciously, man looks with satisfaction upon that which is substan- tially and enduringly built. It is primarily, or at least largely, this innate sense of sheer structural value which makes us admire the Pyramids, the temples of Greece, the mighty cathedrals of the thirteenth century. The same instinct infallibly communicates to every observer, even the most casual, the bluff and rugged strength of our old houses; and he who knows these ancient dwellings more intimately, perhaps through having been fortunate Oo is the fundamental principle of architecture. Of the many architectural 2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut enough to live in one of them, is keenly and sensitively responsive to the security, the abundance of strength, which they embody. Their mighty frames of oaken timbers— timbers which measure sixteen and even eighteen inches—have stood unshaken for two centuries or more. By comparison the frame house of to-day, built as it is of 2-by-4 studs which must be sheathed with inch boards to impart to the framework the practicable modicum of rigidity, seems pathetically, not to say ludicrously, frail. He who warms as he ought to the spirit of these old houses must revel in the well-nigh barbaric massiveness of their framing. It is in this single respect, as much as in any, that the staunch Colonial houses essen- tialize the epoch which created them. During the perilous and insecure times immediately after the founding of the Connecticut colony, when the colonists, hewing their homes out of the primeval forest, were never free from the menace of wolf, famine, or lurking Indian, there was neither time for anything non-essential nor place for anything flimsy and impermanent. The staunch houses which they built unconsciously expressed these circumstances in every timber of their tremendous frames. Those of their dwellings which, escaping the ravages of neglect, abuse, and intentional destruction, have lasted until now, are a precious heritage. More than any other one thing which we possess, they constitute a momentous and vital link with an epoch to which we owe incalculably much and with a people whose function in our national history nothing can trivialize. The early Connecticut house is of moment alike to the architect, the antiquarian, and the historian. What I propose to consider here is its specific claim upon the architect and the student of architecture. It goes almost without saying that, to either of these, the natural approach to such a subject is from the historical angle, with reference primarily to the interrelation of various styles, the transition from one architectural period to another. Granted this point of view, it is impossible for an architect or a competent student of architecture to overlook a certain analogy between early domestic architecture in Con- necticut and contemporaneous work of the same general scope in England. This analogy is, in fact, precisely what one would anticipate, reasoning from the historical and social conditions out of which the early work grew. Let us examine in detail, first, the most im- portant of these historical conditions, and then, briefly, one of the more obvious similarities between Colonial domestic architecture and English. To begin with, Connecticut was settled mainly by colonists of English birth, who, mak- ing their way down the Connecticut River Valley or coming by ship from Massachusetts, founded the early settlements of Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. The settlers of the shore towns—New London, Saybrook, Guilford, New Haven, Milford, Stratford— were likewise English. Now, an Englishman betrays few characteristics more accentuated than his conservatism, his innate love of traditional usages. It is but natural that these first settlers should have brought with them, among other things, their building traditions. And even more important, because more fundamental, they brought their traditions and customs of daily living, which would of course exert the most powerful influence on their building. Naturally, such ideas and manners as were brought to these shores did not per- Introduction 3 sist without modification. They were gradually adapted to local exigencies and tempered by the new set of conditions. But, with whatever superficial modifications, the core of the early settlers’ life remained English; and so did the fundamentals of their architecture. Among the colonists were many skilled craftsmen who had served their apprenticeships and received their early training in England. Among the trades mentioned in the early Court Records of the New Haven Colony we find the following: sawyers, carpenters, “joyners,” thatchers, brickmakers, plasterers, “ryvers of clapboards, shingles and lathes,” “‘naylers,” and “massons.” Owing to the system in vogue at the time, nearly every man who did not till the soil or engage in some branch of commerce had a trade, and the artisans of various sorts were highly specialized and skillfully trained, thanks largely to the prevalent custom of serving out long apprenticeships. This fact accounts largely for the skill with which so much of the early work was done, and also for the surprising similarity of the ways in which like conditions were met by groups of men working in different localities. When trained workmen of a conservative stamp are confronted by a given problem, it is quite to be expected that they will solve it and execute their solution in ac- cordance with their early training—that is, in the way to which they are most accustomed. Coming as they did from various parts of England, different groups of craftsmen brought the usages and traditions peculiar to the regions from which they came; only, instead of making a literal application, here in Connecticut, of their traditionary habits of workman- ship, they split up or subdivided this body of usage into local mannerisms—a logical out- come of meeting new and untried conditions. But such local types as local exigencies pro- duced were, broadly speaking, very much alike, despite the stamp of localism and the indelible imprint of the builder’s individuality. When we examine the work of these first builders for the more obvious of the proofs that they were indeed working in an English idiom, we find it in the universal and per- sistent use of a single material for framing. That material, of course, was oak. No archi- tectural usage could be more strongly marked with the finger of tradition. That the colonists, with abundance of other woods, both hard and soft, at their disposal, should have chosen oak, means simply that they elected to use the one material with the working of which they were already most familiar, and the physical properties of which they most perfectly understood. On this basis, it is easy enough to comprehend the almost invariable use of oak, not only for a framing material, but also for exterior covering, floors, and so on. Oak as a framing material continued in popularity for many years; indeed, it can safely be said that it was never outgrown during the Colonial period, and that only after 1800 was it superseded for structural purposes by white pine and other soft woods—and this, mark, despite the difficulty of working, or even handling, so heavy and obdurate a material with the limited tools and appliances available to the early builders. No set of facts could more perfectly express the inherent traditionalism of the English, or serve to show more explicitly the continuity between the domestic architecture of Old England and that of New England. It remains for us to note in rough outline how English seventeenth-century houses were 4 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut built. We disregard in this connection, of course, the larger and more pretentious manor houses. The average small English home was a simple structure of stone, “cob,” or half- timbered work. A house of half-timbered construction consisted of a combination of ex- posed oak framework and either “cob” or brick filling between the timbers. “Cob” was a mixture of clay and chopped straw, containing sometimes a percentage of lime. This half- timber style of construction was a very old one in England; the Old English word for build is zimbran. In Yorkshire, houses of this type were designated as “reared” houses, in distinction from those of stone. During the reign of Henry VIII a statute was enacted which made it a felony to engage in the “secret burnyng of frames of tymber prepared and made by the owners thereof, redy to be sett up, and edified for houses.” Judging by the extant English examples of the period now under consideration, a large proportion of the smaller houses were of this type. It appears, then, that the transplanted English craftsmen—especially those who came from the forested districts of England—on finding themselves confronted with the task of building a house where there was an abundance of oak and clay at hand, would naturally have undertaken the construction of a dwelling with these materials. But houses of this type, though well able to endure the milder climate of England, with its more frequent but gentler rains, which for the most part descend vertically, could not withstand the more violent and driving storms peculiar to our continent. Walls of cob—clay and straw walls— are but ill suited to withstand the assaults of our sort of weather; so that if, as is probable, the colonists did at first attempt this type of construction, they must perforce have promptly abandoned it. But it is of significance that, although a protective covering of wood in the form of oak clapboards took the place of the cob filling of the English panels between the timbers, the structural framework of oak remained as before. In many other ways, too, the influence of the mother country is to be seen reflected in the early Connecticut houses. Examples are the comparatively low height of story; the close proximity of the first floor to the ground; the steepness of pitch of the early roofs; and the large size of the chimney stack in relation to the general plan—all points to be taken up in detail in succeeding chapters. In spite, however, of this distinct reflection of English custom, our early houses had decided character and individuality of their own. It would be an egregious blunder to give the impression that the Connecticut house of this period was simply a transplanted or re- produced English house. In reality the two merely possessed certain fundamental charac- teristics in common. The early Connecticut house, then, was a new creation, wherein the use of materials and the manner of construction were largely the result of Old World tradition, modified to meet an entirely new and different set of conditions. PRESSE SG Se ER ENG ERD eae Mp Sea MeCN Mpa MSC Me Chapter II. The House Plan and Its Development tradition played in the use of materials and the general mode of construction of the early Connecticut house. It is the purpose of this chapter to consider the influence of the English house plan of the corresponding period, and to trace, from its earliest form, the development of the house plan in Connecticut through various logical stages to its culmination in an ultimate type. The average small English house of that time was a simple and unpretentious affair of but a few rooms, the first floor of which was close to or level with the ground itself— for in most instances there was no cellar. The use of stoves was rare; and since the open fireplace was depended upon for cooking purposes as well as for heat, the hearth was the center of domestic life. As a matter of course, the chimney stacks were large and massive, in order to accommodate the generous proportions of the fireplaces. To keep the widely projecting eaves of thatch as near the ground as possible, as a form of protection to the walls of cob, the stories were kept low in height. This low ceiling height was ascribable, no doubt, to the kind of intimacy and domestic coziness thus obtained, as well as to the added advantage of greater warmth in cold weather. We find the influence of these massive chimney stacks reflected in Connecticut. Until a late date the chimneys were of huge proportions, apparently for no direct reason except that of tradition. In considering the various types of house plans, we shall see how im- portant a rdle the chimney stack played in their development. The effect of the low Eng- lish story is noteworthy as well: the ceiling heights of our earliest houses are invariably low, increasing, however, as time goes on and the old influence becomes less strong. In these, as in more general details, we find specific confirmation of the continuity between the old work of the mother country and the new on American shores. The first shelters erected by the colonists, we gather from old accounts and traditions, were very primitive and merely temporary. That they should be, was inevitable in the existing conditions: in the midst of an unbroken wilderness, land had to be cleared and cultivated, the attacks of hostile Indians guarded against, and the scarcity of labor and tools offset. All these factors discouraged the erection of anything but the simplest, crudest, and most hasty structures. Lambert, in his History of the Colony of New Haven, says: “The first settlements in Connecticut were commenced in 1635, by Massachusetts people. The people from Watertown took up a fine tract of natural meadow . . . which was named Wethersfield, after a town of that name in England. Here a few Watertown men, the year before, erected two or three huts and remained during the winter.” At New Haven the first dwellings were but little better than earth cellars, built into the sides of banks and roofed with sods. Eaton and his followers had sailed from Massachusetts in |: was the task of the preceding chapter to establish the importance of the part which 6 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut August, 1637, and there had been no time for the erection of anything better before cold weather. There is a vestige of tradition to the effect that some of the settlers of Hartford and the towns near by brought with them from Massachusetts the prepared timbers for their homes, ready for erection. There is evidence that in 1633 the Plymouth Colony fitted out a “great new bark,” in the hold of which was stowed away the completed frame of a house, with “boards to cover and finish it.” The ship was brought to anchor in the Connecticut River and a landing made just below the mouth of ® the Farmington River, on September 26, 1633. It was at this place that the house was quickly “clapt up.” At first, and before the advent of the framed house, log cabins were evi- ‘First Floor PLady dently not uncommon. Atwater, in RR col Ape abee writing of the first settlers who came to Connecticut, in his History of New Haven Colony, states: “For the win- ter they usually built huts, as they called them, similar to the modern log-cabins in the forests of the West, though in some instances, if not in most, they were roofed, after the English fashion, with thatch.” The Norton house in the town of Guilford (circa 1690) is said to have been con- » TUR AAT Oo RET MAaA os structed after the erection of a log +f ClO Ape teoale bre cabin which stood some hundred feet J Hoy Lib Noreen ere to the east, and in which the workmen lived while the present house was be- Ficure I. ing built. The Taintor house in Col- chester (1703) is the third house to occupy the spot where it now stands, the first one, it is asserted by descendants of the original settler, having been a log cabin. But, as I have stated, these first shelters were only temporary, for the frame house made its appearance early in the history of the Connecticut colony. According to old records, George Fenwick had a “faire house” at Saybrook as early as 1641, which house was “well fortified.” After the brief log-cabin period appeared the first structures which may be truly called houses; and from evidence which exists to-day it is probable that at first they were of one- room plan, a story and a half or two stories in height, with the chimney stack at one end. BRADLEY Bra reel: The House Plan and Its Development 7 The Thomas Lee house in East Lyme, which was begun in 1664, is, in its first stage, a perfect illustration of this type of plan. From A, Figure 1, it will be seen that the plan of this house was originally that of a single room, facing south, with a great stone chimney at the western end. It is probable that this chimney showed on the outside of the house for its entire height, as it does in the Norton house in Guilford to-day. (Plate I.) The stairs to the second floor were, at this stage, in the southwest corner, in front of the chimney stack. This plan of the Lee house in its first stage may be re- garded as typical of the first or one-room period. The Norton house in the town of Guil- ford (circa 1690), though essentially a house of one-room plan, indicates, by rea- son of its lean-to room at the rear, aslightly later development. (Figure 2.) Here, as in the Lee house originally, a tremendous stone chimney, exposed on the exterior, forms the entire west wall of the first story; and although the stairs are not in le ieee Waves pe Ve he Le OtO eR ys PVA CALs Pree ANSOURTEOON TS HAOLV EU) Leet VAG IVIL OF. OF ReaD ae FIGURE 2. front of the chimney, there is a space for them there. This house faces south, as did the Lee house originally. A house of one-room plan, however, was but ill suited to the domestic usages of any except the smallest of families, living in the simplest possible manner; and additional space soon became necessary. It was obtained simply by adding another room, or unit of construc- tion, on the opposite side of the chim- ney, which thus became enclosed. This change actually took place in the Lee house about 1690; so that the house then became of two-room plan, with a central chimney, in front of which- was the “porch,” containing the stairs to the second floor. (See B, Figure 1.) The framing of this second room is quite independent of the original hall, and, when built, was simply butted up against the original structure. It is, in fact, merely that of a single room; whereas that of the hall is the framing of a com- BVSHAELL HOVSE-SAY BROOK FIGURE 3. 8 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Sel Rela aL OvOuRm Pecan Any PF OLPER WILLE AM OC) HOVE. bx aNibe HER Eby ae FIGuRE 4. plete one-room house, inasmuch as it has a space for the stack, which the later room has not. The house of two-room plan—it soon became established as a type—forms the second stage in the development of the Connecticut house plan. The older Bush- nell house near Saybrook (1678-1679) and the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680), Figures 3 and 4, furnish us with typical examples of the period. It will be seen that in each the chimney occupies its central position behind the stair porch. Once arrived at, this arrangement became firmly fixed,and the chimney stack became the center or pivotal point about which the plan revolved in its development. In both the older Bushnell and the older Williams houses a flight of steps leads down to the cellar from the hall. In each it is placed in front of the chimney and beneath the stairs to the second floor. In the Bushnell house the steps are of stone, enclosed on either side by masonry walls. Such an arrangement is always indicative of very early work. In both of these houses the cellar extends beneath only one room. The second-floor plan is, of course, identical with that KttPiag Roon| \M Fi oy See | ! TCA PA Cur he: S CLAVE T OP Ce aL ey FIGuRE 5. LCR chal eee LOL On Ra mheLeAgAns Terie of the first or ground floor. To meet the constantly increas- ing demand for more room after the two-room plan had become firmly established as a type, the simple expedient of adding a lean-to across the rear of the house was resorted to; which ad- dition resulted in the provision of three additional rooms on the first floor and a large attic on the second. (Figure 5.) This was accomplished by continuing the main house roof in back of the ridge down to the ceiling level of the first floor. (Figure 6.) The rafters of the new lean-to roof were usually a separate set from those of the main house roof, and were framed at their upper ends into the original rear - < x os al ce) The House Plan and Its Development 9 plate of the house. (Figure 7.) The pitch of the lean-to roof was generally the same as that of the old roof above it. When, as in many instances, there is a slight variation in the roof angle, the discrepancy is a clear indication of subsequently added work. (Figure 8.) The lean-to evidently came into use very early in the days of the colony, for the New Haven Court Records for 1649 mention the “leantoe of Robert Parson’s house.” eCuR Oper ie lecie le Oehar S HARRIVOA-LINSLLY Hovyt ~BRAAFORT 4 Ficure 6. Houses of the added lean-to type are of very common occurrence; in fact, this is one of the most typical forms of the early Connecticut house. The Tyler house, near Bran- ford (circa 1710), the Acadian house in Guilford (1670), and the Harrison-Linsley house in Branford (1690) all have lean-to additions. (Figures 6 and 8.) Originally each was of the two-room type of plan. An inspection of the lean-to attic in houses of this type generally furnishes the investigator with sufficient architectural evidence to decide conclusively whether or not the lean-to is a later addition or an integral LANG ee °g PUNO Ly a ‘ 1hy WO} eta Fae G5 ieee Vda Cee ap \ 1ivV% 2/6 mee. Ey, yy, RIX YL oinaad Ae AUN f AYO VV ie ses ees ee 5 ee ss ke ae, é 4 yi q Lal xo ; {T1140 W “ ~ The House Plan and Its Development II part of the house itself. The existence of a separate set of roof rafters extending from the rear plate of the main house down to the rear plate of the lean-to does not always” necessarily indicate that the rear part is of later date; nor does a difference in level between the floors of the front rooms and of the lean-to attic. The existence of clapboards, how- ever, on the outside of the rear walls of the front rooms, beneath the lean-to roof, is in- controvertible proof that the rear portion of the house is a built-on addition. Old weathered clapboards are still in place on parts of the original rear walls of all three of the just- mentioned houses. In each they are of oak, riven out, and applied directly to the studs. Those in the lean-to attic of the Acadian house still bear traces of the original red paint with which they were covered. wm OR I1Ginxat Hovst- o—_-Latin Avpitiod: cota Liaato Avpitiod- SHEEN GEE tka ee HOV ek “oALE Wie L OLN V OoNA TS FIGuRE 9. Both the Hempstead house in New London (1643) and the Lee house, which has been discussed, have lean-to additions. From the first-floor plan of the Hempstead house, which is shown in Figure 9, it will be seen that it was, like the Lee house, originally of one-room plan. Later on another room was added on the opposite side of the chimney, which thus became enclosed; and finally a lean-to was built across the entire rear of the house. There- fore this house, as it exists to-day, embodies three different stages in the growth of the house plan. The first-floor plan of the Lee house, as it now stands, is shown in Figure 10. After its plan had arrived at the two-room stage, as shown by B, Figure 1, the house underwent a great change. Up to that time it had faced the south; but, owing to the con- struction of a new road about a hundred feet to the north, what had formerly been the rear became the front, and a lean-to was built across the south side. This modification of course necessitated a reconstruction of the chimney in the space formerly devoted to the stairs; whereupon the resulting arrangement became what it is to-day. The lean-to of this house, it will be noted, is built across what was originally the front. The Lee and the Hempstead are two of the most valuable early houses in Connecticut; for each dates back to the seventeenth century, and each embodies architectural evidence 12 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut sufficient to mark, step by step, the growth of the houses from the one-room plan to their ultimate and present form. The Graves house in Madison (1675), which is also of the added lean-to type, displays in its first-floor plan (Figure 11) an unusual lack of symmetry, although the layout is typical. Generally the variation in size between the two front rooms is very small, if it STHOY LEC HOS DA Set ee UB eRe Ni Teorey hi TPS ib o oi pee we JOR ES FIGURE IO. SA GRAVES OUST ad ey Oa FIGuRE II. exists at all. The period repre- sented by such houses as these of the added lean-to type consti- tutes the third stage in the de- velopment which is here being traced. By this period a new genera- tion had begun to take the place of the original settlers; times were rapidly becoming prosper- ous and general conditions much more secure. There was no longer the urgent necessity to clear land and guard against Indian attacks. Families had in- creased in size and wealth, and it was becoming possible to de- vote much more attention to the physical home. The lean-to, at first merely an addition, presently became an in- tegral part of the construction. The additional space originally gained had become, owing to changes in the mode of living, a sheer necessity. This phase may be regarded as the fourth in the development of the house plan. The next development, which ushers in the fifth period, was ac- complished by building the house of two full stories throughout, letting the first-floor plan remain that of the lean-to house. The most striking external feature of this change is the disappearance ‘TJ dlvtTZd ANAT LSVY—dsnNOoY AaT HOIMNGAaL)—aAsSNoHY SNOA’T The House Plan and Its Development ie of the long lean-to roof, with its fine lines sweeping from the ridge nearly to the ground. (Figure 12.) However, the utilitarian advantage of the change was great: the formerly useless attic-like space of the lean-to on the second floor gave way to three additional rooms of full head-room. NO COMAOA RATER Perxcipan RAFTER Werrrs- 2% 4 VE GIRLOU RS a Lett © As” Pe yYWELL-MIY HOVSE-WEST NARTIFORY SF FIGURE 12. The plan of the second floor, like that of the first, became a layout of five rooms— the two large front chambers, a “kitchen chamber” behind the chimney and above the kitchen, and smaller rooms on either side of it, corresponding to the buttery and the bedroom of the ground floor. (Figure 15.) The first-floor plan of the Warham Williams house in Northford (1750), shown in Figure 13, is a typical illustration of the layout of this period. The plan of the second floor repeats that of the first, so that the house is one of ten rooms. On the first floor we 14 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut find, as in the lean-to type, two large front rooms, one of which is the parlor, the other being variously known as the living room, hall, or keeping room. The kitchen is cen- trally located, behind the great chimney; on the north side of it are back stairs to the second floor, and a small pantry or buttery, and on the south or warmer side is a bed- room. The sleeping rooms of the second floor were always designated as “chambers,” and corresponded in name with the rooms beneath them; as, “hall-chamber,” “parlor-cham- ber.” The only sleeping room ever referred to as a “bedroom” was that on the first floor, which was always placed on the side of the house with the warmest exposure. In many instances this room has direct communication with the front room adjoining it. The Trumbull house in North Haven (1761) embodies this type of plan, as does the Rev. Dr. Huntington house in the town of South Coventry (1763). The first-floor plan of the latter house is shown in Figure 14. Its ell is in reality a separately framed house, for it is of earlier date than the main part and was probably moved to its present location when the main house was built. (Figure 15.) SER Tere ee Pee Up to about the middle of the eighteenth century, when this pe- riod drew to its close, utility had FIGuRE 13. been the determining influence upon each stage in the evolution of the house plan. This powerful and hitherto decisive factor now gave way to other in- fluences, itself becoming of secondary consideration. Economy and intimacy of arrangement were superseded by spaciousness and formality; and massiveness of construction was no longer the rule. Rather, massiveness was replaced by elegance and refinement of detail— qualities which reached their culmination at the close of the Adam period. As may be seen from the accompanying plans, the chimney had hitherto been the central feature, and, from its central position behind the stair porch, had not only dominated, but actually governed the plan. In the plan arrangement there now began a change which must be regarded as of extreme significance. This was the introduction of the central hallway, extending from the front to the rear of the house, with an outside door at either end, and the consequent division of the chimney into two parts. A typical layout of the period is shown in Figure 16. It will be seen that the new arrangement really consisted JS WARHWAM WILLIAMS Hovst-Nortitory JS ST aun $1 qunoly “YI TUN] Lf kMLWINOD sf 1LA0F"8 WOO NaI Ment He asa ALY He 4 ra) - NA f AY aWVtd 40074 4VOITf 4 Lo of” iJA st yYOLowtt H A a ve Nea lee ee romer yi sy Sheree S| 16 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut of two houses of two-room plan, turned at right angles to their former positions and separated by a hallway which was one-half bay in width. The plan of the Burnham-Marsh house, Wethersfield (now demolished), which was originally built about 1740, is shown in Figure 17. Its primary interest lies in the fact that it clearly shows an attempt to convert a house of central-chimney type into one of central- hall type. This was done by the addition of a new part at one end, which contained the second chimney. This plan contains the germ which eventually developed into a fixed type. Generally speaking, the change was simply the product of a search for a more open formation of plan and for a more spacious ‘ arrangement. As a result of it, | -Pinrac porns | ae . if the house plan became more | I] balanced and formal. This bal- ance or formality, so obtained, constitutes the sixth or final stage of the development of the house plan in Connecticut. By the third quarter of the eighteenth cen- tury, this new plan arrangement had become fairly well fixed, and it is representative of the ma- jority of the houses built from that time onward. In certain remote regions, of course, the earlier types persisted until a later time. This persist- © Ty PUG AlLSeT ion Um Tl 10.0 eh inane ence can be asserted of any archi- tectural period. Throughout the history of plan development, no Figure 16. precise date can be set for the changes which took place. An overlapping of periods was inevitable, and quite to be expected. The changes produced were gradual ones, and they were influenccd very strongly by the varying degrees of conservatism of different localities. Broadly speaking, however, it may be said that the central-chimney plan of two rooms held sway up to about the last quarter of the seventeenth century. During this period the lean-to first made its appearance. From thence onward to 1700 or thereabout the principal changes were the disappearance of the framed overhang, or its reduction to a few inches, and the incorporation of the lean-to, as an integral form of construction, into the house fabric. The period from 1700 to about the middle of the eighteenth century is marked by the raising of the lean-to so that the house becomes one of two full stories throughout. “PA el OF as | ve J CcESANTERS ASL OMIA Db eae ee ce The House Plan and Its Development 17 The central-hall arrangement of plan did not make its appearance until about 1750, between which time and the Revolutionary period, as I have stated, it became fixed as a type. One important point should be noted in connection with the central-hall house plan: namely, that the first-floor scheme still continues to be the dominating one, determining the arrangement of the floor above it, as is always the fact with the central-chimney house. This dominance of the first floor is probably due in large measure to the fact that the partitions, which were thin and non-bearing, were mainly governed in their positions by the girts or other major units of construction with which they coincided. It should be noted as well that, as the chimney became secondary to the central hall in importance and the stairs came into greater prominence, the stairs practically did not vary in proportion from those which oc- cupied a place in front of the central chimney. For many years the size of the stairs in relation to the general plan had been fairly well established. Of course, in the general expansion of plan the _ stairs were eventually increased to more generous proportions; but this evolution did not occur Orr Door Aiw Door until fairly late. wes OR IGIAAL Wort wzz~7™™”. %Avysep WORK Many houses of the central- rmcca WORE Rimoves hall or two-chimney plan have a Gene Teak WoO Raita eA ie rear ell, a story orastoryanda yy bByrxHam-MatRyun HOYvEs WLEIHERYTILIG VY half in height, communicating with one of the rear rooms of the main house. The Pitkin house in East Hartford (1740-1750) is an example. (Figure 18.) In some instances such rear ells were later additions, built to accommodate the kitchen and its dependencies, in or- der that the original kitchen of the house proper might be used as a dining room. It ap- pears, though, both from old family records and from much purely architectural evi- dence, that the rear ell is very often the older structure, in some cases moved to its position behind the main house, in others standing upon its original foundations and occupied as a dwelling during the construction of the main house. The rear ell of the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751), for instance, is of considerably earlier date than the main house itself. The central-hall plan, with minor variations, held sway throughout the Revolutionary period, up to the beginning of the Greek Revival period of 1830. Until that time, it was almost invariably the custom to build the house with its main roof ridge parallel to the FIGURE 17. ‘61 AUN "QI AUN] JS VOLAVMOGD-T TA ORS wey a¥V1d O01] ifaiys WV Po 70 Os tala eerie Se €: eel TT Wane: Ell} AAYVOLLAVY LS VY, Fol FLOR VINLId yr] -1/A0Kx MivioLy ay itd *fyoisiady AILvVy u —— “‘ATAOWTY AYOM THMIDIAO C==.I “-TSAOK TYNIDIACG FIAVEOCRX se Sao Ty M1919 > me The House Plan and Its Development 19 street or road. A characteristic of the Greek Revival period seems to be the placing of the house at right angles to its former position, with its gable end fronting on the street. What had formerly been the front now became the side; and this change necessitated a rearrangement of the interior and, consequently, a new plan. wus OR 1G1N AL Hovyt- LOA he RASS ETO UOU AL Salts WN Cee Rel fen HHT ORN SL of wm Oskat. fof 1G LO Voie N Ew HAY EA ae pete nye Cl LE OPOr Rs PL. Ae Ae FIGURE 20. We have now followed the steady growth of the house plan from a simple affair of a single room, through a series of regular developments—each one the logical result of the demands of new conditions, new ways of living—on to an ultimate expression in the comparatively spacious and stately plan of central-hall type; a plan so perfected and so admirably adapted to our needs and usages of to-day that, for the average house of eco- nomical layout, it would be difficult to better it. 20 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut In addition to the houses of regular plan formation, such as those which have been discussed, and which constitute the great majority, there exist as well occasional houses of eccentric or irregular plan, which do not come under any fixed classification. Of sporadic occurrence, they are exceptions rather than the rule. Frame houses, with masonry ends built entirely of brick or stone, were never common, and but few examples of such con- struction remain to-day. From the plan of the Morris house at Morris Cove, New Haven, shown in Figure 20, it may be seen that the original house, built in 1670, was constructed with massive stone ends, into which the fireplaces were built. The first-floor plan of the 29-1072 - v Pip RS tT Voi Rapala aes SSHELVOR WOOTBRIDGE Hovvyt-Hartroreply FIGURE 21. Sheldon Woodbridge house, built 1715, which once stood on Governor Street in Hartford, is shown in Figure 21. The plan arrangement is similar to that of the Morris house, but the masonry ends were constructed of brick. The Timothy Strong house (circa 1753), which once stood in Windsor, and which is illustrated in Plate IV, was also a house of this type. The small story-and-a-half house shown in Plate IV, which stands on the Boston Post Road near Madison, also falls under this classification of masonry-ended frame houses. As in the three foregoing examples, the fireplaces are built into the end walls. Houses of central-hall plan which are built entirely of brick, such as the Chaffee house in Windsor (1776), and the Joel Bradley house in North Haven (1759), usually exhibit end chimneys, the fireplaces occurring, of course, in the end walls. (Plates I and XIII.) WarRHAM WILLIAMS HousE—NorRTHFORD TRUMBULL HousE—NortH Haven Prrxin Hovuse—East HartFrorp HarrIsON-LINSLEY HousE—BRANFORD Pruate ITI. OL et) yl eee Oe en ee ee tr Oe lee PRES DE ESSE Nt HS OI MRI EAN MSIE RIN MEN ED Chapter III. ‘The House Frame and Its Constru@tion is responsible for the visible form; and therefore it is of vital importance to the student of architectural anatomy, if such a term may be applied to the subject. Aside from its technically architectural aspect, the massive framing of our early houses is [Ss framework of our early houses, like the bony structure of the human body, a thing to delight anyone possessed of the smallest amount of architectural sense. A feeling of boundless strength, of security and steadfastness, as well as a notable kind of dignity, is inseparable from the ponderous timbers which go to make up these mighty frames. The framework of the early house was a logical and straightforward solution of the problem which confronted the builder; its simplicity and reasonableness are facts simply beyond criticism. In considering the framing of the early Connecticut house, it is well to take into account the part of England from which the builders in this or that locality of the Colony came; for, as would naturally be expected, we find better and more skillful construction achieved by the natives of regions of the mother country in which timber was plentiful and its traditional use well understood. For instance, the men in Guilford came from Surrey and Kent, the Milford men from Essex and York—all parts of England where timbered houses were common. The Branford men came for the most part from Wethers- field and New Haven; and among the founders of New Haven were many craftsmen and carpenters. As I have noted, oak was the material chosen by the early builders for the house frame. Distinctly a survival of tradition, its use was almost invariable. Extreme difficulty was involved in shaping and handling it; but when it had once been put in place, it undeniably stayed put. The timbers which we can inspect to-day have for centuries borne faithfully the mighty loads imposed upon them. In certain isolated houses, far even to-day from other human habitations, the tremendous “sticks” which make up the framework excite our wonder as to how they were ever got into place. Certainly, with the limited means at the builders’ disposal, their ingenuity as well as their strength must have been sorely tried. The “raising bee” is not so ancient an institution as to be beyond the memory of most of us of the present generation. Doubtless it had its Colonial prototype. The inhabitants of a region must have gathered together when a house was to be “raised,” and by their united efforts succeeded in putting together the previously prepared frame. The main members of construction were of oak, broad-ax hewn from straight tree trunks. White oak appears to have been the variety most commonly used, although red oak occurs occasionally. The framing of the Moore house in Windsor (1664) is partly of hard pine, and the plates and roof system of the Forbes or Barnes house in East Haven 22 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut (circa 1740) are of poplar. Chestnut was sometimes employed for rafters, though never commonly. The use of oak was so all but universal that the discovery of any other wood in a house frame may be regarded as exceptional. ~ CROSS Oye iit penne JS TALCOIT ARMHOLE HOVS PO uke aha FIGURE 22. Quite without exception, hewing was the method by which the larger timbers were shaped; it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth or the beginning of the nineteenth century that power sawing supplanted hewing. Even after power sawing was in general use for getting out plank and boards, the use of the broad-ax for shaping the major members of construction was clung to with a curious tenacity. In very late work the framing material was often cut out by means of an “up and down” saw, as the marks on the timbers attest. 24 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut This instrument was a power saw with a long narrow blade, worked vertically with a reciprocating motion. The circular saw was a later invention. A general court held at New Haven June 11, 1640, established a scale of charges for both hewing and sawing, as follows: “Price for hewing sills, beames, plates or such like timber, square hewen to build wth, not above a penny a foote running measure. Sawing by the hundred not above 4s.6d. for boards. 5s. for plancks. 5s.6d. for slitworke and to be payd for no more than they cutt full and true measure.” The early craftsmen’s skill with the broad-ax must have been very great. In the first houses, much of the framework was left exposed on the inside of the house, and it was FRAMIAG * PSN Oak 11 Os aioe ar GV bt ROR ite FIGURE 24. + SVL PIRSA es J MOVLTHROP HOV/E- LAST HAVEN J FIGURE 25. given no other finish than that which it received from the ax. Surfaces were pro- duced in this way which were nearly as smooth as if planed; and no doubt the chamfering of exposed beams was done with the same tool. It is obvious that small timbers, such as studs and ceiling joists, could not very readily have been hewn out, owing to the difficulty of holding them securely during the opera- tion. Hence, even in the earliest houses, they were quite generally sawn out. A typical framing system of a two- room-plan house is illustrated in Figure 23. From this drawing it will be seen that the general scheme of construction was as follows: upon the foundation walls of stone or brick, a continuous hori- zontal timber, variously known as the sill, “cil,” or “grundsell,” was laid. The last term may be seen in the General Court Records for New Haven, of De- cember 2, 1656, which read as follows: “The Governor acquainted the Towne that the occasion of this meeting is aboute the meeting house, wef hath been viewed by workmen and finde it verey defective, many of the timbers being very rotten, besides the groundsells.” Usually about eight or nine inches in its sectional measurements, the sill was bedded upon its broader side, or, in other The House Frame and Its Construction 25 words, laid flatwise. The corners were generally framed together by means of a mortise- and-tenon joint, such as that shown in Figure 24. Another and less common form of sill jointing is that illustrated in Figure 25. The joists of the first floor spanned the width of each room, and as a rule their ends were framed into the sills and cellar girts. In a few houses, however, of very early date, the first-floor joists were built into the foundation walls, and the house sills laid over them. Lambert states, in his History of the Colony of New Haven, that “The ground ATTEl Atw FROAt ok a CORAER Povt REAR CORALR POST Aske PyeLiasy- 2x4 Sc pRarten-7x 4%. RY Piare: 5x7 at | Z—-QRvGi nar Roor Le « JECTION Mfevas ttl. == | ORIGIAAL FRONT Va : PLATE- GxG ee CRR On ety tae) fetal Ace SERORM ECD a kA IAD bio Shen Pe bocca ad ele ele mom Guard FicureE 26. 26 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut floor was laid below the sills, which projected into the room eight or ten inches.” As a result of such an arrangement, the sills necessarily projected into the rooms of the first floor, as Lambert states, and as may be seen from the cross section of the older Bushnell house in Saybrook (1678-1679), shown in Figure 26. This rare form of construction existed Lint Or Prastee FRAMLD Hewa Ao OVIRHAAG OVYIRHAAG OYERK AAG JSttasiy fost? SP OY ae FIGURE 27. in the Avery house, Groton (1660), and the Baldwin house, Branford (1650), and may still be seen in the Freeman Curtis house, Stratford (1710), and the Hempstead house, New London (1643). Upon each of the four corners of the framed sills, a vertical member, known as the corner post, was erected. The posts were tenoned into the sills by means of the usual tusk-tenon-and-mortise joint; and often the tenon was secured in place by means of a Mipw Lyte] WOSANI AA —aASNOPF ONOAULS NaAVH MAN—adsnNoPY slUaopyy NosIdvJ\J—avoy Lsog NO asnoY N@AVH Lsvq—asnoy AdTavag * \ eesite _ _ The House Frame and Its Construction 27 wooden peg driven through it. Where there was no framed overhang of the second story, the posts were of one piece from sill to plate—in other words, through the height of two stories. (Figure 27.) Four similar posts, making a total of eight in all, were also erected— two in the front and two in the rear wall—as intermediate supports. These four posts anh jhe feb eer Ie —— Be Bt - 16" == SS ema bs Sh ee al ane = = re —: = SS ie “ae nM) in | | Shs POYsT : | Heit I | | | log 82 REAR Girt \ pre Seat Sa | So Se (Ney aL ccoaae et 4 : e vi NOMAVE Gy Oey Bene) Mie tal ad ol Reve Vm eRe ANTE COnR Dp oni FIGURE 28. are known as the front and rear chimney posts, according to their position. In the earliest houses, all eight posts “flare” or increase in size in one transverse dimension from floor to ceiling. Accordingly there was a double flare in the total height of each post—one flare for each story. Most often this flare is parallel with the chimney girts, though it occa- sionally occurs in the other direction—.e., so as to be parallel with the ridge of the roof. A post turned in the latter direction is shown in Figure 28. AUR CORAER Post Watxyscor Paertitioa Removed —_ . 27) ol Manne FIGURE 29. 0 OT 14 POON tl On alae + LY OW LEO Were + NEWTOWA 4 7G BR ELE Aw ees FIGuRE 30. ‘Of TUN iV eV hee valeigeniy eyieap Wishes 2 Mr VO i hye Da leral Menih 2) Sh Gye or "If TUN] AVON VAG. eI fnoyH LITS MIT -VOSIVUVH 1fOg AINYO)? 30 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut There are two reasons for the existence of the flare. In the first place, it was a survival of framing tradition; for it is to be found in the half-timber work of England. Secondly, it was done to provide a better seat or bearing for the ends of the horizontal girts which it was the duty of the posts to carry, and which were framed into them. (Figures 29 and 30.) In some regions, principally the shore towns between New Haven and Saybrook, the added depth at the tops of the posts which provided a support for the ends of the girts was secured in other ways than by simply flaring one side of the post. The older Bushnell house in the town of Saybrook (1678-1679) displays posts of shouldered form (Figure 26), a rare device. The corner posts of the Harrison-Linsley house in Branford (1690) project into the rooms, and are splayed only in the upper third of their height. (Figure 31.) Two other schemes are illustrated in Figure 32, that which was used in the Starr house (circa 1645) being typical of the whole Guilford school, which was more elaborate than similar work elsewhere. In that region the increase in depth of the posts was very often given a quaintly ornamental treatment. (Figure 33.) VACADIAA “HOR ae * G¥ido Oras } v CALDWELL HOV/E’ | ~CVILFORD? FIGURE 33. The House Frame and Its Construction In size the posts were usually 8 by 10 or 10 by 12 inches, al- though in some houses of ex- tremely heavy framing they were of still greater size. The flare quite generally occurred in the line of the greatest dimen- sion. If a post measured, for example, 8 by 10 inches at the first-floor level, at the height of the ceiling its dimensions would probably be 8 by 12 or 14 inches. At the level of the second floor, a continuous set of heavy horizontal timbers, known as girts, was framed in between the posts. The girts were of corre- sponding position with the sills, but of much greater size. They were always greater in depth than in width; if the sectional measurements were 9 by 12 inches, 12 inches would be the vertical dimension. Just as the sills carried the ends of the first floor joists, the girts provided a _ support for those of the second floor; and the floor joists were framed into them, as into the sills of the first floor, so that the Riar CHimaty vr FRAMIAG DIV WELL-MI HOVSE WES ITOWRAR TE OR PETATL* 31 - Post X FIGURE 34. upper surfaces finished flush. The girts are known as the front, end, and rear girts, accord- ing to their respective positions. In addition to these girts in the outside walls, two additional timbers, called chimney girts, were framed across the house from front to rear, one on either side of the central chimney. Their ends were secured into the front and rear chimney posts by means of the usual mortise-and-tenon joint. (Figure 34.) It should be noted that the tops of the girts are framed flush, or on the same level with each other, in all cases. The end and chimney girts, because they carry the ends of the summer beams, are always deeper in section than either the front or the rear girts. It is only in extremely rare cases that cambered girts appear, such as the second-story end girts of the Gleason house in Farmington (circa 1650-1660). This feature is, of course, purely a survival of half-timber tradition. a2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut From the middle of the end girt to the middle of the chimney girt extended a timber which was generally the heaviest of the whole framework—the summer, also sometimes referred to as the summer-beam or summer-tree. There is some diversity of opinion as to the derivation of its name; it is probable that it came from the Norman-French word “sommier.” It has been suggested that it is a corruption of the word “sumpter,” meaning a burden bearer (cf. the “sumpter mule”). This last would seem a reasonable explanation, for the summer carries a goodly load. CHIMALY fl Gest re SLYARTS TAV ERAS ~ NOKRTHFORT” FIGURE 35. It was the purpose of the summer to provide an intermediate support for the ends of the second-floor joists, which were framed into it on either side, from the front and rear girts. The conventional method of framing the ends of the summer into the girts which carried it was by means of a very ingenious dovetail joint, from which it could not possibly slip or pull out. (Figure 35.) Unlike most of the other framing joints, which were secured by means of heavy oak pins driven through the tenons, the ends of the summer were held in place merely by the weight of the beam itself. The framing of the attic floor nearly always corresponds to the framing of the second floor, though as I explain in the chapter on roof framing, occasional variations are to be met with. A second summer corresponds to that on the first floor, and end chimney girts repeat those below at the second floor level; but the front and rear girts now become the front and rear plates respectively, and form the supports for the rafter feet. The House Frame and Its Construction 23 VEUIROey Seem et Cl lO ns Peek WIL AN S HOW SE WETHER SIDE LD 7 FicureE 36. The term “plate” is of old usage, as the following extract from the New Haven Court Record for January 19, 1659, attests: “Mr. Tuttle desired that the takeing down the turret and towre might be forebourne, & that the shores might be renewed, & the plates lined where they were weake.” The building referred to is the old meeting house which at that time stood upon the Green. The rear plate was usually framed in the conventional way, in line with the girt below it; but a great deal of variation is to be met with in the placing of the front plate. What- ever arrangement was resorted to by the builders, their object was the same in every case: namely, to project the outer face of the plate beyond the house line sufficiently to 34. The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut | pial Se Fi ig LLEANTO SSS GZ RATIERY/— = E , MLL YA TA a 14" SSS i va Ws | / ; ( HH HI | FROM TAGE ie NSU << GABLE RAFTER ie) — 8 ee “3 Hi EAT a Ne geue _— Pd ZS aii\\ barter 2 See A BZ ON —— z WY SSS Li) eyes Pk =e rt FIGURE 42. RIAD HW Osss fot | 1 if A Ea HE | LeaaAtro H SAL eal COC lERSARMSIN Goat ele Ane VOR LI OF NOL “Ob ar tol WAVE A + FIGURE 43. cohatetalaG FRAMING 7 es SSNS os IS = Rly IN ot el TM EE RA OCA ee el Lye OVALS vBRAAFORT® FIGURE 44. LiaaAto Girt 40 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut borhood of twenty inches on centers. A framing plan of the Moulthrop house (circa 1690), which formerly stood in East Haven, is shown in Figure 43. It is typical of the central- chimney house of lean-to type. The studs, or intermediate framing members of the exterior walls, were also small timbers, generally measuring about 2% by 3 inches in section. In height they were only the distance between two horizontal members of construction; for instance, one set of studs ran from the sill to the first girt, and the second set from the first girt to the plate. Inasmuch as the studs bore no vertical load, they were naturally small; still, their ends RLAR eee (asnu FLook Se ‘39 NG", eal SS Uy REAP V4, | rte [| Poss PO] Shmasseutaniussiivesneneeruspe Unrorin st a eT LIAT OMA It FRAA TAL ——s oe : + GLEBE HOVYE-WOOVBVRY® FIGuRE 45. were always framed into the beams at the top and bottom by means of the usual tusk- tenon-and-mortise joint. The outside faces of the studs, and the main members of con- struction which held them, were in all cases framed flush. Like the joists, they were al- most always sawed, rather than hewn. They were spaced from twenty inches to two feet on centers. The studs of the interior walls or partitions were similar in size and spacing. Very often, 144- or 14-inch oak planks were used in their stead, as a foundation to which the lath could be nailed. In Connecticut there exist a large number of so-called “plank-frame” houses, in the con- struction of which oak planks of from 1% to 2 inches in thickness were used in the out- side walls, in place of the usual studs. In such houses, of which the Norton house in the The House Frame and Its Construction 41 town of Guilford (circa 1690) is a typi- cal example, the planks were applied vertically, and extended in one unbroken length from sill to plate. Varying in width from 12 to 15 inches, or even more, they were secured to the main framework, which was the same as that of a studded house, by means of oak pins about three-quarters of an inch in diame- ter. These pins were driven through + W111 holes bored through the planks and into the sills, girts, and plates. Usually two pins were placed at each bearing. The planking of the Norton house is placed le On if ae EOLY Jala /, Gent O AY fy: Ficure 46. so that spaces of about two inches’ width occur between the planks. These spaces were plugged with a mixture of clay and cut straw. In some cases, as Figure 46 shows, the planks were set into a rabbet cut in the sill. There is, on the whole, very little variation from the framing scheme just described. Minor differences occasionally occur, but the major members of construction do not vary. During the period of the lean-to, the end sills were extended and a new rear sill was placed upon the new foundations; two new corner posts, one story high, were erected, as well as two new rear chimney posts, so that the total number became twelve, instead of eight, as for- merly. Upon these four new rear posts was placed the new rear plate of the lean-to, at the level of the old rear girt, as illustrated in Figure 8. New end girts were framed in between the old and the new rear corner posts, and, parallel with them, extensions of the chimney girts back to the new rear chimney posts. Figure 47 shows the method whereby the extensions of the chim- ney girts were sometimes framed into the old rear girts. The ceiling joists of the lean-to ran from the old rear girts to the new rear lean-to plate. (Figure 6.) When the lean-to became an organic part of the house, this framing became integral with that of the main body of the house. In this event the old rear girt becomes in reality a second summer, though, unlike the first one, it does not appear across the ceiling of a room. CHIMNEY Poyt aa WimaVeh Rls AYE Ee ROM Af. VPA OCR Oe tis Olk ye * FIGURE 47. ae AE ES SUEROM Wah FoR Ae Mei eG DAA G RA te Ficure 48. The House Frame and Its Construction 43 During the next step, when the lean-to disappears and the house becomes of two full stories throughout, the full number of twelve posts is retained, and the framing remains as before, with the exception that the one-story rear posts are replaced by two-story posts similar to those in the front wall, and the rear plate is placed at the same level as the front one. What was formerly the rear plate, in the house of but one room in depth, now be- comes a second summer of the second story; and the two chimney girts of the second story, as well as the end girts, are extended until they meet the new rear plate. (Figure 48.) Even in the house of central-hall plan, the fundamental framing scheme remains un- changed. The framing of a house of this type is in reality that of two houses of two-room plan placed side by side and connected by extensions of the sills and girts. As the two- room-plan houses have been turned at right angles to their former position, their second- story end girts now become the front and rear plates, and what were their plates become the end girts of the new arrangement. The summer beams, which appear to run from front to rear, in reality retain their old positions, and extend from the outside wall to the chimney. CBE ESB SD IDE Ne ENG FIN FENN HN HII Meee Medea ope Chapter IV. Roof Framing O the student of our early architecture, the framing of the roof is of importance scarcely secondary to that of the house itself. The two systems of framing are in fact so closely connected and so interdependent that it is often difficult to separate them. Nevertheless it is possible to classify the various modes of roof construc- tion into several groups, each of which has its distinct characteristics. In examining the house frame, we found that its construction was always or nearly always broadly similar. There were, to be sure, occasionally deviations from the general scheme, such as expressions of localism in the framing of joints; but on the whole the major members of the framework varied but little in size and arrangement. In the matter of roof construc- tion, however, there is no corresponding uniformity. We do not find one general scheme followed through- out. The roof frame varied FIGuRE 49. greatly in the details of its construction, and in several localities was radically different in system. Localism and individualism were more strongly accented in roof framing than in any other single feature of the early Connecticut house except the overhang. : Without doubt, the system of roof construction most frequently employed was that which made use of common rafters, with horizontal roof boarding. Even this simple arrangement may be divided into two usages: under one, collar beams were used; under the other, they were not. These variations were, as might be expected, regional. For in- stance, where a roof frame consists of a number of “common” rafters—.e., rafters all of the same size—spaced an equal distance on centers, the collar beam is to be expected and is generally found. It was used in order to prevent the rafters from sagging inward at their centers under the weight of the roof boards and shingles which they carried. (Figure 49.) In the New Haven Colony, however, the use of collar beams was the exception rather than the rule, and their absence is peculiar to that territory. From Figure 49 it may be seen that the collar beam was in reality the third member of a simple truss, and that it acted as a strut, or member in compression. This illustration shows the two general methods by ‘TA GLVIg QTHIAANS—dSNVJA] AVL) AUNAGOOMA—aASNOHP AdATL) Ta se a ae k* Stree ee eee aD eee o~r_ Roof Framing 45 mereGOt | EANIAG * PeeryercAL COMMOA Rarite fystin 7 FIGURE 50. which the collar was framed into the rafters. Of the two, the tusk-tenon-and-mortise joint is the more common, although the half-dovetail joint is to be met with rather frequently. These joints were nearly always secured by means of the inevitable wooden peg of about three-fourths inch diameter. Occasionally we find an example which proves the builder’s realization that the peg was superfluous; that the combined weight of roof and rafters was more than sufficient to keep the collar beam in place, and that in no way could its tenon slip out of its mortise. Where the roof frame consisted of a system of common rafters, the spacing was gen- erally from three to four feet on centers, and all the rafters were alike. (Figure 50.) A great deal of variation is to be met with in the sectional dimensions of such rafters; in some instances the section is nearly square, in others it is rectangular. Rafters of square section usually meas- ure about 5 by 5 inches to 6 by 6 inches; those of rectangular section 5 by 7. or 6 by 8 inches. The more carefully built _ and finely finished houses have rafters which are broad-ax hewn; those of the Ficure 51. 46 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut ¥ORAC OF eR EAM te acee Joe Tyee Pato Ki Lee PAY RL ti oe ETM es FIGURE 52. more crudely built houses may be simply rough poles, dressed on one side, and still re- taining much of their original bark. Where rafters meet at the ridge, they are almost in- variably framed together by means of the tenon joint, as shown in Figure 51. The ridge- pole is never to be found except where it is part of a purlin system (Figure 52). The common method of securing a footing for the rafters was by means of a double notch cut into the plates at their point of intersection. (Figure 53.) This double step pro- vided a bearing for the rafter butt, which was further held in place by means of a peg of about one inch diameter, driven through it into the plate. The builders of the Guilford and Branford houses, and of those in the surrounding region, em- ployed a totally different method of roof construction. These houses display, in nearly every example, roof frames made up of four, six, or eight pairs of heavy principal rafters, into which were framed horizontal purlins. These purlins, being horizontal, necessitated the use of vertical roof boarding, which extended up and down from ridge to plates, in the same direction as the rafters themselves. Where the purlin system exists, FIGURE 53. a great deal of variation is to be Roof Framing 47 found in the number, size, placing, and framing of these members. It is interesting to note that the influence of this framing system extended as far eastward as Saybrook, where an occasional house is to be found, the roof of which is built in this manner. A typical system of purlin construction is to be seen in the roof of the Harrison-Linsley house in Branford (1690). (Figure 54.) This framework is made up of six pairs of principal rafters, which are of oak, hewn, and about 4% by 634 inches in section. These principals are spaced about eight feet on centers, with the exception of those forming the central bay, which are nine feet on centers. Into these rafters are framed the purlins, TILLEY e a +4 Po ie ed hfe at HY : ee Ld) unan PULTE ET me 4x5 /z ee ed 3x4 i REAR FLAti- 654 x8 MOA JHOWIAG “ROOF FrRANING = Beer PO N= LINSLLY HOVSE- DRANFORYT Y FIGURE 54. j SX MMER PACITY EIAAL J PtTIOA OF AITIC=- SHOWING TRANIAG PaeON TT HOP HOVE ob Aen HAY EAS ‘RIGURE 5 5. 48 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut roughly 3 by 4 inches, three rows on the front, and the same number on the rear, with a single purlin at the peak, forming the ridge. These purlins, where they cross the rafters, are halved into them, and secured in addition by a wooden peg driven through the joint. The roof boarding, which is of wide oak boards, an inch thick, of course extends up and down from ridge to plates. Piare- Ox te fe PyeLia s- 1% « Zhe i eT. Oaic JiLPf- Bx10 Hea) CROSS, SCT Ones SMOVLTHROP Hovst-East HAVEN 4 Figure 56. The roof of the Acadian house in Guilford (1670) is framed in quite the same manner, with the exception that there are six rows of purlins, front and rear, in addition to that at the ridge. The principal rafters are 414 by 8 inches in section, and the purlins 2% by 234 inches, framed flatwise into the rafters. (Figure 8.) In the roof of the Moulthrop house in East Haven (demolished in 1919) there was to be seen a framing scheme of the utmost interest. (Figure 55.) Although made up of horizontal purlins and the usual rafters, this roof is not properly classifiable under the Roof Framing 49 purlin system. It is rather to be regarded as a survival of the traditional use of thatch, for the small and closely spaced purlins were in reality nothing more or less than thatch poles. These purlins, which were approximately 134 by 2% inches in section, and from 12 to 13 inches on centers, were spiked on to the rafters, and the shingles in turn nailed to them. Rafters and purlins were of oak, and the shingles of white pine, 2 feet 6 inches long, hand shaved. (Figure 56.) SMOVLYIHROP HOV. "LAST HAVEN? “Stctiod OF Plate SHOWIAG Ratter IM Oly Poyitiods —_—_ —_ ete a D See ea 0 Pose k | H FIGURE 57. In the framing of this roof, there is also written a novel bit of architectural history. From Figure 57 it may be seen that the rear or lean-to rafters have been raised out of the seats cut for them in the rear plate, and secured in a new position by means of oak blocks placed beneath them where they bear on the plate, and fifteen inches above it. In addition, each rear rafter has been lengthened about two feet by means of a new piece spliced on to its upper end. This blocking up and lengthening out of the rafters was made necessary by an increase in the depth of the lean-to rooms, which at some time in the history of the house must have been found necessary. 50 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Another variation of the purlin system may be seen in the roof of the Bradley house in Branford (circa 1730). This roof is framed with four pairs of very heavy principal rafters, which, with their unusually large collar beams, really form four sturdy trusses. (Figure 58.) These trusses, if so they may be called, carry two heavy purlins, which are framed into them. Into these purlins, in turn, two small rafters are framed between each two pairs # RO: O07 F 7 RAG JS BRAD LE Y HOV SP sDiehee Ose Ficure 58. of trusses. The principal rafters, or legs of the trusses, it should be observed, are two inches heavier at the butt than at their apex. The steep pitch of this roof should also be noted. The roof of the Morris house at Morris Cove, near New Haven, is framed in a similar manner. A still different form of roof construction exists in the Bidwell-Mix house in West Hartford (1695-1700), and the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680). The framing of these two roofs is markedly similar, as may be seen from Figure 59. The system in each case consists of four pairs of principal rafters, measuring 4% by 8 inches deep, of hewn oak, framed together at the ridge in the customary manner. A single horizontal purlin is framed in between every two rafters, and serves as a support for the Roof Framing a smaller common rafters which bear upon it, and which are held in place by pegs. These smaller intermediate rafters are simply rough poles of about four inches’ diameter, slightly flattened on the outer side. In both of these houses, the end sets of rafters are above the end girts, and the central pairs above the chimney girts. Rafter feet and girts therefore meet the plate at the same point. (Figure 34.) Commoa ane 4A’ Tia : Pyeiia AES or LCwinnty GiRty: Fo Sea, Joist ty: poe aa Pepe WE LL- MIX HOVSE -WEYT HARTFORD S PRIACIPAL oy oh, GiIRt- x12" = Aad ie = ——— Gint-8 x12" Sores Tee 7 Tx SYN MER Son eo aoe a ert tT ytR WILLIAMS HOVSE- WETHERSFIELY J *LOAGITVDIAAL /tCtItOAs OF Attits -SHOWIAG FRAMIAG* FIGuRE 59. It is obvious that in a house of the lean-to type the width of the lean-to on the first floor was determined by the pitch or angle of the rear rafters from the main house ridge to the rear plate. (Figure 6.) Extending downward from that point, their intersection with the first-floor ceiling joists determined the location of the lean-to plate. We have seen how a greater width of lean-to was secured, at considerable pains, by a rearrangement of the rear rafters of the Moulthrop house; let us see how the same problem was solved in other cases. 52 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut In Guilford, Branford, and the surrounding region we find a group of houses, of which the old Evarts Tavern of Northford (circa 1710) is typical, and in which the desired addi- tional width of lean-to was secured by the use of a second rear plate, from 18 to 24 inches above the first rear plate. This second rear plate served in reality as a purlin, and simply afforded an intermediate bearing for the long lean-to rafters. (Figure 39.) 13% Joists. SYAMER TxuZ Froar Pare The XIG™ ‘= ( Froar Girt | Leanto Paare Bex & “CROSS . Jeo SEY ARYTS TAV ERS SO eee Ficure 60. The problem was met in a different way by the builder of the Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss house in Cheshire (circa 1730). This roof is framed with six pairs of heavy rafters, which increase in size toward their butts; into them are halved continuous 2 by 4 inch purlins, with a 4 by 4 inch purlin forming the ridge. (Figure 61.) Here lies the point of interest: to secure a greater span for the rear rafters, the ends of the girts, over which they occur, were cantilevered out beyond the rear plate, and tenoned into the rafters, which they sup- “TIA dlvid NOLNITZ—asnoYe NVOAOP] duorLuvy{—asnoy a1Q Roof Framing 53 ported. (Figure 61.) The second-story summers, however, instead of running from end girt to chimney girt in the usual manner, were turned at right angles and extended from front to rear plate, so that their cantilevered ends provided bearings for the two rafters, each of which was intermediate between the end and chimney girts. (Figure 62.) Similar construction is to be found in the Hall house, Cheshire (1730), where the two intermediate girts above mentioned appear as summers against the second-story ceilings, running parallel Sei fa ent OHA a Peer MCOA STEPH EA HOLCHIG re chOV SES ORE SHIRE 7 Ficure 61. “Rarrir fs OttvR Onty Oven GIRTY - Nl Sea ee ae | re ee Os RN lacie a ESO erA Taek ROA Bate Geral ok S DEACOR STEPHEN NOTCURISCHOV 7S Olt ee FIGuRE 62. — $e ee eee ° } RiniRS Eee entre ree Ba RAFTER- iF 1a | a i IZ” Piven | tpomer ihe Pyesid R cnsnsusasecmamene cman (1 aren oI ine =——_— Exy Girt- 6x 14 REAR PLATE-S2x77 Girt Sx” \ TLONGITVUDIAAL /SECTION-OF ATTIC - /HOWIAG FRAMIAG S HALL HOV, bo Cae FicureE 63. Roof Framing ie with the ends of the house. These two beams are cased, and have handsomely panelled soffits. (Figures 63 and 64.) This method of cantilever girt construction also appears as a characteristic of East Haven houses. The roof of the Bradley-Tyler house (circa 1745) is so framed (Figure 38), as is that of the Forbes or Barnes house (circa 1740). (Figure 65.) There is this difference, ee es *LEANTO FRAMING: Papeete i [| VHNLL HOYSE@ CHESHIRE « FicurRE 64. however: the Bradley-Tyler house roof is made up of six pairs of principal rafters, into which are framed light horizontal purlins; whereas the Forbes or Barnes house roof is constructed with ten pairs of common rafters, which require, besides the two end and two chimney girts, six additional intermediates to support them. These additional six girts take the place of the attic floor joists, and they are halved on to the front and rear plates, so that they finish flush with them, top and bottom. These six girts do not appear below the 56 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut plastered ceiling of the second story, as do those in the Hall house. This method of cantilevered girt construction exists in the Benjamin house, Milford (circa 1750). I have not found it in any other localities than those mentioned. Although it may have been utilized to a considerable extent in those places, it cannot properly be called, on the whole, a common form of construction. Rake Uetee JOINT ¥) CROSS aon JS FORBES- DARALS: HO V7 tr 8 an fee Ficure 65. This is the appropriate point at which to speak of the early roof pitch, or the angle at which the rafters were set. Undoubtedly, steepness was a characteristic of early roof con- struction. This tendency is easily explained by the fact that men who came from England were used to steeply pitched roofs, which were so built through actual necessity. English roof coverings were mainly of two sorts: thatch and slate. A thatch roof must be steep to shed water properly: and a slate roof must likewise be steep in order to transmute the great Roof Framing 67 dead weight of the slates into a nearly vertical load upon the outside walls, rather than into an outward thrust, as would happen with a roof of flat pitch. We encounter here, once more then, the strong factor of tradition. There is every reason to believe that thatch was employed as the roofing material of the earliest houses, and that its use was discontinued only when it was found unsuited to the rigors and severe storms of our climate. The early V7, ; Ki fi H My hs. i ee = ine y it URUGr OMLRNI LAG ee eee Seong *FORDEY-BDARALY HOVSE- EAYT HAVEN © Ficur_E 66. town records of Windsor mention the use of thatch as a roof covering of the church there; and if it were used for such a building, it is highly probable that it was used for houses as well. The early court records of New Haven also make mention of thatchers among the workmen present in the colony at that time. The Guilford records for the summer of 1651 ordered “the meeting house to be thatched and clayed before winter.” Claying probably meant pointing the walls, which were of stone. As Atwater says: “The order to thatch shows that in Guilford, if not in other plantations, a thatched roof was thought worthy to cover the most honored edifices.”? Speaking of the first habitations erected in the New 58 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Haven Colony, he says: “From the mention of thatchers, and the precautions taken against fire, it may be inferred that these humble tenements (log houses) were roofed with thatch.” His inference is further strengthened by the existence of the office of chimney-viewer and by the frequent mention, in the early records of the colony, of the men who held it. According to the Hartford records it was the duty of the chimney- viewers to examine the chimneys every six weeks in winter, and every quarter in summer; [—_ ht —EE EEE ee nn, eee = LATTER /aaimiae LUM MER “SECTION SWOWSVA CoA at etna Weems S RILLA SMITH HONG eo hee Ficure 67. and it is probable that the office very closely corresponds with that of the present-day fire-warden. It was, therefore, a post of importance and no mean responsibility, for in a way the safety of the community depended upon the vigilance of these men. “Chimney- viewers” were elected in Hartford until 1706. The use of many small purlins, which may originally have been thatch poles, in con- structing the roof of the Moulthrop house is also significant. Possibly this house had originally a thatched roof. The drawing of the Governor Treat house, Milford, copied from one of Lambert’s illustrations, shows a roof of extremely steep pitch. (Figure 68.) Even making allowance for exaggeration or faulty draftsmanship, the angle of the roof must have been very sharp. The Hempstead house of New London, the western part of which was built in 1643, is one of the earliest wooden houses standing to-day in the state of Connecticut. The pitch of the original roof of this house, as may be seen in the attic, where the old gable rafters are still in place, was fifteen inches to the foot, a very steep pitch. (Figure 69.) Mr. Ralph D. Smith, in information furnished Mr. Palfrey for his history, states that Roof Framing 59 the roof of the Whitfield house in Guilford (1639) was originally 60°. As the tradition died out and the actual necessity for the steep roof disappeared, the roof pitch grew flatter. It finally became stabilized in the neighborhood of 45° (twelve inches, or square pitch), though of course there were deviations from this in either direction. See s Siete Saas — se8ho.s Sorurs VK, Ps SS Sa ° av = Aw a . oa “S _- Titi Ba et ket a oo 2 hag ole. Ete, se. be . 4 oe oh Ficur_e 68. TENOALY LAYS OF CASEMEAT FRAME - Prevent GABLE Wiarow Not JHOWAS Sorter Liars JAVICATE Oty CASEMEAT WiAvow FRAAL-~ WL hee Fe Ge kb re Eke YORUNP SIN IS HOVSL-~-AtLW LOATORN S FicurE 69. The origin of the gambrel roof appears to be very uncertain, and there is considerable doubt as to when it first appeared and whence it came. It was undoubtedly the result of an attempt to obtain greater head-room, without increasing the height of the roof. The construction or framing of the gambrel roof is invariably a handsome piece of work; and 60 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut in many houses of which it is a part, such as the Webb-Welles house, Wethersfield (1751), and those of its class, it forms the chief feature of architectural interest. The gambrel frame varies but little in its details; the main members of construction are always the same. A typical system of gambrel construction is shown in Figure 70. From this diagram it will be seen that a heavy horizontal purlin, supported by posts which have a footing upon the second-story girts below, is placed at the intersection of the two roof pitches, to provide a bearing for the common rafters of the roof. These two purlins— aah ORs Lop dt ha Bo Wy Wh pw, OX poe Ab AL ty Gime Me aah ve thay & FIGURE 70. for there is one for each side of the roof—are usually secured by diagonal braces down to the posts which carry them, and by additional horizontal cross ties between correspond- ing front and rear posts. The roof of the Glebe house, Woodbury (circa 1753), is an interesting combination of the gambrel and the lean-to; the first pitch of the rear roof is extended down over the rear part of the house in the customary lean-to fashion. (Plate VI.) The attics of gambrel-roofed houses, built in the neighborhood of 1750 or after, are usually very large and spacious, and a “double-deck” arrangement, consisting of a second attic floor built in at the level of the purlins, is often to be found. The Webb-Welles house, Wethersfield (1751), the Pitkin house, East Hartford (1740-1750), and the Joel Bradley house, North Haven (1759), all exhibit the double-floor arrangement in the attic. WHE BAY ek | aqdosr TIN £)—asnop NVWCTI MA -ONV TAH AUNANOLSV TL) HLNO$—dasnoy Ua.LSTT TOR ~~. =e Root Framing 61 The hip roof is characteristic of very late work, approaching 1800, or even later. It was never a common form of roof framing. The general scheme of construction is very similar to that of the gambrel roof, in that a single heavy horizontal purlin is framed upon posts rising from the second-story girts. This purlin, which is continuous and follows the four sides of the house, parallel with each in turn, forms the necessary support for the rafters of very flat pitch. With this type of roof, of which the Gay house, Suffield (1795), affords a good example, it should be noted that the second-story girts have be- come end plates, for the rafter feet bear upon them. Very rarely, as in the Prudence Crandall house, Canterbury (circa 1815), a hip roof made up of two pitches is to be found. Such a roof is really a combination of hip and gambrel. (Plate XXX.) i! a | s | / oe e GLEBE HOVSE-WOOPBRYRY + FicureE 71. GEESE SGN EIGN HG HSE NN ORI IN MORIN HAY MIDE RD Chapter V. ‘The Overhang HE overhang is perhaps the most individual structural feature of the seventeenth- century Connecticut house. The overhang, as it is commonly referred to, is the projection of the second story beyond the first; and it usually occurred across the front of the house. Like many other characteristics of the earliest structures, the over- hang was distinctly a survival of English tradition. It was a common feature of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English town architecture. The purpose of the projecting stories or “jetties” was to provide protection from the weather to the stalls or booths which often existed beneath them on the ground floor. The overhang, an extremely ancient form of construction, may be traced to a very remote origin. It even harks back to the days when Pompeii was a flourishing city. An edict of the Roman emperors forbade its use in narrow streets there, on the ground of its cur- tailment of sunlight and air. Because the English overhang is chiefly to be found in the architecture of the towns and cities, seldom occurring in the country, we may reasonably expect to find it used in Connecticut in regions settled by craftsmen who originally came from towns and cities. The English overhang was always produced by framing, and was accordingly structural. In Connecticut, it remained of similar design up to 1675 or thereabout; for it was probably brought to American shores by the Yorkshire carpenters who emigrated to this country. In England the overhang occurred across the front of the house, which stood with its gable end toward the street. It is worthy of note that in Connecticut the tradition of constructing the overhang across the front was retained, although the house was turned so that its gable ends no longer faced the street or road upon which it stood. A framed overhang at the ends of the house was not common in Connecticut, and the projection was never greater than four or six inches. No form of overhang framing ever occurred at the rear of the house. From Figure 27 a clear idea may be gained of the manner in which the framed over- hang was constructed. It will be seen that the posts were but a single story in height, and that the second-story posts were framed out upon the projecting ends of chimney and end girts. Into these second-story posts a second front girt was framed. The system of double first-story front girts is therefore typical of the framed overhang. The projection of the second story beyond the first was generally in the neighborhood of two feet, which it never exceeded, though in some cases it was less. It should be noted that the framed overhang did not occur in towns lying outside the Connecticut River Valley, and that it never existed in the New Haven Colony. In its earliest form the overhang was embellished on its under side with ornamental pendants or “drops,” which served as terminations to the lower ends of the front second- WHITMAN HousE—FARMINGTON OLpDER CowLes HousE—FARMINGTON From a DEMoLIsHED HousE—FARMINGTON Moorrt HousE—WInDsOoR Bratt NS ee ea ee eee es oe, ee ee : * A é ; > \ # \ so =" ‘ é “ ss ’ e : ." \ LM ~ 6 | oO NaN oe ps ; SSSotint CLES So aa ae a HY ” St at eee NI G3 ~~ t=—N A = H AI OE ee on Hy sa Ss J “SECTIOA A-A: : ~ = | | vA at {LOCA Ficure 87. A far commoner form of outside covering, not peculiar to any particular period, is that generally known as “weather-boarding.” From Figure 89 it will be seen that weather boarding consisted of wide boards of white pine, usually about a foot in width and seven- eighths of an inch in thickness, applied to the studs in horizontal courses. The lower _ edge of each course, which in late work was beaded, was set into a rabbet cut in the upper edge of the course below it. “Weather boarding,” as the old records have it, was sawn out, and its exposed sur- face planed as well. It was never so com- monly used as clapboards. It often occurs on the ends and rear walls of houses, the fronts of which were clapboarded. The Bradley-Tyler house in East Haven (circa 1745) and the Tyler-Palmer house in Branford (circa 1710) are examples of this treatment. In general, weather-board- ing is characteristic of late work. In such [x Ficure 88. TERIOR Se ESCNTI IS CON 84 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut work it was often applied in graduated courses, the lowest course being the widest, and each one above it decreasing slightly in width or “weather.” During the first quarter of the eighteenth century the use of white pine superseded that of oak as a material for outside covering; and it is doubtful if the use of riven oak clapboards continued after that time. White pine, where exposed to the weather, was more durable than oak; and this fact, together with its better working qualities, commended it to the early builders. They did not restrict themselves to the use of white pine, however, for clapboards have been found which were made of white cedar, whitewood, and hard pine or tamarack. About the middle of the eight- eenth century the custom of graduating clapboards, or vary- ing their exposure, came into STYD vogue. Narrow clapboards were used at the sill, increasing slightly in width with successive courses; or, more often, the ex- posure was simply varied, the clapboards all being of the same width. Thus we find, on the front of the Samuel Mather house in Old Lyme (circa 1770), FicureE 89. clapboards laid with an exposure of 17% inches at the level of the sills, with a slight increase in each course above, so that at a height of ten feet above grade, the weather measures 214 inches. The maximum exposure is of course just below the cor- nice, where it measures 34% inches. The old custom of lapping the ends of the clapboards with a bevelled joint persisted until this time; for it is a feature which almost invariably accompanies this system of graduation. The object of the graduation, inasmuch as it was mainly confined to the fronts of houses and is rarely to be found on the sides and never on the rear, was obviously decora- tive. It is true, of course, that narrow exposure nearest grade meant a wider lapping of unexposed surfaces, and consequently greater warmth and security from driving storms; but had this been the main object, the practice would have been continued on all four sides of the house, as it never was. The use of shingles as a wall covering of early houses is unusual, except in the towns of Milford, Stratford, and the surrounding locality, where it appears to have been the rule. The shingles used in this region, made of white pine, were of great length; specimens still in place measure three feet and over. In breadth they vary from 6 to 10 inches, and LLL TLD LLL WN Morris HousE—NeEw Haven ParpDEE HousE—MontTowEsE KNELL HousE—STRATFORD BRADLEY HousE—NeEw Haven Prare XV IT. Ce ice | re 3° a Fhe Oe tage ae at ’ aA - , { ’ 5 The Outside Covering 85 the butts are from one-half to three-fourths of an inch in thickness. The exposure or “weather” varies, but is in the general neighborhood of eight or ten inches. The shingles which cover the Mallet house in Stratford (circa 1690) are laid with an exposure of four- teen inches; those on the Shelton house in the same town (1760) show an exposure of nine inches. The exterior walls of the Lyon house on the Boston Post Road, near Greenwich (circa 1670), are covered with hand-shaved shingles of white pine, laid with an exposure of about sixteen inches to the weather. (Plate II.) These shingles, which are claimed to be the original ones, are of uniform width, and cut in semicircular form at the butt end. Like those of the Mallett and the Shelton houses, they are secured with hand-wrought nails. In every case such shingles were cut out by hand, probably having been roughly split out at first, and then more carefully finished with a draw-shave. The ‘tsreoarrs, durability of these shingles, used on vertical surfaces, is astonishing. Those covering the Knell house in Milford, built in 1664, are said to be the ones originally applied when the house was constructed. They are still in good condi- tion, considering the weather they have endured with no other protection than an occasional coat of whitewash. (Plate XVII.) The New Haven Court Records for June 11, 1640, fixed the following prices for shingles: “Good stuff, 34 of an inch, and 6, 7, or 8 inches FiGurE 90. broad, sorted in the woods, being 3 foote 3s 2d P hundred. 2 foote 2s. 14 inches 1s P hundred.” According to Thorpe (History of North Haven), oak, chestnut, and cedar were all used for the manufacture of shingles, as stated in the old records. He also states that when the original shingles were removed from the roof of the Joel Bradley house in that town (1759) some years ago, they were found to be of split oak, finished on one side with a draw-shave. The rear walls of very late houses, built about 1800 or after, were often covered, espe- cially beneath porches, with seven-eighths-inch white pine boards, tongued and grooved, and generally beaded at the joints. Such boards were applied directly to the studs. Often they were of great width. Some on the rear wall of the Hale house in Glastonbury (circa 1770) measure twenty-eight inches. These boards were always horizontally applied; but the joints were not always level, because of the unequal widths of boards at opposite ends. Usually the joints run level, however, though the different courses may vary in breadth. In certain regions, especially in and about New Haven, occasional houses built between 1800 and the beginning of the Greek Revival period have clapboarded sides and rear, QYOIN ee OniOny fleas 1h / BY hy S 86 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut and fronts covered with matched white pine boards from six to eight inches in width, hori- zontally applied. Two New Haven houses, the Beers house (1815) (Plate XVIII) and the Bradley house (circa 1820), are good examples of this treatment. The arrangement, though in itself bald, emphasizes to great advantage the fine detail about doors and windows, such as is characteristic of that period. But it was the builder’s idea to give the appearance of masonry to a wooden design; and this falseness or insincerity of construction marks the beginning of the decadent period. In a way the arrangement was nevertheless an effective one. It has its exact counterpart in the “Plateresque” work of Spain, where exterior walls were kept absolutely plain, and an abundance of richly wrought detail was lavished about door and window openings. SELTA Xs ch NOLNIT())—dsNOH NOLNVLS XaSSY—aASNOH NaAGdAvY Pea BE SEE SE ERNE DO RITE TERI DE NON MRI MRS MERE ERIIDE HS Chapter [X. Windows for the admittance of light and air were few and small, and that for several reasons. First, houses were the only havens of refuge in time of sudden Indian attacks, and small window openings made houses more secure. Glass was a rare and expensive article, difficult to get and hard to replace. As the available quantity was limited, this fact also had its influence in determin- ing the size of early windows. Oiled paper and cloth were probably used to some extent, but only for a brief period and in the smaller houses. There is but little doubt that the earliest windows were of the casement type. The New Haven Court Records for November 14, 1651, con- tain the following: “It is de- sired that the casements of the Meeting-house may haue the glass taken out and boards fitted in, that in ye winter it may bee warm; and in the summer they may bee taken down to let in ye ayre: and _ perman(Whitnell) was de- ee eHO TLE HOV/Eo EN AT LYAL 7 sired speedily to doe it.” Two seventeenth-century window frames, i situ, enable us to get a good idea of the general type of window in use prior to 1700. One of them may be seen in the lean-to attic of the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme (1664), in what at present appears to be the rear wall of the original house. But this house, as first built, faced opposite to its present direction—the orientation of the house was changed when the lean-to was added—-so that this window frame is really in the front wall of the original house. It is in the second story, just below the plate. (Figure 91.) The frame, from which the case- ‘ment sash is missing, is entirely of oak. The vertical jambs on either side are tenoned into the head and sill respectively. The frame is secured in place in the customary manner, by mor- |: the earliest houses built in Connecticut, what windows were considered necessary I Met AL FIGURE 9I. 88 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut tising the projecting ends of the head and sill into the studs on either side. A rabbet on the outside of the frame, one-half of an inch in width, indicates the presence of sash originally. This rabbet, however, is to be found only on the sills and jambs, the head being plain. The interior edge of the frame is slightly moulded. The sash opening is small, measuring nine- teen inches in each dimension; and the sill is four feet above the present floor. The purpose of the four holes, two of which are in the head and two in the sill, is uncertain. This window frame is an ex- tremely rare specimen, and ; oraur the oldest which has so far : a been discovered in the state. cae ne The second example is ZA somewhat similar. It is to be I i | | } Z| i | seen in the rear of the origi- nal house wall, in the attic of the added lean-to of the Shelley house in the town of Madison. The date of building of this house is un- certain; but it probably antedates 1700. The gen- eral construction of this ANSE al Oy eee Ara 1—1,,, frame, as may be seen from “MAVISOA® ENS Figure 92, is the same as that in the Thomas ie: =F Aaa house. The section of the FIGURE 92. jamb, head, and sill, how- ever, are somewhat differ- ent. A rabbet one-half of an inch- wide on the outside of the frame shows that a case- ment sash originally filled the opening, which is 184 inches wide by 20 inches in height. The frame, as may be seen, is set snugly beneath the rear plate. A typical example of casement sash, such as was probably used in both of the window frames under discussion, is shown in Figure 93. It is at present in the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford. From the illustration it may be seen that this sash is very thin—only three-fourths of an inch in thickness. The glazing is typical of the period, being composed of diamond-shaped lights or “quarrels,” the long axes of which are set vertically. They are held together by lead bars or “calmes,” slightly oval in section. The glass is extremely thin, being but one-sixteenth of an inch thick. Assuming, as is reasonable, that the foregoing examples of early frames and sash are typical, we may safely draw the conclusion that the earliest form of window was very y i a = Lad > | | Wo GIRIT 70 Bor7FoM PLATE pea! — ; aig 5-9 70r Windows 89 small, and of the casement type. Lambert, in writing of the earliest houses in his History of New Haven Colony, says, “The windows were of small diamond glass set in lead frames, and swung open each way on the outside.” The illustrations in Lambert of Eaton’s New Haven house, Governor Treat’s house at Milford, and the Governor Leete house 14 IR i. Al | ( } TS EELGEY bOmN NA: > SICTIOA B-B- 25 Ye P itera nx CC Pe RELCET ED GUA LDS Ys LU paw ee eg aa IOV Pe aA Lhe > Peeters Nt Nat eho Hom GN 1 LF OR. DS FIGURE 93. at Guilford all show pairs of casement sash set with diamond-shaped panes. The use of casement windows probably continued for some years after 1700, for double-hung sash were not employed before the first quarter of the eighteenth century, and it is doubtful if any extended use of them was made much before 1725. In the hall chamber of the Whitman house in Farmington (1664), marks in the wainscot indicated the presence at one time of what must have been a broad low window go The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut placed high up above the floor. If a window did originally occupy this space, its width would have been too great for a single sash, and it must therefore have been of the mullion type. It is not improbable that mullioned window frames were used before 1700; English tradition alone would suggest this. The presence at one time of a casement window frame of mullioned form is strongly suggested by evidence found in the west gable framing of the Hempstead house in New London (1643). (Figure 3 ae) 69.) Two vertical studs still Fe: EZ 1% contain, in mortises cut into Bua An eer er: S/tetioa B-p them, the broken-off ten- oned ends of what was un- kal doubtedly an earlier win- iy: dow frame. The vertical suis distance between these ten- ons is 21% inches, and the space between the studs is forty-seven inches wide. As- —r;, suming the existence of a pS] | r 4 ginele central mullion, and Du ten Teen yD CRA COTE) TTT =) . ° . _onserwas allowing seven inches for its ae Sterrox p-p- Width, including that of the two jambs, we should have space for two casement { sash, each 212 inches high pa et be by about 20 inches wide— -/Stcot1oa L-£- approximately the size of those in the Lee and Shelley houses. FIGURE 94. Aside from occasional ex- amples such as have been discussed, Se few windows of the earliest type remain to us; for, like many features of our oldest houses, they were supplanted by replacements of more modern design. In many instances it is definitely known that casement sash and frames which were part of the origi- nal construction were removed, and double-hung sash and frames substituted. A very early form of double-hung sash is illustrated in Figure 94. This sash, which is constructed of oak, was found stored in the attic of the Robinson house in Guilford, and is now in the Whitfield House Museum there. While it contains no glass, traces of leading which still adhere to the wood indicate very clearly that at one time this sash was filled with leaded glass. The panes were probably of diamond shape, similar to those in the sash illustrated in Figure 93. The glass was stiffened or supported by the horizontal wooden stays to which the leading was wired at intervals. This rare specimen is of great SEC atal OLAMG-Cre ra Ya. a so S POY BLEHVYAG Sh Chi GY ieee reee ree FIGURE 95. Q2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut interest due to the fact that it is a transition type, and though of double-hung form, still retains some characteristics of casement sash. When, in the course of developments, windows of the double-hung variety having rectangular panes of glass took the place of the earlier casement type, it appears from existing examples that there was but little experimenting as to size and general proportion, for these two points soon became fixed. A pane of glass six inches wide and eight inches high was the unit which determined both the size of the sash and the proportion of the window frame. The earlier forms of double-hung sash, almost without exception, are composed of these 6-by-8-inch lights, which were evidently a standard size. Sash which were four lights wide were quite invariably the rule, ' though in height they varied, being two, three, and four lights high. The earliest type of double-hung window with rectangular panes is that whose lower sash is two lights ; , high and the upper three, or vice {hens 2i ae versa. A later and more common _j. arrangement consists of a window ie SN OVITH ROP Galas eae containing two sash of equal height, — : TATE te each containing twelve 6-by-8-inch LayT HAVE lights, as in Figure 95. With the FicurE 96. adoption of the 6-by-8-inch light as a standard, there came another change which should not be overlooked. Sash were no longer constructed of oak, but of white pine instead. In windows of the double-hung type, the upper sash was fixed, being rabbeted into the frame. The lower sash only was operated; it slid up and down and was held at various heights by a spring catch on the jamb. The counterbalanced sash of modern type, with its pockets in the jambs for weights, was as yet unthought of. The frames of these early windows were of solid oak construction, similar to those of the casement variety. The jambs were framed into the head and sill by means of the customary tusk-tenon-and- mortise joint, and secured in place by wooden pins. Like its predecessor of the casement type, the window frame was secured in place by mortising the projecting ends of the head and sill into the studs on either side. The construction of a typical window of this type is shown in Figure 95. WELLES-SHIPMAN HousE— WHEELER-BEECHER HousE—BETHANY SouTH GLASTONBURY PuaTE XIX, Windows 93 Since walls were generally constructed of 3-by-4-inch studs set flatwise, with less than one inch of lath and plaster on the inside and clapboards nailed directly to them on the exterior, the total thickness of outside walls was in the neighborhood of five inches. If the house were of “plank-frame” construction, this was still less. Window trim was at first set flush with the plaster on the inside, so that the two sash, each an inch thick, brought the outside of the window frame, with its enclosing rabbet, out beyond the face of the exterior wall covering. This is a marked characteristic of these early window frames. Another feature common to them is the projection of the head and sill beyond each side of the jambs, as shown in Figures 95 and 96. One of the first attempts to elaborate the double- hung window frame on the exterior was the addition of a cornice or pediment to its head. This form of orna- mentation often accompa- nies the heavy projecting frame previously described. The windows on the front of the Belden house in Wethersfield (circa 1753) and of the Trumbull house in North Haven (1761) are examples of such treatment. (Figure 97.) From the drawing of the Belden house windows it will be seen that there is a slight break of offset in the rake FIGURE 97. mouldings, just above their intersection with the horizontal members. This is a characteristic feature of these pedi- mented window heads, which are common to the period 1740-1750. They appear to belong chiefly to houses of the central-chimney type. Very often this form of elaboration is to be found only on the front of the house, the windows on the ends and rear being quite plain. In the general process of refinement which was continually at work, and which was re- corded in every part of the house fabric, the exterior window treatment was naturally OA mia, ec i Y *WIANT OW? Sie iy AO Vee Laker ht gS 94. The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut affected, and underwent certain changes. Especially with the abandonment of plank-frame construction and the adoption of sheathing over the exterior framework, an important age oe. ; $— 36 366) 4 Ea TOUCHE Peet Raa es Ficure 98. change was wrought. Thanks to the resulting increase in the thickness of walls, which was further aug- mented by setting the interior trim out beyond the surface of the plas- ter, the sash were no longer set so far forward, and the frame itself was covered by an outside casing. This exterior casing, which in turn came to be finished with one or more mouldings, thus took on the character of an architrave. About 1800, or later, a frieze was added to the top of the window above the architrave, and the whole sur- mounted with a cornice. (Figure 98.) Sometimes the frieze was carved with groups of short vertical flutes or otherwise ornamented, and the cornice enriched by the intro- duction of dentils and delicate modillion brackets. An example from a house in New Haven, built about 1800, has dainty modillions of this sort which measure but one inch in width and 134 inches in their projection. Curiously, the sills, which in earlier work had been handsomely moulded, as in Figure 97, generally became quite plain after the adop- tion of the outside casing, or archi- trave. Sash, up till a very late period, were constructed from “inch stock,” the average thick- ness being but seven-eighths of an inch. After 1800 sash increased in thickness to 136 inches. White pine, because of its durability and the ease of working it, was the material invariably used for sash. The corners of the sash were mortised and tenoned together and secured by wooden pins, according to modern practice. Rails were narrow, and the meeting rails still smaller, rarely being more than an inch wide. The bottom rail, which meets the sill, was very seldom more than two inches in height. Windows 95 Sash bars, or muntins, in early work measure as much as 114 inches in width (Figure 99), the average up to about the last quarter of the eighteenth century being about one inch. About that time a decided narrowing took place, until, in work executed after 1800, the muntin is extremely thin and characterless. This change was largely due, no doubt, to the increased thickness of the sash material; the muntin became correspondingly thin and deep in section, rather than broad and shallow. The same muntin section was used repeatedly in early sash, and there 3 was practically no variation from _ Sa the one type. (Figure 99.) wee UAE RAP LAN OF SOLTLT « vet f 49 FicureE 99. Because the muntins of these early sash were broad and flat, and the panes of glass small, the sash area was covered by a lattice-like arrangement of wooden sash bars which carried across the window openings some of the feeling of solidity properly belonging to the outside walls of the house. It is apparent, then, that windows fitted with such sash hardly played the part of voids in the design of the house exterior. This impression was still further heightened by the way the sash were set in their frames. They were placed well forward— almost on the same vertical plane as that of the outside wall. Accord- ~WINPOW? ingly, but little shadow was cast by the heads and jambs of the window FS AtW HAVEN Z frames upon the sash.. These two FiGuRE I00. : | 96 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut reasons—the flatness and width of the muntins, and the lack of shadows at the window openings—account largely for the bluff, almost bald appearance which is so characteristic of many of the early houses. GI SOI ea ERROR, «SECTION BA? *"WIATOW? JS CORNWLILSH OV Sf = tia ees Figure IOI. Not until the muntin section became narrower and deeper did the custom abate of setting the glass very close to the outer surface of the sash. Eventually glass increased in size, and the dimensions of the individual pane became 8 by 12 inches. Six lights thereupon re- placed the earlier arrangement of twelve. It should be noted that, although the panes be- came larger, the dimensions of the sash remained as formerly. (Figure 100.) The first glass used was brought from England, which continued to be the source of supply for a considerable period. There were early attempts at glass making in the Colonies, Brooks HousE—STRATFORD Deminc HousE—WETHERSFIELD WarHAM WILLIAMs HousE—NorTHFORD PLATE XX. Windows 97 but they proved unsuccessful. The low rates of carriage on boxed glass from England un- doubtedly had much to do with the continued use of that product. Boxed glass, which is both compact and heavy, may early have served as ballast. Although the manufacture of glass is as ancient as history, it was not until the seven- teenth century that a patent was granted for its fabrication in England. William Penn, in a letter written in 1638, referred to an unsuccessful attempt to establish a “olass-house” in America. The venture of eccentric Baron Steigel at Mannheim, Pa., was likewise a failure. In 1747 Thomas Darling of New Haven was granted an exclusive right by the court to make glass during a period of twenty years. It was stipulated, however, that he v SIDE ELLVATIOANS © A B C FIGURE I02. should make five hundred feet in four years! Even during the Revolutionary period glass was scarce, and that made in America was of poor quality. Its manufacture was not estab- lished on a commercial basis until 1792. English glass was made up of four or five different grades, the best of which was “Crown glass.” “Newcastle glass” was next in quality; this was the sort commonly used for window glazing. “Phial glass” was of poor quality, greenish in color and streaked with air bubbles. It is always easy to distinguish old glass, because of its uneven surface and its amber or violet hue, due to the presence of manganese. Another common characteristic of old glass is its metallic iridescence. Very often a valuable clue to the period to which a house belongs can be obtained through a study of its fenestration. This is especially true of the window arrangement or grouping of the front elevation. In Connecticut there appear to be three general methods of com- position. (Figure 102.) First, there is that in which the facade has five window openings— one in the center of the wall of each front room, and one above the front entrance, as in A. This arrangement is typical of the central-chimney house of two-room plan. This was fol- lowed by the introduction of an additional window for each front room, making nine on 98 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut the front of the house, as in B. The distinguishing characteristic of this arrangement lies in the grouping of the windows of each front room very close together, really in pairs. This treatment belongs mainly to the house of lean-to type, or lean-to type of plan. Finally, in later houses of the central-hall type, the windows are no longer grouped in pairs, but spaced farther apart, the number, however, remaining the same, as shown in C. This rearrangement may have been due to some extent to the introduction of shutters, which would naturally have caused the windows to be spread apart, in order to permit the shutters to fold back against the house without interference. ‘ | | | | eee — ee | i J Ses oe a5 : [ q ! | [ J ELY HOVE E = bya ee FIGURE 103. Wind OWS 99 The Palladian window is a feature which belongs exclusively to very late work; it is in reality a Georgian institution, a manifestation of the influence of Wren and his school. Generally found incorporated in late houses of the central-hall type, it reached its greatest beauty of form and elegance of proportion after 1800. It always occurs in one of two places: either in the end gables, or above the front entrance in the second story. Of the eq Pees ENS HON Gh es TRA EE ORD 7 FIGURE I04. two, the latter is perhaps the more common location. When so placed, this type of window is sometimes accompanied by a small, rather flattened gable directly above it. Certain late examples of the Palladian window were rich in detail and extremely fine in scale. The exterior arrangement is frequently repeated on the interior; the pilasters ap- plied to the mullions and jambs take the place of trim on the inside, and carry a cornice similar to that on the outside. | Gable windows at either end of the house, incorporated in order to admit light to the attic, occur in great variety of form in houses built after 1800. In the earlier houses there 100 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut was a single window in each gable, small and extremely simple. In late work, in addition to the Palladian window, a common arrangement consisted of two windows of quadrant form, placed one on each side of a central window of regular shape. The builders of the Linsley house in Stratford (circa 1820) indulged in an amusing bit of deception: the win- dows of quadrant shape are simply painted in place, and not constructed. The lights are done in solid black paint, and the result is surprisingly realistic. (Plate XX1.) SECTIOA AAP a “SECTION Bde wSECTIOAN C-C> y WINTOW? SO. CNY RINK SE FIGURE I05. In each end gable of the Bassett house in Hamden (1819) there is a single large window or fan-light, lunette shaped and filled with leaded glass. This shape of window composes very nicely in the gable, which, owing to the flatness of the roof pitch, is an unusually low one. (Plate XXX.) The window blind is a late feature; it did not begin to come into use until the end of the eighteenth century. Thorpe, in his North Haven Annals, says, “In 1829 but two houses in town had blinds.” Very often blinds were added to houses built at a much earlier date. Blinds of early form are characterized by the narrowness of their rails and stiles, as well oT XX Sty GQ TaHI4ANS—asnoH AVL) ANVH.LAG—asnoH YAHOAAg-aAaTAAH MA —- eS CuOALVULS—daASNOP, AA ISNIT “ Windows IOI as by their fixed slats. The average width of rail of the earliest specimens is not greater than 1% inches, and the thickness varies from 11% to 13% inches. The ends of the slats were mortised into the stiles, which were finished with a small bead moulding. (Figure 105.) Blinds of similar construction, with fixed louvres, were often used after 1800 at the front entrance, especially when it was of the flush type. Such blinds—they always occur in pairs—cover the door opening. | AVE, JSrctiod W7 SRN afele Peto PUSTes tek? of... eb Ae a eNO Nes Lata DREN PE OR YS Ficur_E 106. PE FSET SN FIG EE HIN MERE MDE FRI MEN IOE ERIE Mops Chapter X. Front Entrances: Early Types great width, closed by a door which was either of batten form or constructed of two thicknesses of boards nailed together at right angles to each other. The door casing or “trim” was of variable width, and without mouldings. It is probable, how- ever, that, in the course of development of the house form from its most primitive type, the early builders attempted to bestow some degree of elaboration upon the front entrance before trying to do the same for any other part of the general fabric. Pass- ing from the purely utilitarian type to the next stage of development, we find the rudely constructed door replaced by one of simply panelled form, at least one mould- ing applied to the casing, giving it the — character of an architrave, and glass tran- som lights added, above the door itself, but enclosed by the door frame. (Figure 107.) A glazed transom of this sort was perhaps more the result of actual need than of ‘/ict1oAB-B+ a Celiberate attempt at elaboration, for through it came the only outside light which was admitted to the porch. Such transoms were usually made up of six or eight small panes, separated by broad muntins of plain form, which were rab- beted to receive the glass. The surface of FIGuRE 107. the glass was always kept well forward | and nearly on a plane with the muntins themselves, the rabbet being very shallow; so that but a scant one-eighth of an inch was allowed for putty. Another typical doorway of this period is that of the Philo Bishop house in Guilford (ante 1725). (Figure 108.) Simple crown mouldings have been added above the architrave trim; and the whole composition, though of the utmost simplicity, is dignified and well proportioned. Small panes of glass thickened at the center, commonly known as “bullseye” glass, were largely used for transom lights. Glass of this variety is rarely found to-day; incidentally to later “improvements,” it was generally removed and replaced by the sort we find to-day. [Ce front entrance, in its earliest and simplest form, was a plain opening, of no MAPA l E + SLOTION AAP = PN TRA ALOE EDO. Rs wean S ORV EL OVS ee eho ee : PETE EI SHIPMAN HovusE— WELLES HousE—HAMDEN HuMIstTon SouTH GLASTONBURY ENTRANCE OF AN OLp HousE—WInNDSsOR XXII Op Tavern—Rocky HILu PLATE Front Entrances: Early Types 103 The front door of the William Judson house in Stratford (1723) contains four such lights, arranged in a row, and separated by heavy moulded muntins. Each pane measures 71% inches wide by 9% inches high, and is about one inch thick at the center. The use of glass in the door itself, after this fashion, is decidedly unusual. (Figure 109.) ~SECTIOAN BeAr alles SOS, Ak aan ae Me Oa Oye, ae ek Peto DAT OroH OV b= GYaLrORIS FicureE I08. The “Dutch” or, as it is sometimes called, “hatchet” door is probably of early appear- ance. (Figure 107.) Although its use persisted until a late date, it is not of common occur- rence. The panelled door made its appearance about 1700. At first it was of simple form, with rectangular panels. These gradually increased in number and became of elaborate form. Panelled doors were commonly reinforced on the back, or inner side, with a three- fourths or one-inch sheathing, applied with horizontal joints. Even when this arrangement exists, the total thickness of the door is not more than two inches. The single door, at first Front Entrances: Early Types 105 comparatively narrow, gradually became wider, and was eventually replaced by a pair of doors. Single doors were rarely wider than three feet, although the original front door of the Commodore Hull house in Shelton (1771), which is of the “Dutch” type, measures 3 feet 4 inches in width. Double or two-leaf doors were nearly always each two feet in width, so that the total width of the door opening is always close to four feet. The average door height is 6 feet 8 or 10 inches; and it rarely exceeds seven feet. | : Mt oof ROA Ts Svel Pubes eRe MLC EN RE eH Yad aPC Cpt tt vA PYG R a iO niet er ae AN NEYO cRe oD we FIGuRE IIO. 106 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut The hooded entrance, such as that of the Tyler house in Branford (circa 1710) is of rare form. (Figure 110.) It is strongly suggestive of Dutch influence, traces of which occasionally occur, and which probably found its way into Connecticut via Long Island or up the Sound. |_| : J/ivt Or ’ Console ying Va est etc: 5 BE ail i Awl | = alae oA E=H *S/ECTIOAN AA? mt FRONT LAW ate SOS TREY Oy Rite eee FIGuRE III. Entrances similar to that of the old Stratford Inn, built about 1745, and now de- molished, which consist of a simply panelled door surmounted by a pediment carried on consoles, are not common. (Figure 111.) This type of doorway appears to belong almost exclusively to Stratford. The next development beyond the doorway which consists of a simple moulded archi- trave was marked by the use of pilasters, one at either side of the entrance. When pilasters WLLLLSELIAE SEG iu | | SSS piel . i eal | . . l —— | . i ae | i . . ‘ ORIGINAL Doors MISSING | v Yeat ho RS CNG TOP RAN bokeh NOG. MASH Ree eave kr NO Rhine FicureE II5. —— SUS ikaay wee ppaasenen® BassETT HousE—HAMDEN “THE ParsoNAGE”—MOoONROE Prara XxX XLV. 4q +. Front Entrances: Early Types 113 piece) and of the Old Inn at the same place are examples. (Plate XXIII.) The Grant house entrance is the earlier of the two, and its feeling throughout is strongly suggestive of Jacobean work. This is especially true of many of the mouldings, which are beak-like in section. Elaborately panelled doors are characteristic of this type of doorway, diagonally crossed stiles in the lower part of the door being a favorite arrangement. An interesting and unusual variation of this type of entrance is the doorway of the Cap- tain Charles Churchill house, built in 1763, which once stood in the town of Newington. The whole entablature was carried out beyond the lower part of the doorway by the pro- jecting second-story overhang, which was of the hewn type. Several feet on either side of the doorway, this overhang was framed down so that it corresponded in level with the height of the doorhead. As far as is known, this is an unique example of such treatment in Connecticut. Fortunately this fine entrance has been preserved in the Atheneum at Hartford. These three types of entrances have been described at considerable length, because they are typical doorways of the earlier Connecticut houses, built up to 1750 or Revolutionary times. After that time, thanks to the constant search for elaboration, different types made their appearance—principally, the columnar “porch” and the elliptical-headed entrance with fan- and side-lights of leaded glass. BEE EGS FENG FRNA HOSTS TONE HII MII MILE MEDAN MED Chapter XI. Front Entrances: Later Types built before the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It is a distinctively Georgian institution, and its prototype is to be found in English work of the period. It is, then, invariably an indication of late work. It was used principally from 1800 onward to the beginning of the Greek Revival period; and it reached its highest develop- ment and greatest elegance of proportion and of detail in the years between 1810 and 1820. It is more especially a feature of the pretentious and sophisticated city house than of its country relative; and it belongs almost exclusively to the central-hall type of plan. In its commonest form, this type of entrance consists of a single door, above which is a semielliptical or semicircular fan-light of leaded glass, flanked on either side by pilasters, on the axes of which are columns supporting a gabled roof, the outer end of which is open. The distance between the pilasters and the columns in front of them, though variable, is generally in the neighborhood of two or three feet. The columns and the entablature above them are usually Classical in proportion and detail, though in many cases the canons of Vignola were overborne by the inventive ingenuity of the builder. It will be seen that the arrangement of a gable roof abutting the house is but a development of the pilastered entrance carrying a pediment overhead: the scheme is fundamentally the same, except that the pediment has been extended forward and its open end supported by columns. This type of “porch” (the word is used in its modern sense) may be divided into two groups. In the first may be included all the work in which Classical precedent and pro- portions were followed with more or less exactitude. The second contains entrances the builders of which gave free rein to their own ingenuity, introducing new proportions in designs which were more personal and individual in expression. As an example of the first group, we may take the entrance porch of the Bassett house in the town of Hamden, which quite closely approximates Classical lines. It is a typical Georgian porch of late date, built with the house in 1819. (Plate XXIV.) The door is a single one simply panelled. Its construction is quite different from that of doors of older type: substantial rails and stiles, 134 inches thick, enclose thinner panels, which are secured in place by a separate set of mouldings. The old bead-and-bevel panel section has disap- peared; it is rarely, if ever, found in work of this date. Panels of curved or decorative contour have also given way to plain rectangular forms. It is of interest to note that, in general, doors have increased in height, although this particular example measures but seven feet. The fan-light above the door, so named from its radiating lead bars, is semielliptical in shape. A moulded transom bar is mitered to form the caps of the pilasters on each side of the door, where it intersects them. The fan-light is enclosed by trim of moulded sec- sh columnar front entrance does not appear to be an integral part of houses SsE=— " — hi itbensns St oali NTRANCE OF AN O_p Hou E CoLoneL HircHcock HousE—CHESHIRE ReEppING RIDGE — GUILFORD Major Tatmace HousE— PrATRoX Op TavERN—STRAITSVILLE Front Entrances: Later Types I15 tion, which is divided by a moulded key block at the center of the arch. The glazing of the fan-light is held in place by lead bars, and ornamented by leaden festoons and rosettes, typical of the period. The custom of setting the glass well forward in its frame has still persisted; here we find it on the same plane as the outer surface of the frame. The arrangement of columns and the pilasters behind them is typical. The col- umns, which are of the Roman Doric order, have bases and capitals of conventional Classical form; the shafts, which display an entasis, are turned from solid pieces of maple. The entablature is of regular propor- tions, being composed of a moulded ar- chitrave, a plain frieze, and an elaborate cornice into which have been introduced a dentil course and delicate modillion brackets. Sawed-out modillions of fine scale almost invariably accompany this type of entrance, and a common arrangement is to be seen in the introduction of a single bracket at the very apex of the gable. The soffit of the roof we may expect to find either panelled, as in this example, or finished with a flattened vault of plaster. The porch of the Rankin house in Glaston- bury (1754), which is of later date than the house, affords us an example of the lat- ter treatment. (Plate XXIV.) A very pleasing feature of the example under consideration is the gentle sweep with which the rake mouldings form their lower termination. This softening of out- line is repeated in the gables of the house as well. This entrance is an admirable illustration of a subject discussed in the chapter on Sear seL eT th OV d E HAMDEN * CooM P hah er ON a Ore ORE Rf 7 FIGuRE I16. Mouldings: namely, the translation which was so skillfully effected in converting the pro- portion of a stone idiom to one of wood. Figure 116 shows the order employed in the Bassett house entrance, drawn first according to the canons of Vignola (A) and then as it is actually executed (B). In A the diameter of the column, eight inches, is taken as the unit of measurement. It will be seen that the wooden column of new proportion is about 10% NN PILA AGaAIASsT SIUR Hove PRIAGLES 1 . © id . s : ot ye) e . 7 Va - s Vas .Q : iS) Z « B bOAH B B LBP” “SAH S ‘ ; iz S85 Za Be SBR ¥ B Hp “SR BAe S88 A Ho S88 S 2 SA Z THe NSBR S fyb SSR 8 He 88am SS mbbBY NAAN SASS PEER ORE ES I [— SS a [J | SS ee eee SSeS) oe ee cS 56 are . o MKo.08 os @) = 0 TTT o Lite ae «es oe = = ae ——————————————————— ——- — ——= = i} . ” | o i} HI | \ i] Reg } 2 I | 1 i} ! | | | | - = | \% Pe beg: yy | ; KKK ha ZL | 3," | | 6% | | 3 « SECTION B-DB | ‘| | ; 9) | © | i = : are : am be 5 : PERE or itera : ° Raye f : % 3 { » . cane . ‘ . - . . ; : . . . . ‘ i * = _ ia s S z. e - ~FROAT ERI RA AD JS WA WL WO VS Ee ENG aa FicureE I17. CHAMBERLAIN HousE—GUILFORD CoLonEL Lewis HousE—Essrex PEATE exe, Loi i | ji oe ‘ag vs Front Entrances: Later Types 17 diameters high, whereas the stone column, in accordance with Vignola’s standards, is but eight diameters. This comparison is of value in that it clearly shows how an understanding of the new material, thus finally arrived at, made possible an architecture of greater light- ness, grace, and elegance. The second of our types, that in which the builder’s originality was allowed freer scope and Classical lines were less closely followed, may be found embodied in the front entrance porch of the Cyrus Hawley house in Monroe (circa 1740). (Figure 117.) The door, which is of six-panel form, is very similar to that of the Bassett house. The transom above it, however, is rectangular. Its glazing is of the usual sort: leaded, with applied festoons and ornaments of lead. Instead of the conventional architrave about the door opening, there is merely a simple beaded moulding, applied to the plain surface. The original columns of this porch are, very unfortunately, missing; an attempted restoration has been made in the drawing. Possibly the supports in this case were simply chamfered posts, with moulded caps and bases. The entablature is of great interest, in that it bears no relation to its stone antecedents save in its division into three main parts. Archi- trave, frieze, and cornice are all represented, but not in conventional form. Behind the columns, and against the house, are placed very flat pilasters, the vertical surfaces of which are finely beaded. ; Architrave and frieze, both perfectly plain, are separated only by a narrow moulding of beak-like section, but three-eighths of an inch in width. The bottom member of the cornice is formed by a course of dentils, the lower ends of which are curiously cut, applied directly to the frieze. Above this are a shallow coved moulding of wide projection and block-like brackets, each of which is made up of three members. Three simple fillets, the uppermost of which is rounded, crown the whole. Composed of but few members, and of great simplicity, this cornice is peculiarly rich in its effect. The soffit of the porch roof is a very flat vault, semielliptical in section, finished in plaster. There is little of Georgian flavor about such a composition; it smacks too strongly of the personality and inventiveness of its builder. The individual touch is unmistakable. A point to be noted in connection with porches of the columnar type is that the earliest specimens had roofs which were of a much steeper pitch than those built during the later periods. In the examples of later date the pitch became much flattened. The Tuscan appears to have been the most popular order, judging from the frequency with which it occurs; next to it comes the Ionic, with capitals usually of the Scamozzi form. The Corinthian order, except in the very latest periods, was rarely used in Connecticut. Plain shafts are to be found much oftener than fluted ones, which divide honors about equally with those of the reeded type. Another variation of the columnar porch has a flat roof and an entablature which is car- ried around horizontally. Entrance porches of this type, usually very late work, border upon the Greek Revival period. Still another type of front entrance—one which belongs almost exclusively to the central-hall house—is that which displays a central door flanked with side-lights, and a fan-light of semielliptical form surmounting the whole. Entrances ~ PROATOELADTRANC ES? S CORAWELL HOVE = Ch eee FicureE 118. Front Entrances: Later Types 11g of this sort are built into the house wall and do not project beyond it. The front entrance of the Cornwell house in Cheshire (circa 1820) is a typical example. (Figure 118.) The original door of this entrance is missing; but it is said to have been of the regular six-panelled type. The opening measures 3 feet 1 inch in width by 6 feet 8 inches in height. It is flanked by rectangu- lar side-lights, 1134 inches wide, the tops of which line with that of the door opening. The sills of these side-lights are a little below the middle of the door, and the space beneath them OV TS les FicurE I19. is panelled. The door jambs, which form mullions between the door and each side-light, are treated somewhat as pilasters, the moulded transom bar being mitered to form their caps. The side-lights are filled with glass set in lead bars, the intersections of which, as in the transom, are covered with applied ornaments of cast lead. Door and side-lights are crowned by a large transom or fan-light of semielliptical shape, glazed in the same fashion as the side-lights. A handsomely moulded key block is set into the trim which frames it. In both the fan- and side-lights the glass is set flush with the exterior sur- face of the sash frames. A sec- tion showing this construction is shown in Figure 119. This ap- pears to have been the typi- cal manner of installing leaded glass. Ornaments of cast lead such as were used to embellish the glass of this entrance are to be found in a great variety of forms and sizes. Various fruits, such as the blackberry and the pineapple, leaves of various form, human faces, and the more conventional rosette are all commonly met with, cleverly applied as spots of decoration to cover the intersec- LSE ACE ORT AISNE NTS FIGURE 120. 120 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut tions of the calmes or lead bars. (Figure 120.) In fan-lights, the lead bars of which radiate from a common center, there was customarily placed an ornament somewhat on the order of a sunburst, such as is shown in Figure 121. The lead eagle, shown in Figure 122, measuring nine inches from tip to tip of its wings, is an unusu- ally fine specimen of the lead-worker’s art. This ornament was taken from the transom ELyY HOVSE“ ELYYS LANDING Over the doorway of an old house standing on Meadow Street, New Haven. Another type of entrance doorway which is also flush with the house wall, commonly seen in houses built during the last decade of the eighteenth century or later, is that having, on either side of the door, pilasters which carry an entablature, the cornice of which is of pedimented form and encloses a semicircular transom of leaded glass. The front entrance of the Colonel Lewis house (circa 1775) illus- trates this type. (Plate XXVI.) Certain large and rather pretentious houses of very late date, aie as the Prudence Crandall house in Canterbury (circa 1815) and the Gay house in Suffield (1795), display front entrances which are part of a very elaborate motive. (Plates XXI and XXVII.) Treatment of this sort is, however, uncommon, and does not occur with sufficient frequency to mark it as a type. Nor can entrances such as those of the Sheldon Tavern in Litchfield (1795) and the Cowles house in Farmington (Plates XX VII and VI) be regarded as rep- resenting a type. These entrances, together with several others like them, are so strikingly similar in treatment as well as unusual in conception that the traditional attribution of their design to an officer of Burgoyne’s army who was paroled in Connecticut during the Revolu- tionary war, may well be accredited. Side entrances, which occurred in houses of the central-chimney type on the sunny or garden side of the house, near the front corner and opening directly into the hall, were usually very plain and simple. Even when the front entrance was of considerable pre- tensions, this “garden door” was generally nothing more than a plain panelled door, framed by a moulded architrave, and with perhaps a frieze and simple cornice. (Figure 123.) It isin this place that the Dutch door — is most commonly found; but there are never transoms or side-lights. When the house is of the central-hall type, the side entrance is usually more elaborate. That of the Gay house in Suffield (1795) is treated with engaged columns of the Ionic order; that of the Champion house in East Haddam (1794) (Plate <6 > ToL EA DAS OMAR ALM Key FIGURE I2I. FIGURE 122. et “ er a Reith ent ris olenashenoad paar rer “ ry Gasca ne as es ER SO PRUDENCE CRANDALL HousE—CANTERBURY WarRNER HousE—CHESTER Prats AXVII. = is S a,” b- vf bs 7 ' con, _ ibe S es 7 ’ ’ 7 H r yt = : lan, ra = " » Ae, “y 7 ba . | cu an | m Ay ha Front Entrances: Later Types I21I XXIX) is a columnar porch of the type which generally serves as a front entrance. Since this latter house is of unusual elaboration throughout, its side entrance cannot be regarded as typical. That of the Gay house is a much commoner form. But many such entrances were still simpler, having only a pilaster treatment, or even nothing more than a moulded ar- chitrave. (Plate X XIX.) Because, in houses of the central-hall plan, the side-entrance door opened into the small entry between the front and rear doors (Plate XXIX), a glazed transom above the door was nearly always introduced for the purpose of admitting some light to an otherwise dark space. : te meh oe mt La v val AY sJaAsiDpe: (vv | y ihe A + SLCTION h- Ae pane S Le TON D:D? | Cae NAVAL L ONT AREALAaGe iba eh hOR DEER eh ONO Lat ot Wo Bb Vay FIGURE 123. TP Pere Ps Picea ve ee TRO FCT GO Roa cae SEY AR Te hy KORG Oa SS sy” iY Th Sy LY oA Tat-t § iS SY 16° Sy A F 3 be Vs uate Wen ere Se SANITY et : $ ox § Ga Be Ee ai as © yy s V2 S ssceasiseacaeuases Ne ee HIMAEY Giet mS 43 PPLASTIR a | Portes adie WV ‘SL tt oie FIGURE 124. PEE ES ES ENG TNT OSI pS MERIDEN MRI Me Chapter XII. The Main Cornice N the construction of the earliest and most crudely built houses there was probably no attempt at any form of cornice treatment across the front of the house at the eaves. The bevelled ends or “feet” of the roof rafters were allowed to project about twelve inches beyond the plate which supported them, and their covering of boards and shingles served to shed away from the walls of the house the rain water which fell on the roof. XY N \) YY NN ’ Q XY Y XY SN ON FS O Zs SSSZZI7IAWY) Pk «Ea = ee 2 o ZED NILE TTT ITT TI] oa SS Zs S Ys od SS ZEON jis 3 y ; PLASTER cay | PLASTER ie) Sy ee : END OF GiRI OvT SLND +JSMITH HOVSE- MILFORD © vLIASLEY HovsE- A& BRANTFORD FIGuRE 125. For a considerable period—up to 1700 and even later—this arrangement was continued across the rear of the house; but a more formal method of cornice treatment at the front was of early origin. Investigation of the earliest cornices which still exist indicated that they were formed in nearly every instance by framing the front plate in such a manner that its outer face extended beyond the house line below it. The front cornice of the old Evarts Tavern in Northford (circa 1710) is so built; and its construction is of extreme interest. From Figure 124 it will be seen that the greater part of the front plate, the width of which is more than twice its depth, extends beyond the front wall of the house, its back being flush with the inner sides of the studs. It is supported in this position by the cantilevered ends of the 1 ES Ree/4 Cale ie tae tr / Mpa = ae Lf. (Aa a Ei ~ = oe St ee pe | ciewcsues on ; i; 4 | il i | ly ' ‘ | | | | | ~FROAT COR ae és JS OVWELR WULLTA Ne © Le WETHER Sa re oa PRINCIPAL | Sy RAT Uaice iy LF pltcons PYNTE ements ig hh eke! 2 — AS i. 0 Tatalonee : 3) Ti eS) is IRY FROAT PEL ATE FOva sepa ~ SLC 1 oe PLASTER ae LLL FIGURE 126. epee esos ' e+ sega? GENERAL Cowes HousE—F ARMINGTON Rospins Housre—Rocxky HIty DIAT hex Veli ~. map © meter) CT) YE « ( a Rae): ae i | ta a, if a ay: | | f dh | \ | | il {| | ae 1 (| | | Aycan ateormienG OR N CE > VRLI was) 1 BO ety Me ee Nan Osu Geka. oH © ¥./- Le iY PRINCIPAL ifs ve CH EOAHE RE TS RAFT fees | oS Mesh Omulake GeOrk YE ; Me aa he amet RN aces <4 5h __ ttt, szppsors1 | NURUURER OE eyes hss MBRERRRBR ES q- PAR easier pr. | Boch Seat) RGA SITU Re pe oe Te pe otteteel (Ny FiGcuRE 127. 126 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut four second-story girts, the projecting ends of which have been hewn into the form of brackets. The plate is cased with wood; so that, with the addition of crown and bed mouldings, a cornice of more or less Classical contour results. JAow Rimovin ae vA Avovotv LEanto Now Rtmovuiy 7 CR 0 STRAT ee JS ALLEN SMITH HOVY f — Molt pee FIGurReE 128. The front cornice of the Linsley house in North Branford (circa 1700), shown in sec- tion in Figure 125, is quite similar in its construction. As the Evarts Tavern and the Linsley house are within a few miles of each other, it is possible that they are both the work of the same builder. As in the just preceding example, the front plate is extremely wide for its depth, and is projected beyond the house line so that it is flush with the backs of the studs on the inside. The ends of the four girts supporting it, which are cantilevered over the tops of the front posts, have been cut in the form of rather clumsy brackets. This plate is cased on the face, but not on the bottom, which is left exposed; mouldings are altogether £ ADSL FELLA ELE tr Happam r EAS CuHAmpPpion HousE— BETHANY WHEELER-BEECHER HousE— >3 LANDING E.ty HousE—ELy Bian Ree nen LENG Grant House—East WINpsoR The Main Cornice 127 lacking. Both of these cornices, though of decidedly unusual construction, display a com- mon feature in that the front plate is framed out beyond the house line. The purpose of keeping the plate well forward was to provide a foundation upon which the cornice could be built up; and numerous devices of framing were resorted to for this purpose. Sen alotet tet A Mt NOG PLACA s Pal EAPO SMITH HOVYSE- MILFOR YS FIGuRE 129. The construction of the front cornice of the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680) is shown in Figure 126. Here is the somewhat common arrangement of two front plates, the first on the house line and the second framed out 14% inches beyond it. The girts which carry the second plate are halved on to the first plate where they cross it. A somewhat similar arrangement is to be seen in the main cornice construction of the Dea- con Stephen Hotchkiss house in Cheshire (circa 1730), illustrated in Figure 127. Here the expedient of cantilevering the second-story girts was likewise resorted to, although in place of a second plate there is only a small 2-by-4-inch purlin. This purlin served as a foundation or nailing piece upon which the cornice was built up, quite as the second plate did in the older Williams house cornice. (Compare Figures 126 and 127.) The cornice of the Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) is also a constructional one, as a section of its framing shows. (Figure 125.) In building this cornice, the principle of the cantilever was also resorted to; for, although the front plate occupies its accustomed place on the house line, the rafter feet, instead of resting on it, are supported by the pro- jecting ends of the principal attic-floor joists. (See Figures 128 and 129.) These joists are 128 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut halved on to the plate where they cross it. The projection thus gained beyond the house line is simply cased in, and no mouldings are present. In this respect the cornice is similar to that of the Linsley house. The construction of the Smith house cornice is extremely unusual; the writer has seen none other like it in Connecticut. Across the rear of this house, no form of cornice is to be seen; for the rafter feet, the ends of which are simply bevelled off, project beyond the plate on which they rest. (Figure 53.) Another cornice treatment of exceedingly rare occurrence in Connecticut is that consisting of a plastered cove, as in the Pardee house (circa 1725) in the town of North Haven. (Plate V.) My x investigations have disclosed no other work a Nex of a similar sort in any other part of the state. » SS as This plaster cove extends only across the front . Sy, SS WS Ue and one end of the house; it is shown more i SS Stung clearly in detail in Plate XVII. The outside ; 2 = —— face of the plate most commonly projects sy, a i ») SS a a beyond the studs, and is cased in so as to form = SS a simple or box-like cornice. The front cor- nice of the Norton house in the town of Guil- A ‘oe ae - ford (circa 1690) is of this type, a detail A oe cs), mC, which indicates its early date. ‘6 ae vl aly From construction of this sort to the addi- FZ a ra tion of mouldings, with the resultant forma- 5 aN tion of a more Classical cornice, was but a ul a step. Although the “boxed cornice” is of old J i ot: : form, it unmistakably exhibits the influence of Wren and his school; the note which it echoes FIGuRE 130. is, in a rudimentary form, Classic. The de- velopment was quite similar, in a way, to what came to pass when casing was resorted to as a means of finishing or concealing members of construction on the inside of the house, such as girts and summers. By means of thin moulded boards, cornices of more or less Classic contour were built up. The first cornices in the formation of which mouldings were used were of extreme sim- plicity. Nothing but straight mouldings were employed, dentil courses and modillion brackets being later introductions. One of the chief characteristics of cornices of this type is the treatment which was nearly always applied to the ends, where they return against the house. This treatment was generally such that the corona or fascia stops flush with the corner boards of the house at either end. (Figure 130.) The projection in front is usually from 10 to 12 inches. Not until very late—1800 or thereafter—was the cornice returned across the gable ends of the hduse. Such treatment smacks strongly of the Georgian manner, and is usually asso- ciated with a much flattened roof pitch. The gable end thus becomes, in both appearance and treatment, more or less of a pediment, though of course without its supporting orders. XONOXe eel ey quodTIndy—asnoy AOVW IV], wolvpy ANVHLAG—dsnoyY LLassvg The Main Cornice 129 These were present, in a sense, when a pilaster treatment was employed at the corners of the house. Where the cornice was returned across the gable ends of the house, the pediment- like space above it very often contained a window of semielliptical shape, or one of Palladian form, to admit light to the attic. The Bassett house in Hamden (1819) affords a typical example. (Plate XXX.) lo" ST MUA CA eG OR Al ToCAE © lane ihikce A FIGURE I3I. yMAIA CLORR NeIaiCeL oss TAC OER WL UL SON ol GL Le FIGURE 132. During the latter part of the eighteenth century the main cornice came to be a feature of considerable prominence. An added dentil course, or sometimes two dentil courses, en- riched it, as well as additional moulded members; and the introduction of modillion brackets took place. All mouldings entering into the composition became finer in scale, more elegant in profile. A typical cornice of the period is shown in Figure 131. About 1800, or later, a frieze was very often added beneath the cornice proper, and filled with some form of ornamentation. This was a result of the general search for en- 130 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut SHIAGLEYS | FIGURE 133. 8 “x richment which was then taking place. As by that time Adam influence had made itself strongly felt in America, such decoration of the frieze was generally in the form of vertical flut- ing or reeding, sometimes combined with the familiar festoon motive. This graceful and pleasing form of ornamentation was produced by boring holes of graduated sizes, or by apply- ing “swags” cut from thin boards, which were nailed on to the frieze. The cornice of the Corn- well house in Cheshire (circa 1820) affords us an example of the latter treatment. (Figure 132.) An interesting though not uncommon feature is the formation of a crown moulding and rain-water gutter in combination, from a single solid piece of wood. (Figure 133.) The specimen from which the drawing was made was taken from the cornice of a brick house in the town of North Haven, built in 1756, as figures formed by dark header brick in the gable ends of the structure testify. The wood from which it is made is white cedar; and it became defective only after a hundred and fifty years of faithful service! This rep- —_—._ -. WOOD H Dane DEAUE-R OW EA Die FIGURE 134. resents what is probably the earliest type of gutter, for the “hanging” va- riety is quite modern. Generally, no at- tempt was made to dispose of rain water, which was merely let drip from the eaves. Gutters and leaders were excep- tional before 1800. Occasionally, but not often, leaders are to be found which are nothing more than hollow cylinders of wood. The leader head, likewise made of wood, and embellished with mouldings, appears to be a feature peculiar to Farm- ington. (Figure 134.) Its use there occurs with considerable frequency, but it is not usually to be met with outside that locality. In connection with the cornice, we may properly consider the rake, formed at either end of the house by the junc- ture of the roof with the side walls. In early work, the rake was formed by ‘IXXX FLVIg qadoa TIN £)—asnopY ANOLS ~~) oe : wat) eee i ae BE Ey | The Main Cornice 131 a plain narrow board which followed the contour of the roof itself, and over which the roof shingles projected slightly. It afforded a “stop” against which the outside cover- ing of the house, whether of clapboards or shingles, terminated, much in the manner of the corner boards, of which the rake was really a continuation. Keeping pace with the general course of development which the cornice underwent, the rake became moulded, though it did not increase in projection. (Figure 135.) In width it was rarely more than five or six inches. This narrow rake, kept tight against the ends of the house, is a distinctive feature of Colonial work; and in that form it persisted well into the last quarter of the eighteenth century, when, as a result of Georgian influence, cornice members took its place. Eventually the main cornice was “carried up the rake,” modillion brackets and all. When this was done, the brackets and dentils as well, if they were used, were “plumb cut”; that is, their sides were kept in a vertical plane. vy JECTION A-AY A SHIAGLES A Corapsoarrs GE SWIAGLES sie RAKL Crarppoarrys FIGURE 135. A number of one-story or story-and-a-half houses which are still standing in the region about New Haven, especially in the towns of North and East Haven, exhibit, across the front of the house, a treatment of the eaves which is purely Dutch in character and feeling. The Benjamin Beach house in Montowese (1759) may be considered a typical example of this type. From Plate I it will be seen that the front roof pitch is carried out beyond the house line in a gentle sweep for a distance of about four feet. This projection takes the place of any form of cornice, and affords a protection for the simple “stoop” of the front entrance door. The influence which produced work of this character undoubtedly crept up the Sound from New Netherlands, for work which displays so strongly marked a Dutch influence never occurs at any great distance from tidewater. 4A Chapter XIII. Interior Woodwork floors is a logical beginning. To state definitely what variety of wood was first used in their construction is difficult, simply because the floors, receiving more actual wear than any other part of the house, often had to be replaced. The older the house, therefore, the greater the probability that the floors in it at the present time are not the original ones, but replacements of earlier work which had become worn out. It is often impossible to decide whether or not a floor is the one originally laid; but from careful observation of the oldest work existing to-day, it appears that the favorite material of the earliest builders, oak, was more largely used than any other for this purpose. Double floors seem to be the rule for the first floor, and single ones for the a second floor and the attic. Double floors ie were usually constructed in the follow- ing manner: Over the joists was first laid a subfloor of “slit-stuff,” or material about a half inch thick, the boards being of irregular width, and often having un- squared edges. Over this, and with the FicureE 136. joints running in the same direction, or at right angles to the joists, the finish floor was laid. This top or finish floor was seven-eighths or one inch in thickness, and the boards were of good width—never less than 10 or 12 inches wide, and often more; it is not unusual to find them 18 or 20. These two floors were laid in such a manner that the joints of the top or finish floor were always broken by. the boards of the subfloor. This arrange- ment was made necessary by the fact that the joints of the upper floor were never matched together with a tongue and groove such as is used to-day. Rarely, as in the Evarts Tavern in Northford (circa 1710) and the Moulthrop house which stood in East Haven (circa 1690), the boards were halved together at the joints. The first floor of the Moulthrop house consisted of a single thickness of oak boarding, 1%4 inches thick. (Figure 136.) In several instances where it has recently been found necessary to renew the original floors, a layer of fine white sand has been found between the subfloor and the finish floor above it. Whether this sand was used to secure greater warmth or merely as a cushion between the two floors, much as building paper is employed to-day, is not known. Certainly its distribution in each case was too uniform to permit the explanation of its presence by the possibility of its having sifted down through the cracks of the top floor, as might be suggested. [: discussing the interior woodwork of the early Connecticut house, the subject of © OO foe DLO phe hie pees SMNOVITHE OP HOV Rs Day eee Interior Woodwork | 133 Oak was also used almost exclusively for attic floors; and in many houses it was used for the rear rooms of the second floor, even if hard pine had been employed for the two front chambers. Almost without exception, however, oak flooring exists throughout the earliest houses remaining to-day. A native variety of hard pine succeeded oak as a flooring material; in fact, the majority of floors in the later houses appear to be made of it. The two front rooms of each floor are often found to be of this wood, with floors of oak in the two rear rooms and the attic. ORWELL The fact should be taken into consideration, ana 4 however, that in regions where oak was mr OTL OK Rak plentiful, the use of it for floors persisted paces | earns until a late date throughout the entire house. Oak appears always to have been the material par excellence for kitchen floors. Floor boards of hard pine were always of generous width—from 16 to 20 inches. The use of roof boards over the rafters and purlins, to afford a nailing for the roof covering of shingles, was general. Of many houses investigated, but two have been found where the shingles were nailed directly to the purlins. They are the Allen Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) and the Moulthrop house which stood in East Haven (circa 1690). Roofing boards, even of very late work, were of oak, unplaned, and very broad. Boards which contained too many defects to be used for flooring were evidently sorted out and saved for this purpose, for they appear generally to be ODS OOS MOR GOVE EB ieee ed full of knots, or badly split. Where the FIGuRE 137. roof framing was of the common rafter system (Figure 50), the roof boards were horizontally applied. Where the purlin system (Figure 52), characteristic of New Haven and the surrounding region, was employed, the roof boards ran vertically, or at right angles to the purlins and parallel to the principal rafters. A sheathing of seven-eighths-inch board over the studs and beneath the exterior cover- ing of clapboards, such as is customary to-day, was never employed by the earliest builders. Clapboards were applied directly to the framework; in fact, their lengths were governed by the spacing of the studs, on which the ends always rested. Thus the distance of the studs “on centers” became the unit of length; and clapboards were made of a sufficient 134 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut length to span three, four, or five studs. It is unusual to find outside sheathing on houses built before the first half of the eighteenth century, unless, as sometimes, it was applied later. An old record book makes mention of “bording” a house, at a date some years later than its erection; the entry probably refers to the application of outside sheathing, as the house was re-clapboarded at that time. During the latter half of the eighteenth Ay century the use of outside sheathing came L aes) oe into fashion, and after the Revolution it 2 Sry at appears to have been the general custom. “USUOU SONS ae Where shingles were the exterior wall covering, as in Milford and Stratford, sheathing was first applied to the studs to afford a nailing for them. Exterior sheath- ing, like roof boarding, was nearly always of oak, though occasionally pine was used. It was always horizontally applied, be- cause the studs ran vertically; indeed, it is obvious that the framing underneath would prohibit any other arrangement. (Vertical sheathing must not be confused with the construction of the “plank-frame” house, in which two-inch planks run vertically from sills to plates, taking the place of both studding and sheathing. ) Boards used for flooring and sheathing were at first entirely sawn out by hand, for the sawmill was not an early institution. Saw pits, in which a “top-sawyer and pit- ee man’ used a whip saw, are mentioned in SHARRISOAN-LINSLLY HOVSE ~ the Hartford records of 1639. Boards were < DRA ROC las sawn in thickesses of 1, 14, and 2 inches. Ficure 138. “Slit work,” noted in the old records, was stuff one-half of an inch thick. Atwater writes: “Having no mill for sawing, they were obliged to slit the logs by hand; and the tariff of prices prescribes how much more the ‘top-man, or he that guides the work and perhaps finds the tools’ shall receive than ‘the pit-man, whose skill and charge is less.” The log was first hewn square, and then placed on a frame over a pit, so that a man could stand beneath and assist in moving the saw. This department of industry demanded their earliest attention, so that the boards, being exposed to the winds of spring and the heat of summer, might be ready for the carpenter as soon as possible. The price of inch boards must not exceed five shillings and ninepence per hundred feet if sold in the woods, or seven shillings and ninepence if sold in the town.” This tariff was established in 1640. k— 0\r— Miner HousE—HaAamBurc F AIRFIELD SHERMAN PARSONAGE Hype House—NorwicH « BurBANK HousE—SUFFIELD Prats XXXII. Interior Woodwork 135 The first allusion to a sawmill in the early records is under the date of 1653. The first power saws were not circular, but “up and down” affairs, as is indicated by the parallel scoring on the boards they produced. Nearly all the earliest examples of doors existing to-day are of batten construction. A batten door is one made up of a single thickness of boards, held together by horizontal battens or nailing strips on one of its sides. (Figure 137.) The vertical joints of batten doors were nearly always moulded, and the battens themselves had bevelled or beaded edges. The commonest form of vertical joint a is that shown in Figure 138, of a door from | s | the Hfarrison-Linsley house in Branford elec cure Nea (1690). A somewhat different form of joint- ing is shown in Figure 139, of a door in the Loomis house in Windsor (1688). In this eu cetsice example the boards forming the door are halved together and the edges of the joint finished with a quarter-inch bead. Figure 140 shows a very unusual form of vertical joint, in a door from the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680). From the fore- going examples, it will be seen that the boards composing batten doors were of compara- tively great width, a door often consisting of but two or three boards. Such doors were built, almost without exception, of white pine. Exterior doors, in their earliest form, were generally made up of two thicknesses of seven-eighths-inch material. This was done for warmth as well as for security. In doors so constructed, the boards on the exterior run vertically and those on the interior at right FIGURE 139. angles to them, or horizontally. This arrange- ment is another survival of English tradition. The door from the King house in Suffield (circa 1744), shown in Figure 141, is an example of this type of construction. The vertical joints of the exterior boards are finished with the conventional bead-and-bevel joint such as was used for wainscot. | In rare instances the nails which hold the two thicknesses of boards together are so dis- posed that the nail-heads form a diamond-shaped or diaper pattern on the exterior of the door. (Figure 142.) Such doors are to be seen at the rear of the Jabez Huntington house in Norwich (1719), the Ezra Griswold house in Guilford (circa 1760), and the Martin Page house in Branford (circa 1750). In each case there is a regular geometric pattern eG OMe a OMe WAT CO ke ‘IVI TUNSIY Pulled ky. Bere oie UMMM: BOOS f ‘OVI ANNOY Wp Soeiaed 29 bar bo oo Oe ie a gn i oe ee EERO PoP NALA Newel Bey FUSE WPTHLo YO MTLLOE Interior Woodwork 137 formed on the exterior of the door penny & oad © Anit HEA eb | by the large heads of the hand- wrought nails used in its construc- tion. 6Y4 The gradual evolution of the interior door forms is shown in Figure 143, beginning with the earliest simple form of batten con- struction, and terminating in the most elaborate type of six panels. Two- and three-panel doors are the AA\L HEAD *OYT/SIDE? earliest forms of the panelled type. a Their construction was very simple, consisting of cross rails tenoned into SIECTIOA the two vertical stiles and enclosing bevel-edged panels. Such doors are S SABLE HVATIANGTON Hovst~ NORWICH 7 always extremely thin—generally Ficure 142. 1¥g inches. A later, and the com- monest, type is the door composed of four rectangular panels. Doors of batten form and the two-, three-, and four-panel types belong especially to the house of central-chimney plan. Where the house is of the lean-to type, it is common to find panelled doors in the two front rooms, often of both floors, and batten doors in the rear part. A somewhat later development is the door of six panels, which occurs most commonly in central-hall houses or in those which, though of central-chimney plan, have two full stories throughout. In many cases the doors in a house are much older than the house itself, having been salvaged FIGURE 143. ws The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut from an earlier structure which the later house replaced. Six-panel doors are often found which have a middle row of square or nearly square panels, those above and below being rectangular and longer. . As a variation of these types, two-panel doors are occasionally met with which have a panel of curved termination in the upper half, as shown in Figure 144. Doors of this type appear to be principally confined to houses in the Connecticut River Valley. Where round-headed doors were employed, as in the parlor of the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751), the upper panels of the doors naturally repeat in their contour the shape of the door itself. (Figure 171.) In cross section, panelled doors are almost invariably the same. The panel edge is bevelled on one side and held in place in the rabbets of the stiles and rails by a quarter-round bead or moulding which is integral with them. (Figure 145.) Inasmuch as the panels were generally a quarter of an inch thinner than the stiles and rails, a simple sinkage occurs on the reverse side of the door. Rails and stiles were never greater than 1% inch in thickness; the average measurement was 148 or 136 inches. The jointing Joor—lymet J of the stiles and rails is always by means of the conventional mortise-and-tenon joint, held together by wooden pins. White pine is, without exception, the material of which both exterior and interior doors were made. A very unusual door is that shown in Figure 146, from the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680). As will be seen from the sectional drawing, the panels are held in place by a heavy raised moulding of comparatively strong projection. A very late form of door is that of the flush-panel type, with a narrow bead formed on the vertical edges of the panels. Another very late form is that which has a small raised — moulding applied to the panels, which are simply sunk a quarter of an inch below the surface of the stiles and rails. Early forms of interior door casings or “trim” were very simple, generally consisting of a narrow casing about four inches in width, flush with the plaster, to the outer edge of which a simple band moulding was applied. (Figure 147.) A typical form of trim of later date is that shown in Figure 148. : 1% Trim of this sort is usually to be found YA only in late houses of the central-hall type. Baseboards also were very simple, and be. “3 ie STILE nearly always consisted of a plain board, x 2 six or eight inches high, flush with the plas- FIGURE I45. FIGuRE 144. Interior Woodwork 139 ter above it. Sometimes in very late work the baseboards were carved or otherwise ornamented with applied mouldings, as is the example from “The Parsonage” in Monroe, built about 1810. In the earliest houses, built before the advent of plastering, the exposed portions of the girts, posts, and sum- mers which projected into the rooms beyond the thickness of the walls were left perfectly bare. Presently, a search for greater elegance was manifested in more careful finishing of the in- terior, and the custom of casing these members came into play. The use of plaster probably contributed to this use of casing more than any other in- fluence. Houses may occasionally be seen in which the plastering finishes against naked rough-hewn posts and sum- mers, but they are exceptional. This statement does not apply to the Guil- ford school, where casing was rarely resorted to in the application of inside finish. Guilford is distinguished for the beauty of chamfering lavished upon the posts, girts, and summers of its early houses; and it was un- doubtedly because the early builders were loth to hide such work that they never em- ployed any form of covering or casing. on — £22 VEC Reren iu ONE“ WELTHLR SPIELE 7 FIGurE 146. The great majority of the vertical posts occurring at the corners of rooms were VIN covered by a perfectly plain casing, with Y a three-fourths-inch bead at the corner. Where posts flared at the top, the casing was made to accommodate itself to their change of form, thus frankly expressing the structure beneath it. Where the interior finish was of great BE Yiotoute. AOR Of AL Ge. elaboration, in large formal houses built 7 WMovitHrRoPp HOV/SE- EAST HAVENS during the latter half of the eighteenth century, the posts were sometimes cased STV Ah ARES FIGURE 147. 140 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut with great ingenuity, to resemble squared - columns. The posts in the parlor of the Deming house in Colchester (1771) are so treated. The capitals are of the Ionic order, delicately carved of wood; the shafts are fluted, with an entasis; and the Ficure 148. handsomely moulded bases rest upon ped- estals having moulded caps and bases and panelled dies. Such elaboration, which also occurs in the Epaphroditus Champion house at East Haddam (1794), is not often to be met with, and is a sign of very late work. It is never found in houses of the central-chimney type. Girts were often simply cased—the projecting corners having a three-fourths-inch bead like the posts—and the summer similarly treated. The favorite method, however, was, taking advantage of their form, to finish against the plaster ceiling with a cyma erecta and small cyma reversa; so that the whole combination, including the bed mouldings beneath the girt, appeared as a cornice about the room, at the intersection of walls and ceiling. (Figure 149.) Where mouldings were so used, they were continued along the sides of the summer from the points where it intersected with the girts. CHIMALY sae S s VLU LLL << wT. i.e ney FIGURE 149. An interesting variation of this scheme is to be found in the living room of the Welles- Shipman house in South Glastonbury (1750), where the mouldings which finish the girts are broken with slight offsets about sixteen inches from their intersections with the summer and the corner posts. So far as has been observed, this is an unique example of such treat- ment. TIX KX, Sv Id AYNANOLSVTL) HLAOS—dsnopY NVWdIHS-SaTTA AA aTdI4tAOOUG—aAsSNOH Aa’ T GuOsALAV] Lsa\A—asSNOY XIP-T1aMalg 7%. fe ears seer FS Interior Woodwork I41 The under side or soffit of the summer was rarely finished with an elaborate panel treatment. The reason why such finish is unusual is probably that, by the period when we should expect it to have occurred, the summer had disappeared, or at least shrunk to its late form and ceased to appear below the plastered ceiling. The summers in the parlor of the older Noyes house in Lyme (1756) and in the Warham Williams house in North- TiS OFFUY OF S/VAMER ey eke ees AeA OYE HOYLE * oni) ake aaa 12% SE CATCLIO A * CHIMALY Girt LAND GIRT *WILLIAMS HOVS/E? NORTHFORD 1-5 4" Fe et CANT ECOL IALS FIGuRE 150. ford (1750) are finely panelled on the under side. (Figure 150.) The treatment of the summer of the Noyes house is of greater elaboration than any which the writer has seen in Connecticut. Casing of constructive members in this fashion is not to be regarded as necessarily contemporaneous with the building of the house itself: it was often carried out at a much later date. The treatment of horizontal girts as cornices was sometimes carried to a point of great elaboration. In the aforementioned Deming house in Colchester, this cornice treatment, “Wem! ey COR RON] Gp Lan CA Se eae eh Gas Mak ro Gray bt yesh uno) FicurE I51. >Sorrit OF MVTVLL* S SHER WAAR OVI OIG ae addy UU odutetett DOOD DODO UUUUD estoy DovOU JS CAL HOLMALA Ree eae FicurRE 152. Interior Woodwork 143 both in the parlor and throughout the central hallway of the first floor, is very handsome. (Figure 151.) The vertical fascia below the crown moulding is carved with a variation of the Greek fret, and delicate modillion brackets are introduced below it, bearing in turn upon a bed moulding carved with the Classic egg and dart. A somewhat similar treatment is to be seen in the Champion house at East Haddam, and in the central hallway of the Sherman house in Yantic (1785) and the Gay house in Suffield (1795). The two last- named examples, however, are much simpler and have no carving. (Figure 15 2.) Inside window shutters are occasionally found, though they are by no means common. They are of two types: the folding and the slid- ing. The folding type, in three or four vertical sections, hinged so as to fold upon themselves on each side of the window opening, either against the jamb or into recesses provided for their accommodation in the wall itself, is the . + more common of the two. Those of the sliding *~ type were usually made in two sections, each ENON ESI ARLTORD: half sliding on a track formed by the chair FIGURE 153. rail at the bottom and the girt at the top. In some cases these shutters slid into pockets formed in the thickness of the walls and specially constructed to receive them. In the so-called “Beehive” in the town of Andover, and in the Bildad Phelps house at Hayden Station (1780), the shutters are of this variety. Very handsome shutters of the folding type, each section of which is panelled, may be seen in the Governor Trumbull house in Lebanon (1753). The top panels of these shutters are pierced with heart-shaped openings—a feature which, since it admits some light and air, is useful as well as decorative. (See Plate XX.) Inside shutters are rare, and they do not appear in Connecticut before the middle of the eighteenth century. 1% Ficure 154. e\ XOX SundWvY—asnoyY Avy AUNASWIS—NUAAV T, Sd TAH fuiaeeercare dTdlASuaH.LA \AA—aSNOY ANVAG SVTIS e GFN ESSIEN SN HI HS ERAN MSD MEIN MEAN MDE ED Chapter XIV. Panelling terior walls of the earliest houses. Some form of covering was necessary for the inside of the house walls, as well as for partitions; and broad pine boards with bevelled or moulded edges, extending in unbroken lengths from floor to ceiling, were used for that purpose. Wainscot was also employed which ran horizontally, both with and without moulded joints, Of the early Connecticut houses which remain to-day, none is entirely finished on the interior in this manner, though they may have been so originally. The occurrence of even ° a single room which is wainscoted throughout is rare. But few, if any, of the very earliest houses which remain to us are in their original condition. In nearly every instance changes have been wrought, additions made. In early work, wainscot was never applied to the ceiling: the joists of the floor above, planed and sometimes beaded, were always left exposed. The use of wainscot was confined, then, to vertical wall surfaces. Occasionally, though very rarely, some wood other than white pine was employed for wainscot. The wainscot on the second floor of the Thomas Buckingham house in Milford, asserted to have 7 Bee: the advent of plastering, wood wainscot was used for finishing the in- 5 Ve been built in 1639, is of butternut; that on the second floor of the e Caleb Dudley house in the Town of Guilford (circa 1690) is of whitewood. The wainscot of the Dudley house is made up of very wide boards, averaging twenty inches in width, halved together at WA the joints, which are finished with a very interesting quirk moulding, shown in section in Figure 155. FicurE I55. A typical example of the use of wainscot is shown in Figure 156, which is taken from the second floor of the Nathaniel Strong house in East Windsor (circa 1700). The vertical joints display the customary bead-and-bevel section, used so com- monly later on for panelling—a fact which is responsible for the term “panel sheathing,” sometimes applied to such wainscot. The hall of the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme—the part built in 1664—has walls finished with vertical wainscot, the jointing of which is of the same section. The room above it on the second floor—the hall chamber—is finished in a similar manner. (Figure 157.) In the Linsley house in the town of North Branford, built circa 1700, the only wainscot remaining at the present time is that which covers the fireplace wall of the parlor chamber. (Figure 158.) The white pine boards which entered into its construction are of two widths, thirteen and nineteen inches, placed alternately. The narrower boards have bevelled ver- tical edges, and the broader ones, which are really stiles, enclose their edges between a 146 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut rabbet at the back and a quarter-round bead formed on the exterior or visible surface. The same treatment 1s to be found on the fireplace wall of the parlor of the Tyler house in Branford (circa 1710); although the boards there, which are also pine and of similar “panel” section, are much narrower—eight and nine inches. hs) fie SULLY NY Sa: << reLaAU sy TTS yin a SS. Se LEZ SS SS = SS S a — = Z : oA Es an =p pak Platt Ene —— kA | : REAR CHIMALY Post o | FicurE 156. Later on, wainscot as a form of interior wall covering gave way to plaster, although the use of wood as a covering of the fireplace walls persisted until a late date. Plastering was employed early in the New Haven Colony; but in Hartford and the other towns of the Connecticut Colony, wainscot persisted until 1730 or 1740. Even after the use of plaster for the front rooms of the house had become the rule, wainscot was still used for finishing the walls of the rear rooms, especially the kitchen and the less important rooms of the second floor. In houses of the central-hall type, pine wainscot is occasionally to be found in 4b ee "THOS Lit-Hov/i-L. Lyme = FicurE 157. the middle room of the second floor, which corre- sponds to the kitchen chamber of the lean-to house, or in the smaller room at either side of it. After plaster had come into common use, wain- scot persisted until 1750 or even later, in a much diminished form, beneath the chair rail of the ex- terior walls. The joints of such wainscot are always horizontal, unless, as in some instances, a regular aa a a ee _ Panelling 147 system of panelling was installed, with rails, stiles, and raised or bevelled panels. The height of such horizontal wainscot above the floor was evidently determined by the height of the window sills above the floor; for the chair rail, or wainscot cap, is generally formed eLiWAPILI ates OVC bos yNOKTH DRAAKPORS = Te tule tal pORN Ios Figure 158. by a continuation of the window stool and of the mouldings beneath it. Even after the use of this type of wainscot was discontinued, the extension of the window stool and its apron, often carved and moulded, and forming a chair rail against the plaster, persisted for a number of years. It is often to be found in houses which were built as late as 1800. The space beneath it, which had formerly been finished with wood, was of course plastered. When plaster superseded this form of wainscot, it became necessary to finish t/a against the floor with a baseboard, the surface of which was set flush with the | 2 | de plaster. It might almost be said that the original wainscot shrank to the present vBackvs HOVSE-YAATIC © baseboard. In later examples, the base- FIcuRE 159. board was projected beyond the face of the plaster, sometimes moulded at the top, and, though rarely, carved, as is that in the parlor of the Rectory at Monroe (circa 1810). (Figure 161.) From the use of wainscot on the wall against the chimney to an arrangement of panels held in place by rails and stiles is but a step. Panelling of this type is never to be found in the earliest houses except as a later introduction, though the chests of the period prove 148 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut eee ST TOU Ge ai EASES =f — — —— obs <= x, — =——— = ay ees —_.. = Pe gO Wi yee ee ee Sass Rao eee —— =—. - a ; Z “a z By SOUS S PHILO DIsHOP Hovye- Gvitrory% FIGuRE 160. that builders were familiar with it. The simpler wainscot was probably used because it was cheaper and more easily installed. The panelling of fireplace walls from 1740-1750 onward is nearly al- ways of great beauty and elegance, and forms, in nearly every instance, the most distinctive feature of the house of which it is a part. Even in houses of the central-hall type, where much skill and careful workmanship were expended on the stairs, the treatment of the panelling always re- mains of surpassing interest. White pine, free from knots and of clean, even grain, furnished an ideal material for such work. It did not shrink, warp, or check, largely because the wood used was always well sea- soned. We cannot fail to admire the accuracy and careful joinery with which this panelling was always done, or to wonder at its perfect condition to-day, after a century or two of existence, too often with abuse. In the better houses of the central-chimney type, built from about 1740 onward, we may confidently expect to find the fireplace walls of both front rooms of the first floor FIGuRE I61. ae tee entirely panelled, assuming that the original treatment of those walls remains. Very often the same treatment, though on a less elaborate scale, was carried out in the parlor chamber as well. Al- though panelling is often to be found in houses of the same type which were built at a much earlier date, it is probably a subsequent addi- tion to most of them. In the earliest examples of panelling, which were naturally the simplest, the R 3° SLCtioAs PAWLOOLO EO ATA ASUAH.LA AA—aSNOY NaaTag AUNINOLSVIQ—asnOY NIANVY TIVHAOVTgG—asnopH a TOMSTUL) ONIGNV’T S ATY—aAsSNOH ATY re JUCTTEOT EU E hE Tila i QR >», = ead } oe we y pie Panelling 151 fireplace wall—that next the chimney—was entirely covered with an arrangement, or, more properly, a composition, of rectangular panels, secured in place by stiles and rails. (Figure 162.) The fireplace opening was surrounded by a heavy, simple “roll” moulding. No at- tempt was made at symmetrical arrangement, for the fireplace was rarely on the central axis of the room, and there was always a door on one side of it, opening into the porch. Although the problem of panel grouping seems never to have been worked out twice in the same manner, the result is in every case admirable. * BEATON HOvVe/L-GVIL¥FORD® «WELLES HOVSE-LEBANOA® 2 eae Cy Ee 5 ¥%,————> : 1% n | « JABEZ HVATINGTOA Hover ~ JONATHAN BVLKLEY HovyYE* «NORWICH v FAIRFIELD + Figure 164. A very early example of panelling is to be found in the parlor chamber of the Welles house in Lebanon (circa 1710). (Figure 163.) This panelling, which completely covers the chimney wall, is said to be contemporaneous with the house itself; and although it certainly is very early work, it is doubtful if such an early date can correctly be assigned to it. Owing to alterations carried out some time ago on the first floor, no panelling exists there to-day. In this example, the fireplace opening is framed by a very heavy and some- _ what clumsy moulding of bold projection and symmetrical contour. (The earliest mould- ings of this sort are nearly always bilaterally symmetrical, whereas the later examples are not. Figure 164.) Above the fireplace of this room is a mantelshelf with bed moulds be- neath it, and above that in turn a single large panel, upon which is a painted landscape. Grouped symmetrically on either side are smaller rectangular panels with very broad bevelled edges. They are held in place by heavy bolection mouldings applied to the rails and stiles, so that the panels project beyond them. (Figure 165.) This in itself is a feature of very rare occurrence. The only other similar examples noted are the parlor panelling of the Chaffee house in Windsor, built 1763, and that of the Deming house in Colchester 152 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut (1771). In the last named also, the surfaces of the panels project beyond the stiles and rails. Figure 166 shows an interesting comparison between the panel section from the Chaffee house and similar contemporaneous work in England. The occurrence of a single large panel above the fireplace, held in place by bolection mouldings and projecting beyond the surrounding woodwork, is not, however, uncommon. Often large panels of this type bear landscapes painted upon them in oils, as that in the Welles house. | STILE 2%: Sie PAAEL T PAALL SULCTYOAS Ficure 165. pa. ~COANECTICVI: TIOTH CLAVERo TENGLAAD? FIGURE 166. In houses of the central-chimney type of plan, the panelling arrangement was generally simple and dignified. A typical example is that from the Forbes or Barnes house in East Haven (circa 1740). (Figure 162.) In later houses, especially those of the central-hall type, the panelling system became much more pretentious and elaborate. The fireplace opening was flanked on either side by fluted pilasters, carried on pedestals with panelled dies, and with caps formed by the mitered bed mouldings beneath the chimney girt, which was treated as a cornice. The parlor panelling of the Taintor house in Colchester (1703), shown in Figure 167, is an example of such treatment. This specimen is unusual because of the form of the upper row of panels, which terminates in a double curve of pleasing con- tour; also because of the position of the corner cupboard, which has been made a part of the panel system. Panels with this double curve termination are not common; and such work appears without exception to have been confined to the Connecticut River valley. Another example with panelling of this type is shown in Figure 168. This panelling was taken from an old house in Lyme, now demolished. CL NXONEXESE ed ANVH.LAG—asno}fT YAHOAAG-aATAAH MA NaAGWV }J—asnoyy LLASSV | NaHAVH MANI—asSnNOH aqaHsttoWdaq] V WOU TALNV] qadostTINL)—asnoH ATLLO T, gram. ee? icy ee —. .- are Re Asi h.O. RD 7 FIGuRE I81I. glazed and has a semicircular head, and the spandrel on either side of it is filled with a panel of the usual type. (Plate XLI.) The diminutive keystone which was set into the trim about the door, at the top of the arch, is a characteristic feature. It is very often to be found decorated with that favored motive, the six-petalled rose, in shallow carving. When a keystone was so used, the mouldings of the room cornice against which it abutted were mitered around it. 170 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut When glazed, the cupboard door was invariably made up of small panes of the con- ventional 6-by-8-inch size, set in broad muntins. These muntins, which were always moulded, were rarely less than an inch in width; some examples measure as much as an inch and a quarter. Since the doors were made of inch stock, the result was a broad flat- tened muntin, and the glass was necessarily set nearly flush with the inner surface of the door. (Figure 99.) Another interesting point to be noted in connection with the door of glazed form is the slight offset, usually about one inch, which occurred at the spring of the arch of the glass, without being repeated in the exterior contour of the door itself. (Plate XLI.) A very unusual muntin arrangement is that of the corner cupboard in the Captain Ambrose Whittlesey house in Saybrook (1799). (Plate XL.) Instead of the customary vertical muntins following the contour of the arch above its spring-line, this semicircular space 1s divided into three equal parts by two radial bars. The upper part of this cupboard is said to have been taken from an earlier house; certainly it is of comparatively early workmanship. A form of cupboard which appears to have been peculiar to the town of Guilford has a pair of panelled wooden doors closing the opening above the counter shelf. (Plate XXXIX.) The opening terminates, as may be seen, in the customary round-headed form. That part of the cupboard opening which was below the counter shelf was always closed, as has been stated, with a solid wooden door or doors. Such doors were nearly always panelled, and in a great variety of forms. If the door were single, its panels were often formed by diagonally crossed stiles. (Plate XLII.) Usually, however, the panels were of simple rectangular form. In sectional plan, the corner cupboard was generally of semicircular shape or nearly so. The curved back, which extended down only to the counter shelf, was constructed either of wood or of lath and plaster. Both materials were used, it appears, with equal frequency. Occasional examples are to be found in which the back, if built of wood, is carried over - into a half-domed termination at the top and carved with radiating flutes into a shell-like _ form. The corner cupboard in the King house, in Suffield (circa 1744), is an excellent specimen of such treatment. (Plate XL.) Shell-topped cupboards, so far from being at all common, may be said to be of comparatively rare occurrence in Connecticut. A very fine example exists in the parlor of the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751); though there the cupboard is built into the fireplace panelling, and is concealed by a hand- somely panelled door, which is flush with the rest of the woodwork. When the cupboard was across the corner of the room, its face rarely ran directly from wall to wall: it was usually set out, or away from the walls on either side, by an offset of five or six inches. In the later and more elaborate examples, a flat pilaster with shallow fluting was placed on either side of the door opening. (Plate XLII.) In some examples such pilasters extended from floor to ceiling; in others they were supported on pedestals with moulded caps and bases and panelled dies. A common arrangement was to rest the pilaster bases on the counter shelf. The employment of pilasters, which are very primitive in form, HousE— WELLES-SHIPMAN TyLerR HouseE—East Haven SouTH GLASTONBURY agen? Comstock HousE—East HarTFoRD Rogsppins HousE—Rocky HILu Brahe & Cupboards 171 in the corner cupboard of the Talcott Arnold house in Rocky Hill (1764) is of notable interest. (Plate XX XIX.) The shelves in the upper part of the “bofhit” were usually placed about eight or ten inches apart. They were narrow—rarely more than six inches wide—and, like the back of the cupboard, semicircular. Very often the termination of the shelf at either end was cut in an ornamental manner, and a rounded projection was introduced in the center, in order to provide a greater width of shelf for the display of some large object. It was customary to cut a continuous groove along the center of each shelf, so that plates could be stood on edge without slipping. The occurrence of regular closets in houses of the central-chimney type is rather unusual except on the second floor, where they are sometimes found opening from the two front chambers, and built into the space of the chimney bay. (Figure 15.) The decrease in size of the stack on the second floor provided this space, which was sometimes so utilized. In houses of this type in which the stairs to the cellar were not placed beneath those to the sec- ond floor, the space beneath the stairs served as a closet, entered by a door from one of the front rooms. An unusual ar- rangement existed in the Captain Charles Churchill house in Newington, built in 1763, and now demolished. A door beneath the front stairs opened from the porch into a closet-like space between them and the chimney stack, which was utilized as a saddle room. Stout wooden pegs driven into the walls provided safe resting places for equipment too valuable to be left in the barn. The house of central-hall type, with its two chimneys, each of which was centrally located between a front and a rear room, had, as may be seen from Figure 16, four spaces on each floor which were of the depth of the chimney stack. Closet room was therefore abundant. It is rather un- usual, though, to find all such space con- ee MELT AWA ® YY SAUL re. Bs Dees E LT os *CORAER Cyvrooarys + Wt al AO ae Bele FIGuRE 182. 172 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut verted into closets: much of it was used for communication between front and rear rooms, or, on the first floor, as a vestibule to a side door. The modern necessity of having a multitude of closets was evidently not felt by the early builders, probably because their mode of living was simpler and their possessions, were fewer than ours of to-day. We hear much about secret closets, but their actual occurrence is a rarity. One is said to have existed in the space about the chimney stack on the second floor of the older Silliman house in Fairfield (1760). Entered by removing one of the boards at the end of a closet which opened from the hall chamber, it served as a hiding place during the Revolutionary war. A curious closet exists on the second floor of the Acadian house in Guilford (1670). Consisting merely of the space in front of the central chimney stack and behind the stairs, it is accessible by a door from either front chamber. Though referred to as a secret closet, it does not seem to justify that title. What it provided was a secret passage from one room to the other. CUPBOARD IN AN O_Lp HousE— CUPBOARD IN AN O_p HousE— SIMSBURY West Hartrrorp BEARDSLEY HousE—HUuUNTINGTON Jupson HousE—STRATFORD Prartex i Le ad GRA BSG IGN BSG ON OOD SAN MO MSN EIGN SON ID Chapter XVII. The Stairs East Lyme (1664) in its first stage, the stairs occupy the front end of the chimney bay, at one side of the single room of the first floor. (Figure 1.) When the plan changed to one of two rooms, the stairs remained in the same place; that is, in front of the chimney, which had now become centrally located. In the lean-to type, the same ar- rangement held good; for the porch, or space apportioned to the stairs, had become definitely fixed in its relation to the chimney. The rule, then, became established, in houses of the central- chimney type, that the front or main stairs should occupy a position directly iE I the earliest or one-room type of plan, exemplified by the Thomas Lee house in CHIMNEY behind the front entrance, in front of the chimney stack. Through long adaptation to this space, they became standardized in dimensions and type. The space given them was neces- LDGL OF GALLERY sarily small, the average chimney bay “POR A His being about one-half the width of the GaLT ey ork bays or rooms adjoining it on each ifs fore : THt1s Parr side. Accordingly, risers were high coe ee and treads narrow. The use of “winders,” or diagonal steps at the TERA Ney AST aR os te turns, a common feature of the earli- ar est examples, is one of their distin- DEMING HOVSE-FARMINGTOA guishing characteristics. It is possible Ficure 183. that some of the first stairs were built entirely of winders, though few such specimens have come down to us to-day. This is not to be wondered at, for a staircase which has no straight runs is both uncomfortable and dangerous to negotiate. In the New Haven Colony the chimney bay was generally of more generous proportions than elsewhere in the state, sometimes by as much as two feet; and this fact, by permitting wider treads, resulted in decreasing the steepness of the stair pitch in houses of that locality. A front stair arrangement which is comparatively rare and of great interest is that illustrated in Figure 183. The stairs are in the usual space—in front of the chimney stack— but instead of ascending in the usual fashion, they begin directly opposite the front entrance and branch right and left from a landing about halfway up. Doors directly at the 174 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut top of each flight communicate with the hall and parlor chambers respectively; and access from one room to the other is by means of a gallery above the porch at the second floor level. It is extremely unusual to find a house of central-chimney plan in which the main t Fresh olroikeer nee JS Brockway HovSE-HAMBYRG SY Figure 184. vOF PRS TEL OO heh aes S JAAMVEL WEBS Totton ~EALT WING £Ofk eae Ficure 185. we stairs are in any other than the conventional position. But the first-floor plan of the Brockway house near Hamburg (circa 1725) shows that the main staircase occu- pies a very unusual place—at the rear of the house. (Figure 184.) Yet it is not of the back-stairs type, but is carefully and somewhat elaborately built, with well- turned balusters and a moulded hand-rail. (Plate XLIII.) From first glancing at the plan of the Samuel Webster house (1787) in East Windsor Hill (Figure 185), it would seem that a similar arrangement existed there. But here the omly stairs to the second floor are the back stairs, which are enclosed with pine wainscot and have no hand-rail. This is a brick house, only a story and a half in height. There appears to have been no fixed rule © as to whether the stairs were made right- or left-handed. (Right-handed stairs are those which have the hand-rail on the right-hand side, so that the person ascend- ing them turns to the right; left-hand stairs reverse this arrangement.) Right- and left-handed stairs appear to have been of equally frequent occurrence, possibly because their direction was determined by the orientation of the house, which in Con- necticut followed no rule. In Rhode Island the early house invariably faced south; but in Connecticut the builders always faced their houses on the main highway, so that, whatever the orientation of the house, the hall, or living room, was placed on the warmer and less exposed side. Inasmuch as the stairs to the cellar, when they existed in ee Brockway HousE—HAmMBURG PARDEE HousE—MontTowEsE Hitt HousE—GLasronBuRY OLpER WiLu1ams HousE—WETHERSFIELD Pratees GLI, Doo aS a ers Me oie nn) ; Vi * The Stairs i7e a house of two-room plan, usually led downward from the hall, the stairs to the second floor were started from the opposite side of the porch, in order to provide the necessary head-room for them. This is why the great majority of stairs in central-chimney houses begin on the side of the porch which is nearest the parlor. Even when, as in the lean-to type of plan, the cellar stairs no longer lead from the hall, this arrangement still persisted. A feature of common occurrence in the earliest examples of front stairs—one found with sufficient frequency to be counted as a characteristic—is the diminution in height of the last or top riser of the flight. The reason for this is not clear. In the simplest and earliest types of stairs, hand-rails and balusters were lacking, and the whole flight was en- closed by a single thickness of wainscot, generally displaying the familiar panel section and 3h- 7 ent ees ie Lipa Vs (4 ee GV neue eee FicurE 186. 176 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut running vertically. The front stairs in the older Bushnell house (1678-1679), near Say- brook, are of this arrangement. (Figure 3.) The use of panelled wainscot below the handrail partially to enclose the stairs is illustrated in Figure 186. Treatment of this sort is decidedly out of the common; the writer has not seen similar work elsewhere in Connecticut. The next development is the omission of the enclosing wainscot and the introduction of plain square newels and a rail. The open end of the stairs—i.e., the part away from the chimney—was covered by a continuous or box string, in the treatment of which mouldings early came into use. (Figure 187.) The space below the string was covered with simple wainscot, and later came to be panelled. The front stairs of the Moulthrop house in East Haven, shown in Figure 188, are characteristic of this period. In the third or final stage, the newel posts were often turned and finished with moulded caps. Some of these caps were formed by the mitered inter- sections of the hand-rail. (Figure 189.) Balusters, nearly always turned, were placed upon the heavily moulded box string, and were at first spaced rather widely apart, with no fixed relation to the stairs themselves. A char- acteristic feature is the use of half balusters against the newels. (Figure 190.) (Plate XLIV.) The use of turned balusters began about 1700, the earliest forms being characterized by their squatness and general stumpiness. (Plate XLIII.) Early balusters were generally made up of a great number of very full forms, and their composition was often Jacobean in spirit. From balusters of | Ficure 187. this sort the development was toward longer and more graceful, flowing lines, with comparatively few members, as shown in Figure 191. A com- parison of typical early and late types, as illustrated in Figure 192, is of striking interest. The front stairs of the Pardee house in North Haven, built about 1725, and those of the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1690) display very short balusters of robust form, with a decidedly Jacobean flavor. (Plate XLIII.) In both instances the balusters are placed above vertical pine wainscot which shows the familiar bead-and-bevel section at the joints. Although most stairs in central-chimney houses display the boxed string, upon which the balusters were equally spaced, now and then occurs a staircase which has an open outer end, with the balusters placed in pairs upon the returned nosing of each tread. (Plate XLV.) This scheme was not altogether fortunate, for it resulted in crowding to- gether the two balusters next the newel post. Flat balusters, with a contour on two edges produced by sawing, such as may be found in Rhode Island, are a rarity in Connecticut. They are not to be met with west of New London. Balusters of simple rectangular section are not common: it is evident that, even in very early days, the turned baluster was in high favor. A typical example of plain balusters may be seen in the front stairs of the Ezra Griswold house in Guilford (circa 1760), shown in Figure 193. 10%" GENERAL WALKER HousE—STRATFORD SEwarp HousE—GUILFoRD HyLanp-WILpMAN HousE—GUILFoRD GENERAL JoHNsoN HousE—GUILFoRD Pirate XLIV. oo” 7? i ‘ vou 1% The Stairs 177 A species of hard pine appears to have been the favorite material for baluster con- struction, even when the rails and newels were of oak. This preference was possibly due to the greater ease with which such softer wood could be turned upon the lathe. Oak balusters are occasionally to be met with, as in the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford (circa 1660) (Plate XLIV) and the Graves house in Madison (1675). es 8-10 % PI eMOV LEH ROP HONS baa SIA YEN vw! Ficure_E 188. By comparing different specimens, the development of the hand-rail may be traced. The various examples group themselves into three general classes. (Figure 194.) The first type was of simple rectangular section, chamfered slightly at the corners or rounded on top. The next step was marked by the use of mouldings, usually on the outer side, away from the stairs, so that the rail is unsymmetrical in section. The third and ultimate stage is marked by the moulded rail of symmetrical type and greater elaboration. Hand-rails of this last sort are typical of the last period of stair construction in both central-chimney and central- 178 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut hall houses. Specimens of the first two groups, but rarely of the last, may often be found made of oak. Hard pine, and, in the latest houses, mahogany, were the woods employed in mak- ing the moulded symmetrical rail. In stairs of the earliest type, which have no hand-rails and are enclosed by wainscot, a square oak post of three- or four- inch section is commonly found at each angle or corner of the stairs farthest from the chimney, into which post the diagonal treads or “winders” are framed. When wainscot was super- seded by hand-rails and balusters, these posts remained and served the same purpose. Two more were added: one each at the top and bottom of the flight, to receive the ends of the hand-rail. In most instances the rail is to be found tenoned into the newels and secured with wooden pins. In stairs of central-chimney houses the writer has never found the rail fitted with ramps and ease-offs, such as are common in the stair treatment of late houses of the central-hall type. A customary arrangement was simply to butt the ends of the hand-rail against the newel posts; although occasionally it is found, at the bottom of the flight, mitered into a short level section, which is in turn mitered around the + Capt. Ropert Liy Hovvt top of the newel VASES post to form its FicureE 189. cap. (Figure 195.) This last scheme was the precursor of the ease-off, which was formed by curving the lower end of the rail so that it became level at its intersection with the newel post. Work of this sort could be °%*** 42% done, of course, only by a skillful joiner. The Stowe house in Milford (1685-1690) exhibits a stair treatment of very unusual form and extreme interest. The stairs of this house, which is of irregular plan, are of the “dog- legged” type; that is, the hand-rails of each of the two ramps stop against the same side of a common newel post. By far the greater number of newels were of plain form and not larger than three or four inches square, and their only ornamenta- FicureE 190. 3 TeRaro Of Secrion OF Rare SHARRISOA-LINSLEY HovetZ BRA A OFeOse yee The Stairs 179 tion consisted of a simply moulded or turned cap. Newel posts turned throughout their length are less common, although they are frequently found in stairs of central-hall houses. Rarely do we meet with the newel of rectangular section, panelled on all four sides or even, like that shown in Figure 196, only on the front one. In this example, the panel is carved directly into the post, which is of oak. The newel post of the main stairway of LIL peg] as iv ge ed ea Ce A res Wie Rane By 1 Ge ed ll ee A FicureE 191. the Deacon John Benjamin house in Milford (circa 1750), illustrated in Figure 197, is unusual in its treatment. Like that of the Bushnell house, it is made of oak. In certain in- stances the newel was formed by grouping together four balusters, over which the rail was mitered to form a cap. Occasionally the lower end of the post at the top of the flight is to be found projecting below the finished ceiling of the porch. Where this occurs, the newel usually terminates in a series of handsomely turned mouldings, as does that in the General Walker ‘house in Stratford (circa 1740), shown in Figure 198. The same treatment is to be seen in the Coit house in Norwich (1785) and the Governor Trumbull house in Lebanon (1740); but 180 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut these are of the central-hall type. The post in the last- named house is turned in the form of an acorn and its cup. (Figure 198.) Another feature of interest which deserves mention in connection with the stairs of central-chimney houses is the small seat or bench usually built beneath them and against the panelled wainscot. (See Figure 186.) If we are to use the term “sparking-bench,” commonly applied to this arrangement, we must needs accept the oft-repeated state- ment that it afforded the amorous swain, on his way to the door, a last tarrying place for fond farewells. Judging from their size, many such benches must have been a tight squeeze. Some of these sparking-benches, but not many, have hinged lids. That in the Captain Lee house in Guilford (1763) has a section of the seat, thirteen inches wide, which slides out, thus giving access to the space beneath. (Figure 186.) When the central-chimney type of plan gave way to the central-hall arrangement, the stair treatment gradually became of much greater importance. In its final stage, all FIGURE 192. possible attention was lavished upon the stairs, and they became, through sheer elaboration, one of the chief fea-_ tures of the house interior. Originally the space allotted to them in front of the central chimney had been cramped, and the angle of ascent necessarily steep—generally in the neighborhood of forty-five degrees, and sometimes even steeper. The pitch, or angle of ascent, naturally depended upon the space available for the “run,” and that in turn was ‘governed by the width of the chimney bay. This was greater, as I have noted, in houses of the New Haven Colony than elsewhere, and accordingly the stairs in and about New Haven were easier of ascent. As a consequence, probably, of years of adaptation to their accustomed space, the stairs, even when freed from the confines of the chimney bay, kept for some time their old pro- portions. But eventually, as was natural, their width was increased, their pitch lowered, and the ascent made more gradual and easy. Newel posts became elaborately turned and carved, often into spiral forms, as those in the Grant house in East Windsor (1757-1758) and the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751). (Plate XLVI.) In such examples the bottom step usually flared outward, its curve being repeated by the hand-rail above it. Together with these changes, the old box string finally disappeared, and two or three balusters of more graceful form were placed directly upon the treads. In the finer houses of the last quarter of the eighteenth century, mahogany came into use for hand-rails, and occasionally for balusters as well. The General Jedediah Huntington house in Norwich (1765) contains a very handsome staircase, the rail and balusters of which are made of solid 14° 26 34- en LAM Rteyes LAT Bae Hype Houste—NorwicuH AWW AMMA AAD ADAA ADB Be Hart HousE—SAYBROOK Huntinctron HousE—NorwicH Pirate XLV ee Oe y of The Stairs 181 mahogany. The balusters, of which there are two patterns, alternately used, are of twisted or “rope” pattern. (Plate XLV.) An unusual and lavish use of mahogany is found in the Sherman house at Yantic (1785), where the entire staircase, as well as the panelled wainscot below the chair rail on each side of the central hallway, is of mahogany. pe te) %, Rae OR Gb GR WOW We hOt tie GYIDFORy S FIGURE 193. SS Ou 444+ MLS UD * SECTION? AAACN \ A *ELEYATIOA®Y BEAJAMIA HOVE? PeeerevemuehOVSE~ JAYBROOK «MILFORD? FicureE 196. FIGURE 197. CrititAG@ LIaAE * GLA WALKER Hovyst + STRATFORD * Gov. TRYMBVLL HOV/E » LEBAAOA * Coit Hovye- NorwWicnue FicureE 198. 184 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Ramps and ease-offs in the hand-rails of these late stairs are rather frequent. In very late work, the termination of the hand-rail at the bottom of the flight was often of helical form, and was supported by an attenuated newel, generally in the form of a small column, about which the balusters were ranked on the first tread. The stairs of the Barnabas Deane house in Hartford (1778) exhibit such an arrangement. (Figure 199.) * HVNTIAGION HOV/E? Norwicy *DARAABAY DLAAE HOV/E* HARTFORD FicuRE 199. * BARAABAS DLANE Hovste HARTFORD «CHAFFEE HOV/E* WINDSOR FIGURE 200. In work of this period, panelled wainscot applied to the stair wall, at the same height above the treads as the hand-rail, is very often a feature of houses which pretend to any degree of elegance. The upper edge of such wainscot, which is moulded, commonly parallels the contours of the hand-rail. (Plate XLV.) It is not unusual to find the curves of the ramps and ease-offs, where these are present, followed out. Certain features common to stairs of central-chimney houses, persisting until a late date, reappear in stair work of central-hall houses. For example, when the box string gave way and the moulded edges of the treads, together with the mouldings beneath them, WINDSOR Grant House—Easr Grant House—Easr WINDSOR SILAS DEANE HousE—WETHERSFIELD PLrate XLVI WesBB HousE—WETHERSFIELD a in : ™ y al ‘ 7 2 _ “a + a pp a . 2 * 7 - 7 4s a { ¥ ¢ ae = : ws a ic ! - 4 A ; ? Li y e.* . . _ a ae ar = oe = , - . » if ' rx : } + \ a | : } ne : ~ . « i eS eS Se Se eee - ov — Soa, = eS ee The Stairs | 185 were returned against the string, a common decorative feature was the scroll-shaped bracket, cut out of thin wood and applied beneath them. (Figure 200.) These brackets are to be found in an almost endless variety of forms; it appears that a different outline was designed for each staircase. The usual thickness of the material from which such brackets were cut is about one-half inch. The contour of such brackets was so designed that the outline of each is a continua- tion of those above and below it. (Figure 200.) The boxed form of staircase, with the under side of the treads and risers panelled, was apparently not used in Connecticut. Hand-rails of late staircases did not vary greatly in section from the forms established in front-entry stair work. The use of a rail of unsymmetrical sec- tion, moulded on one side only, is, however, rare in central-hall houses, though it does occur occasionally, Ficure 201. as in the Coit house in Norwich (1785). An unusual treatment of the stairs may be seen in the Dr. Richard Noyes house in Lyme (1814). A half rail, with half balusters below it, has been applied to the plaster wall, repeating the rail and balusters of full section on the open side of the stairs. (Plate XLV.) The balusters of this staircase are quite uncommon in form. They are square in sec- SECTION OF DrAGLLN Vast bare Dr. RichHaryvy NOYES HOVSE-LIYME Exys Byiir Jnto MASONRY ~ IZ LET COA SO Sit Fs Sea WE LANL tay Woh See oy Set pV Oh OA ee g A MOVITHROT Hoveiclas rt Wari ay FIGURE 202. tion, set diagonally upon the treads, and each side is channelled with two vertical flutes. (Figure 201.) Balusters of a similar section were used in the Judge William Noyes house in the same town (1756). Back stairs came into existence at the time of the lean-to addition. In houses of central- chimney plan they are commonly found at one end of the kitchen, between it and the 186 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut buttery or the corner bedroom. These stairs were always enclosed, usually with vertical wainscot; and they were purely utilitarian, no ornamentation ever being lavished on them, as it was on the front stairs. Once the back stairs became established, the space beneath them was utilized for stairs to the cellar, which had hitherto been situated beneath the front stairs, leading downward from the hall. Cellar stairs accessible through a door opening into the stair porch are very rare. L oy TCtion a fo Or TREAJ®* 1 Ce iA Rone tea a eee “BECK LUY HOUy Ent ee FIGURE 203. Ua iniiee wags We CONSTRYVCTION® / PIERPOAT HOVSE-AEW HAVEN 7 FIGURE 204. The Stairs 187 Cellar stairs of the earliest type, such as occur in front of the chimney stack in houses of two-room plan, were of either stone or solid oak logs. When made of logs of rectangular section, like those in the Moulthrop house in East Haven (circa 1690), they were generally Tot Ay Re eG O OW SPTESY Casa) OLA Sop Yeseh A LL Oi vate Ske ROOK S FIGURE 205. built into the masonry walls which enclosed them on either side. (Figure 202.) Some houses, such as the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme (1664) and the Beckley house near Berlin (circa 1685), have cellar stairs made of solid oak logs of triangular section, secured with wooden pins to heavy string pieces. (Figure 203.) Solid wooden steps are rare, and but few specimens remain to-day. Work of this sort has a distinctively English flavor. 188 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut (A cottage in Upper Midhope, England, has a flight leading to the second floor, built of oak logs of triangular section, carried on wooden stringers hewn from heavy logs.) The Graves house in Madison (1675), the Linsley house in North Branford (circa 1700), and the Allen Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) all have stone steps leading down to the cellar, in front of the central chimney stack. This form of construction is not often found ; where it exists, it is a sign of early work. Later types of cellar stairs were simply built of sawn lumber, and have no features of special interest. Sige ee J SERS Sa 7 if ; Y E Se SESS SS Zz uy =e | SS Z my 2 'S PAI my SZ a 3 cele Zr ie ; oS >. Pec SS Ce es hi sie | SS ~ ‘ S ~~ S HAWLEY HO VPM oR on enee FIcuRE 206. _ Attic stairs were likewise of simple construction, and in central-chimney houses are gen- erally to be found above those which give access to the second floor. This is especially true of houses which have an added lean-to. When above the main stairs, they are separated from the hallway of the second floor by a wainscot partition, and there is, of course, a door at the foot of the flight. Occasionally such stairs are fitted with a simple hand-rail. Attic stairs are very commonly to be found in the rear part of the house—generally at one end of the kitchen chamber when the house is of the central-chimney plan and has two full stories. Attic stairs also occupy the same position in central-hall houses. The attic stairs of the Cyrus Hawley house in Monroe (circa 1740) consist of a flight of stone steps built against one side of the central stone chimney and leading up from the The Stairs 189 lean-to attic. (Figure 206.) The steps are very steep. Each is a single block of stone. The stones of the chimney stack are laid in clay, and the steps are bedded in the same material. A similar arrangement exists in the Buckingham house near Huntington (circa 1740), not far from Monroe; and such construction being most unusual, it is probable that both houses are the work of the same builder. Eten ties ilo Atyic foetal ics Bviitt Bevivt Curaxsy JEN bila MOA a da Se Otay yee Se NN Wel Ye OV CEM ON POLS FiGuRE 207. BES FETE EE DG FENDER IE HERDED HORDE RITE MORO Chapter XVIII. Mouldings ment of the first colonies, the main idea was to construct and not to decorate; utili- tatianism reigned supreme. The colonist was face to face with too serious a proposi- tion, time was too limited, and means were too scanty for the expenditure of any energies which were not directed toward the end of mere existence. We do not realize to-day how serious a problem confronted most of the first settlers. It is entirely logical, accordingly, that the first mouldings should have been semi- utilitarian, like those at the joints of wainscot or the boards of batten doors. Where the broad boards used for wainscot were fastened together with the usual form of. joint, con- sisting of a bevel and a quarter-round bead, such mouldings were constructive as well as ornamental. (Figure 174.) The joints of wainscot were formed with a “‘wainscot plough,” all such material being worked out by hand. If the joints were merely halved together, as was often done with batten doors, the quirk mouldings which embellished the joints were purely decorative, for they served no constructive purpose. (Figure 155.) They and the chamfering of exposed beams may be regarded as the first deliberate attempt at ornamenta- tion by means of mouldings. The chamfer, in its earliest and simplest form, consists merely of a bevelling of the corners of those portions of the oak framework which projected into the rooms. A typical example is the chamfering of the summer beams of the Dudley house in the town of Guilford (circa 1690), shown in Figure 76. The end of the bevel terminates in the common or lamb’s-tongue form of chamfer stop. The two other examples shown in . the same illustration have ‘a more elaborate form of chamfer, actually moulded; and the stops show interesting variations of the simple and more rudimentary lamb’s-tongue form. Elaborate and finely wrought chamfering, both exterior and interior, is a characteristic of the Guilford school. Moulded chamfers, corresponding in sectional contour to the cyma erecta and cyma reversa of Classical form, were cut into the timbers themselves. Such work is of the utmost interest, for it consists of frankly exposed structural forms to which a decorative treatment has been directly applied. Much of such work in Guilford is very early—as early as the last decade of the seventeenth century. Moulded chamfering, such as occurs on the exterior of the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford (circa 1660), has not been noted elsewhere in Connecticut. Ornamental mouldings (using the word in its modern sense) were probably not generally employed until late in the first half of the eighteenth century. Mouldings of this sort were made by hand from inch boards by means of special planes. The introduction of plastering and the resultant casings of exposed constructive members such as girts, posts, and summers, probably had much to do with such an innovation. The use of panelled wainscot across the fireplace wall brought about the treatment of the projecting chimney |: the very earliest work, mouldings are conspicuously absent. During the early settle- GENERAL CowLEs HousE—FAarMINGTON Op TavERN—STRAITSVILLE ‘TALMADGE HousE—LiITCHFIELD WarRNER HousE—CHESTER Pirate XLVII. e . Mouldings Ig! girt as a cornice of Classical contour, especially where pilasters were employed in connec- tion with the panelling. (Figure 168.) Cornices of this type usually consisted of a “crown moulding,” or cyma erecta and fillet, a plain fascia, and two simple “bed mouldings” be- neath it. A typical section is shown in Figure 149. Where pilasters are present, their capitals are formed by mitered projections of the bed mouldings—a satisfactory and ingenious arrangement. Moulding treatment of this sort, where employed in connection with the casing of the chimney girt, was generally extended along the summer beam and around the three remaining sides of the room. Another early use of mouldings is to be seen in the treatment of fireplace openings. In their earliest forms, such mouldings were inclined to be somewhat crude and of bold projection, lacking in general scale; in other words they were out of proportion with the work which they were used to finish. (Figure 208.) Indeed, mouldings of the earliest types were very generally lacking in grace and scale, and were of rather heavy and clumsy contour. Their principal characteristics, when they were used against a vertical surface, were boldness of projection and steepness of contour. These qualities were Figure 208. due, at first, to the literal adaptation of Classical forms primarily designed for an architecture of stone. Of some influence also was the fact that the English mouldings of the Jacobean period, as well as of that pre- ceding it—which to some extent must have affected the early builders in America—were for the most part cut in stone, and were therefore very full and heavy in section. Very soon after the introduction of mouldings there began an interesting development which may be regarded as a sort of evolution or process of refinement. Continuing through various periods, it reached its culmination only during the time which corresponds to the Adam era in England. In translating the proportions of Classical models into a new mate- rial, the American craftsman, working in wood, was not hampered by the limitations which bound him to certain observances in using stone. Thin edges could be formed of wood without danger of breakage or chipping, and flatter projections than those of the con- ventional forty-five degree angle were made possible without serious loss of strength. Besides this increasing fineness of scale and detail, two other considerations came to be expressed: first, the lightness and flexibility of the new material; and, secondly, the fact that work executed in it existed primarily for the sake of its appearance, and not as an 1 Laks Sos yee My Pl a 1g2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut embodiment of rules of construction. The Classic cornice, for instance, when executed in stone, is built up of successive imposed courses, each member being designed actually to carry that above it. Such construction is logical; there is a definite reason for every mem- ber. In the cornice built up of wooden mouldings, this principle became lost. The bed mouldings, for example, in a Classical cornice, are sturdy and of short projection; their office is to support the members above them. In the wooden cornice, especially in late examples, the bed mouldings became a flattened cove of great projection, the purpose of which was primarily to soften the line of an internal angle. It may appear at first glance that such construction in wood was not so true architecturally as the model upon which it was based; but the point is not well taken. The inherent nature of the new material made the building up of superimposed members unnecessary; and a frank and open expression of this fact cannot be called false. In appraising the development of wooden mouldings, the influence of Wren’s school must be given due weight. Through constant intercourse with England, the spirit of Georgian work there was bound to be felt in, and, to a considerable extent, infused into, American work. Furniture was constantly being brought from England, and the influence of the cabinetmakers there was also a factor in the process of refinement. Moreover various books, published in England on the subject of architecture, or, more properly, building—books such as those of Asher Benjamin—helped to shape the work being done in America. In endeavoring to assign a definite period to certain mouldings, considerable difficulty is met with; for the same forms and quality of workmanship were not extant everywhere in Connecticut during a given time. Work which is primitive in conception or crude in execution is not necessarily of an early period; for, as in other matters, greater advance- ment and finer finish were the products of the more thickly populated regions, the towns. In poorer or more remote locations, far from the main highways which formed the main arteries of intercourse, less expert work may naturally be expected. Some regions were also much more conservative than others, more tardy in adopting innovations. In a general way, however, certain sections or contours are peculiar to the mouldings used during a given period. It is interesting to trace, as may sometimes be done, the development of a moulding of given section from its earliest appearance through successive changes to an ultimate or final form. Three mouldings of common form are shown in Figure 208. It will be seen that in their early forms they are literal adaptations from Classical examples cut in stone. In their later forms, the early steepness of the projection has given way to con- siderably flattened shapes which are finer in scale and far more graceful in outline than the originals from which they developed. As before stated, mouldings were made entirely by hand with a set of specially designed planes. Often two or even three planes were necessary to produce a moulding of given section. Inasmuch as every builder had his own set of planes, the individual builder often employed mouldings or combinations of mouldings which remained peculiar to his work and strongly flavored by his taste. The handicraft of a certain man may very often be — Mouldings 193 traced, therefore, throughout the locality in which he worked. Old moulding planes may sometimes be found in use to-day, for they were simple in construction and well made, and they received less use than most other tools. Several years ago the writer found, in a thinly settled, out-of-the-way region of Connecticut, a carpenter of the old school, working with a set of about thirty different shapes of planes, all of them evidently very old but all still serviceable. He was engaged in the restoration of a house built during the third quarter of the eighteenth century; and his planes, or combinations of them, produced mouldings identical in contour with those originally used in the house. By combining various planes, then, mouldings were produced which were genuinely inventions of the builder. For this reason much moulded work is to be found which bears no imprint of Classical influence, but which is purely typical of the period during which it was produced. One particular moulding is particularly characteristic of the middle and late periods; and its repeated use from the Revolutionary period onward to the Greek Revival era makes py ure 209. it, perhaps, one of the most familiar forms to be encountered in Connecticut as a part of work done during that time. It is shown in section in Figure 209. Varying greatly in size, and of seemingly endless adaptability, it was constantly used for door and window trim, both interior and exterior; for the panelling of doors and shutters; in cornices and the entablatures of columnar porches; and in the familiar type of pilastered mantelpiece, where the same section was often repeated three or four times in the one composition. CB ETO ENG SG OA EY HAN AED SN MN ON SNES Chapter XIX. Hardware vestigator or the careful student, than its various items of hardware, such as hinges, locks, bolts, and latches. The ingenuity and genuine skill with which such articles were fashioned bears testimony to the fine craftsmanship of the men who wrought them. The most casual observer is necessarily impressed by the almost endless variety of forms in which certain objects appear. For instance, the wrought-iron door latch of simple mechanism varies from specimens of the utmost simplicity to forms of considerable elaboration. The inventiveness of the men who produced these articles at the forges found free play in such work; yet their designs, which each craftsman evidently evolved for him- self, were always governed by good taste and restrained by a keen sense of the beautiful. ‘\ EW features of the old house hold greater interest, for either the amateur in- TIAL LEP OF SWE GR Tee ~WIANDSOR® *EAGLAADS® YCOAALCTICY¥ Ts FIGuRE 210. Each hinge and latch handle received the personal interest and attention of the man who made it; there was no such thing as quantity production. Hughes, in his History of East Flaven, says: “No attempt was made to manufacture anything but what was done by hand on the anvil under the strokes of the smith.” It is not improbable that much of the hardware employed in the equipment of the earliest houses was imported from England. Wares of this sort could be compactly packed in the form of ballast, and they were abundantly produced in England; whereas in America there were at first many factors to discourage the manufacture of such articles. Certainly there is often a striking resemblance between specimens of English handicraft and similar articles of hardware found in this country. Compare the two simple forms of latch handles shown in Figure 210, one from the Isle of Wight, the other from Windsor, Connecticut. Hardware 1Q5 Hinges, latch handles, bolts, and various other articles of hardware used in the early Connecticut house were, for the most part, forged from wrought iron. Occasionally latch handles of brass are to be found (Figure 211), but they are rare by comparison with those of iron. Door knockers, though, were generally of brass; and it is probable that a good many of them were of English manufacture. The remarkably good state of preservation in which various articles exist to-day, after perhaps a century and a half of unprotected exposure to the elements, indicates without question the purity of the iron from which they were forged. Iron which contains but few impurities does not rust or oxidize rapidly; instead, it gradu- ally becomes covered with a thin protecting coat of patina. The early Court Records of New Haven contain numerous allusions to the manufacture of iron from the ore. Under the date of March 16, 1654/55 we read: “Mr. Goodyeare desired, if they knew of any Ironstone aboute this Towne, they would make it knowne, that now Mr. Winthrop* is here he may be gotten to judg of it, and if it prove right, and that an Iron mill might be set up here it would be a great advantag to the Towne.” The minutes of a “General Court held for New Haven Y¢ 29th of Novemr 1655” contain the following: “The Governor informed ye Towne that this meeting was called to consider something further aboute the Iron workes. Sundrie who ingaged to work last Court have not yet performed, though others have, and it ‘ was now concluded that those that are behinde should be called We TeelO LR upon to performe what they promised. It was also now desired ? that men will declare, who will ingage in the worke, and what FIGURE 211. estate they will put in; but few speaking to it, it was desired that those who are willing would meete at the Governors this afternoon at two a clocke, to de- clare themselves therein, and it was now propounded whether the Towne will give up their rights in Ye place, and what accomodation is necessary for the best conveniency of the said iron worke, & in this case all the Towne voted to give a full libertie for Ye Iron- workes to goe on & also for wood, water, Iron-ston, oare, shells for lime, or whatever else is necessary for that worke, upon Ye Townes land, or that side of Ye great river, called the East river; provided that no mans proprietie laid out or to be laid out be intrenched upon, nor no planter prohibitted from cutting wood or other conveniency upon the said common in an orderly way, and that Branford doe make the like grant, according to the proportion they have in the worke, that further questions aboute this thing may be prevented.” The iron works are next mentioned in the record of May 19, 1656, as follows: “Upon a motion made by Mr. Goodyeare and John Coopt on behalfe of the Collier that comes to burn coale for the Iron-worke, he have twelve act's of land granted to him as his owne, if the Iron- worke goe on, and he stay three yeares in the worke; provided that all minneralls ther be * John the younger, of New London. FIGURE 212. TG VASAT EO oe vee FIGURE 213. ST) WOU TERT ie Le 4 SJ ODS a A SOPRA FIGURE 214. “ae » ge abe Hardware 197 reserved, and that he attend all Y* orders of the Towne, for Y¢ present, and in disposing of the said land hereafter, if it shall so fall out. The place propounded for to have it in, is upon the beavor meddow, conteyning a hundred or two hundred ac"’, aboute two miles from Y¢ Iron worke; against w*) grant or place none objected so as to hinder Y¢ same.” A final allusion to this undertaking is made in the record of February 19, 1685, in which a furnace and a “forge or two” are mentioned. The early manufacture of iron in Connecticut is also noted by Lambert, | Y who states that a mill was established in BeeeoNG RIDGE JS 1655 in the colony of New Haven by FIGcurE 215. John Winthrop, Jr., and Stephen Good- year. It was situated at the southern end of Lake Saltonstall, and was in operation up to 1679-1680, at which time it was abandoned. The work of producing iron at the “Bloomery” there ceased very abruptly; for what rea- son, it is not known. The ore, a sesquioxide of iron, was brought from North Haven, where existed a deposit covering a considerable area. Dodd of East Haven states in his Register: “Why this business was relinquished cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. The furnace was supplied with bog-ore from North Haven. It was chiefly carted, but sometimes brought from Bogmine Wharf by water round to the Point below the furnace and from that circumstance the Point to this day is called ‘Bogmine.’ ” Iron was “wrought at the forges” of old Newgate Prison in East Granby, and large quantities of nails were manufac- tured there by the prisoners. It is prob- J Nort Lymt 7 able that nails were forged at New FIGurE 216. Haven at a very early date from iron brought from England, for the Court Records of 1644 make mention of “John Thomp- son, nayler,” and those of 1648 order that “Whosoever shall sell nailes in this town shall sell six score to yt hundred.” According to tradition, a considerable amount of various sorts of hardware was turned out by individual craftsmen who worked at their own forges in different localities. This usage may largely account for the broad diversity of forms in which certain articles appear. Owing to their general lack of similarity, it is somewhat difficult to make coherent groups of the types of latches, hinges, and other products, and the classification can be accomplished only in a broad way. The earliest types of door hinges are undoubtedly those of strap form, such as are shown in Figure 212. Hinges of this variety are usually very long: specimens measuring 198 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut two feet or more in length are not uncommon. The butt end of each hinge was formed into an eye, which was hung upon a shouldered iron peg driven into the door jamb. Strap hinges were used more than any other variety for hanging exterior doors, and their use there persisted until a fairly late date. The “snake” hinge (Figure 213) is a pleasing varia- tion which does not commonly occur in Connecticut. It is plainly an attempt at decorative G.¥.1 LF Oskegaae FIGuRE 218. SF GYRE OP Rae FIGURE 219. FIGURE 220. form, and its undulant outline is very pleasing. This specimen was in use on an inside door, as were the two hinges shown in Figure 214. The upper example shown in this illustration is unusual because of its bifurcated termination; that beneath it is noteworthy because it shows a transitional form which developed from the strap hinge. A somewhat similar, though possibly earlier, specimen is shown in Figure 216. A plate of more or less orna- mental form has replaced the peg of the earlier type. This hinge is a rare specimen; the writer has seen its like but twice in Connecticut. Three other examples of “half-strap” form are shown in Figure 217. The two lower hinges in the illustration were taken from cupboard med Deminc HousE—FaRMINGTON “HisroRICAL HousE”—SouTH NoRWALK CHAMPION HousE—East HappAM Pirate XLVIII. Se doors; that above them is a regu- lar door hinge. Eventually this strap form disappeared, and a hinge which more resembled the modern “butt” took its place. The “butterfly” hinge, shown on the left in Figure 218, is a very old form of English origin. It oc- curs on chests of English work- manship which date back to the sixteenth century. The hinge shown to the right of it is a later variation. Both were serving on cupboard doors. The three cuts or notches on either outside margin of the butterfly hinge illustrated Hardware v STRATFORD ©: m9 «WINDSOR FIGURE 221. are common characteristics; so are the leather washers inserted under the heads of the nails by which it is secured. Red morocco leather was generally used for this purpose; its brilliant color, where it has not been obscured by successive coats of paint, makes it of considerable decorative value. Sometimes leather was also used in this same manner in fastening hinges of earlier type, such as those of strap form. Butterfly hinges were prin- wee oA M PoE NS FIGURE 222. cipally used in hanging cupboard doors, though larger forms were sometimes used for regular inside doors as well. The transition is easy from hinges of the butterfly type to specimens which more resemble the modern article, such as those shown in Figure 219. The somewhat fanciful shape and graceful outline have given way to a simple, purely utilitarian form. Two familiar forms of hinge, both very commonly used, are shown in Figure 220. They are known as (1) the H-and-L and (2) the H hinge. Not so early as the strap hinge, they were widely used until a very late date; sometimes they occur in work of 1800 or even later. H and H-and-L hinges were used more commonly than any other variety for hanging interior doors; in fact, they appear to have been the conventional forms for this pur- pose. Their average measurement is about eight or nine inches, though here and there specimens are found of much greater size. Those on the front door of the Captain Ambrose Whittlesey house in Saybrook (1799) are thir- teen inches wide and the same in height. H-and-L 200 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut hinges are rarely used in this manner for hanging exterior doors: strap hinges were the favorite sort for that purpose. A more decorative form of the H hinge is also shown in Figure 220. Hinges of this sort, of three lobed termination and cross scored, were generally used for inside shutters and cupboard doors. The hinge shown in Figure 222 is an extremely rare and unusually elaborate form. When discovered, it was serving as a barn door hinge; but it is not probable that it was originally wrought for such a purpose. An equally rare specimen is that illustrated in Figure 223. Its decorative form reaches far back into antiquity, the “‘cock’s head” terminations which it displays being a traditional heritage from Roman times. In the house from which this hinge was taken, similar specimens were serving on wall and corner cupboard doors. 2-7 \ SS ECK EE eeHO Vettes | AM IRAP Lt FIGURE 223. JS Colt) Poa FIGURE 224. Hardware 201 The set of exterior door hinges from the Deming house in Colchester (1 771), illustrated in Figure 224, are splendid specimens. They have not only an ornamental value, but a structural one as well, for their great size and peculiar shape make the door much more rigid and add to its strength. A study of latches and, more particularly, of their handles, unearths many striking and curious specimens. The broad diversity of forms to be encountered on every hand, together with the general lack of similarity in design except in the simplest examples, speaks elo- quently of the skilled artistry of the men who forged them. aM ERA eR Vie Ls ba /- FIGURE 225. A great proportion of such latch handles, especially those of an early period, designed for use on outside doors, were of comparatively large size. Those shown in Figures 226 and 227 are early forms; both are bold and vigorous in design. Notches, or V-shaped in- cisions in the handle, such as the specimen shows in Figure 228, are a common feature. In some instances an attempt at ornamentation was made by scoring the handles with hori- zontal cuts from a chisel or other edged tool. The iron latch shown in Figure 229, from an outside door of the Chaffee house in Windsor, bears the date of building of the house (1776), pricked into the handle. What is perhaps the most typical form of iron latch handle to be found in Connecticut is that illustrated in Figure 230. The use of square bits of red Morocco leather under the nail heads is characteristic. The latch handle shown in Figure 231, though of common form, is extraordinary in size; and for this reason it is a decorative feature of much interest and value. Although ¢ PN ce) CHAVLYAL FERRY © FIGURE 226. JIRATFORD FIGURE 227. 8h : N _ CHAFFEE HOV/JE FIGURE 229. COL CWE Site FIGURE 230. Hardware 203 not strictly within the confines of domestic architecture, a wrought-iron latch handle from the church door at Middle Haddam, one of unusual size and exceedingly handsome form, is illustrated in Figure 232. Specimens such as those shown in Figure 233, though they represent a very common type, belong to a much later period. They are of much smaller size than those earlier in use; and being, apparently, “shop made,” they are of considerably less interest than the foregoing examples, which were all hand- wrought. The little fillet of pewter applied to the handle is a char- acteristic feature of latches of this type. The use of small-headed nails in place of the hand-forged variety with large flat heads de- tracts considerably from the general interest and decorative value of these latches of later type. It is quite probable that, during the earliest period of the colony, wooden latches, such as the one shown in Figure 235, were in com- mon use, especially on doors in the less important parts of the house —e.g., those of the rear rooms and those on the second floor. The latch from which the illustration was made was on a door opening from the kitchen chamber of the Caleb Dudley house in Guilford, built about 1690, and is doubtlessly as old as the house itself. A ‘0 somewhat similar latch of wood secures a door of one of the rear | rooms on the second floor of the Graves house in Madison (1675). Latches of this sort possess that oft-quoted feature, the latch-string. During the latter part of the eighteenth century the wrought-iron latches gave way to the iron lock of familiar form. This was applied to the surface of the door, and operated by a small egg-shaped knob of brass. Such locks were not often mortised into the doors, as 1s customary to-day. This type of inside door fastening is frequently met with as a part of work built after 1800. In addition to the arrangement of a horizontal wooden bar across the inner side of an exterior door, various forms of wrought-iron bolts were common means of outside door fastening. Two typical » myppit specimens are shown in Figure 237. Locks did not come into general HADDAM » use until after Revolutionary times. Early examples are very often FIcure 232. fitted with clumsy wooden casings, such as that illustrated in Figure 238. The working parts, of course, are of metal. Several specimens of hand-forged nails are shown in Figure 239. Their use covers a wide period, from very early until—in some parts of Connecticut—after 1800. Wrought- iron nails were used in every part of the house construction except in fastening together the oak framework, for which purpose, of course, oaken pegs were used. The smallest nail shown in the illustration is of the sort used in finishing interior woodwork, especially mouldings. Its peculiar shape was such that it could be driven into woodwork so that its head did not remain exposed. It was accordingly the “finishing-nail” of early days. Pirkid HOovyeE oS Nore Olea LAST HARTFORD FIGURE 233. FIGURE 234. BECKLEY HOvsE Bl Ravers FIGURE 235. FIGuRE 236. Hardware 205 1%6— meer kW 1th VD bie he Nee aes FIGURE 237. FIGuRE 238. Wrought-iron nails were succeeded in use by machine-made “cut nails,” probably be- cause of their comparative cheapness, which was in turn due to greater ease of production. Not only were they inferior in strength and lasting qualities to the hand-forged variety, but they lacked the large flattened heads of the earlier sort. A decorative feature of con- siderable value was accordingly lost with the passing of the hand-wrought nail. A house FIGURE 239. covered with clapboards, laid in courses of graduated exposure and secured by wrought nails with irregularly shaped heads of one-half- or three-fourths-inch diameter, occurring at regular intervals, possesses a distinction which is entirely lacking where no nail heads appear. The great majority of the various forms of knockers which adorn the front entrance doors of so many old houses do not date back so far as the houses themselves. As most of them exhibit strong Adam influence, they are necessarily of comparatively late work- manship. Knockers were not employed on the doors of the earliest houses; knuckles served instead. The wrought-iron knocker shown in Figure 240, from the front door of the older 206 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut Silliman house near Fairfield (circa 1730), is undoubtedly of very early workmanship: possibly it is of English make. The knocker illustrated in Plate XLVIII from the Warner house near Chester (1793) is an unusually fine specimen. It is made of cast bronze, and beautifully finished. A cast-iron knocker from the so-called Historical House in Norwalk (circa 1750) is also shown in Plate XLVIII. Most door knockers, however, were of cast brass, polished and buffed to a high finish. It is probable that they were largely produced in England and imported to this country. Cast-iron specimens such as that shown in Plate p . ” < ¥ } een et ath EE ef : eouytys ATT ts I ee aT © SSS : Th ‘ Aoi pq u "TRON KNOCKER. == NILA = ecae Arr 2 Eo ic Loy SAT ANT ROYa Eater nee TU RU FIGURE 240. FIGURE 241. XLVIII do not occur so commonly as brass, for, unless plated with some non-rusting metal or else painted, they soon became disfigured with rust. One of the chief attractions of the brass knocker is the resplendent polish which may be produced by diligent rubbing. The iron knocker which is illustrated was originally plated with “water gilt,” traces of which still remain. It is on the side or garden door of the Champion house in East Haddam (1794). Blind catches of familiar form, constructed of wrought iron, must also be included in a discussion of hardware. A typical specimen is illustrated in Figure 241. Since the blind was a late feature, these fastenings were also of late date. Wrought-iron foot scrapers occur commonly and in many forms. Often strikingly handsome in design, they display a great deal of style and elegance as well as of skilled and careful workmanship. They, too, belong to a late period. The discussion of this topic cannot be closed without at least a brief mention of the iron cranes which still hang in so many fireplaces. They are generally to be found—or so, at least, are the eyes which supported them, driven into the masonry—in the fireplaces of the hall and kitchen (for these were the rooms in which the cooking was done). Some of Hardware 207 these old cranes still retain their full complement of pot hooks and trammel bars—the latter being adjustable arrangements for hanging kettles at any desired height above the fire. Now and then a fireplace is found which has only a straight iron bar extending across it, built into the masonry on either side. This arrangement is not so common as the crane; but it is perhaps even more antique. wea SiC VO IAGUH aL OCA AY PNA eet OL LAAT ECS FIGURE 242. BPP S I ELD ENGI I DY DE ESO EEN SON ESN EE MES ACADIAN HOUSE, g, 11. Added leanto, 8, 9, 11. Allyn house, 65. Atwater quoted, 6, 57, 58, 78. Avery house, 26. BALDWIN HOUSE, 26. Bake ovens, 73. Balusters, 176, 177, 180, 181, 185. Baseboards, 138, 139, 147. Bassett house, 100, 114, 115, 129. Beach, Benjamin, house, 131. Beers house, 86. Belden house, 93. Benjamin house, 56. Bidwell-Mix house, 36, 50. Bishop, Philo, house, 102. Blinds, roo. Blind catches, 206. Bolection mouldings, 151, 152. Bolts, 203. Braces, 60. Brackets, 63. Bradley house, Branford, 50. Bradley house, New Haven, 86. Bradley, Eri, house, 66. Bradley, Joel, house, 20, 60, 74, 75, 79. Bradley-Tyler house, 55. Brass hardware, 195. Brick, 78, 79. Brick houses, 20, 65, 79. Buckingham house, 73, 83, 145. Burnham-March house, 16. Bushnell house, Older, 7, 26, 30, 33, 7. Butler’s Tavern, 72. CALDWELL HOUSE, 64, 67. Casements, 87, 88, 89. Casing of structural members, 139, (40, 14%, 143. Cellars, 69. Central-hall plan, 16, 17. Chair rail, 147. Chamfering, 190. Index Chimneys, 14, 71, 72, 73, 78. Chimney viewer, 58. Churchill, Capt. Charles, house, 74, 759 77) 113. Chaffee house, 20, 201. Champion house, 120, 140, 143, 206. Clapboards, 11, 81, 82, 133. Clapboards, graduated, 84. Closets, 171, 172. Closets, secret, 172. Collar beams, 44, 45. Comparison of Orders, 115. Corbels, 64. Cornice rake, 131. Cornwell house, 119, 130. Cowles, Admiral, house, 120. Cowles house, Older, 63. Crandall, Prudence, house, 61, 120. Cranes, 206. Cupboards, glazed door, 169, 170. Curtis, Freeman, house, 26, 73. DANFORTH HOUSE, 74. Deane, Barnabas, house, 69. Deane, Silas, house, 77. Deming house, Colchester, 140, 201. Deming, Henry, house, 77. Dudley, Caleb, house, 37, 145, 203. Dodd, quoted, 197. Doors, batten, 135, 137. Doors, Dutch, 103. Doors, inside, 137, 138. Doors, exterior, 103, 105, 109, 114. Door knockers, 205, 206. Drops, 62, 63. EARLY settlements, 5, 6. Ells, 17. “Elm Fort,” 79. Evarts Tavern, 52, 123, 132. FENESTRATION, 97, 98. Fenwick house, 6. Flooring, 132, 133. Fireplaces, 73, 74, 75. Flues, 75. Forbes or Barnes house, 21, Sas Fowler, Miner, house, 69. GABLE framing, 34. Gambrel roof, 59, 60. Gay house, 61, 120, 143. Girts, 31, 32) 34- Girts, cantilevered, 52, 55, 56, 123, L26, 127. Girts, chamfered, 63, 64, 67, 139. Glass, 87, 92, 96, 97, 102, 103. Gleason house, 31, 63. Glebe house, 60. Grant house, 71, 112. Graves house, 12, 65, 203. Griswold, Ezra, house, 135. Gutters, 130. HALE HOUSE, Glastonbury, 85. Hall house, Cheshire, 34, 53, 56. Hand rail, 177, 178, 180, 184, 185. Hawley, Cyrus, house, 69, 117. Harrison-Linsley house, 9, 30, 47, 135. Hearths, 76, 77. Hempstead house, 11, 26, 58, 65, 69, 90. Hewing, 22, 24. Hinges, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201. Hinges, butterfly, 199. Hinges, H-and-L, 199. Hip roofs, 61. “Historical House,” 206. Hollister house, 64. Hotchkiss, Deacon Stephen, house, 37) 525 127. Hughes quoted, 194. Hubbard house, 67. Hull house, 105. Huntington, Jabez, house, 135. Huntington, Rev. Dr., house, 14. Hurd house, 83. Hyland-Wildman house, 63, 64, 73, 88. 210 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut INTEGRAL LEANTO, 12. Iron firebacks, 165. JOHNSON, CAPTAIN, HOUSE, 72. Joists, 36, 37. Judson, William, house, 103. KING HOUSE, Suffield, 135. Knell house, 85. LAMBERT quoted, 5, 25, 89, 197. Latches, 201-203. Latches, wooden, 203. Lath, 160. Leaded glass, 115, 119, 120. Leader heads, 130. Leanto plan, 8, 12. Lee, Thomas, house, 7, 11, 87, 145. Leete, Governor, house, 89. Lewis, Colonel, house, 120. Lime, 70. Linsley house, North Branford, 126, 145. Linsley house, Stratford, 100. Locks, 203. Loomis house, 83, 135. Lyons house, 80, 85. MALLETT HOUSE, 85. Masonry ended houses, 20. Mather, Samuel, house, 84, 108. Meggatt house, 71. Merriam, Burrage, house, 71, 78. Moore house, 21, 34, 63, 65. Morris house, 20, 50, 70. Moulding planes, 192, 193. Moulthrop house, 48, 51, 58, 79, 132, ¥33- Mullioned windows, go. Muntins, 95. NAILS, 197, 203, 205. Newells, 176, 178, 179, 180, 184. New Haven Court Records, 9, 24, 57) 70, 78, 82, 85, 87, 160, 195. North, Isaac, house, 79, 80. Norton house, 6, 7, 40, 41, 128. OLD INN at East Windsor, 110, £33. “Old South Middle,” 79. Noyes house, Older, 141. One room plan, 7, 11. Orton house, 71, 80. Overhang, hewn, 64. Overhang, origin, 62. PAGE, MARTIN, HOUSE, 74, 135. Palfrey, History of Guilford, 57, 58. Palladian windows, 99, 100, 129. Panelling, 148, 151, 152, 159, 160. Pardee house, 128. Parsonage, Monroe, 139. Phelps, Bildad, house, 143. Pitkin house, 17, 60. Plank-frame houses, 40, 41, 134. Plastering, 67, 68, 146, 160. Plaster cornice, exterior, 128. Plate, 33, 34. Posts, 26, 27, 30, 31, 41, 43. Posts, flare of, 27, 30. Purlins, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 525 55, 60, 61. RAFTERS, common, 44, 45. Rafter footing, 46. Rafters, principal, 46, 47, 50, 52, 55. Rafters, sizes of, 45, 47, 48, 50. Rankin house, 115. Ridgepole, 46, 52. Ripley house, 71. Robbins house, 78. Robinson house, go. Roll mouldings, 151, 163, 164. Roof boarding, 46, 133. Roof pitch, 4, 50, 51, 56, 58, 61. SASH, thickness of, 93, 94. Saunders house, 72. Sawing, 22, 24, 134, 135. Sheathing, 133, 134. Shingles, 84, 85, 133, 134. Shutters, inside, 143. Side entrances, 120, 121. Sills, 24, 253.26, 36, 40. Sheldon Tavern, 120. Shelley house, 88. Sherman house, 143. Smith, Allen, house, 66, 127, 133. Smoke ovens, 77. Sparking-bench, 180. Stairs, attic, 188, 189. Stairs, back, 185, 186. Stairs, cellar, 8, 174, 2£975)5287, 188. Starr house, 30. Stevens house, 36. Stowe house, 34. Stratford Inn, 106. Strong, Nathaniel, house, 37. Strong, Timothy, house, 20. Studs, 40. Summers, 32, 36. Summers, disappearance of, 67, 68. Summers, second story, 53. TAINTOR HOUSE, 6. Talcott house, 73. Thatch, 6, 49, 56, 57- Thatch poles, 58. Thorpe quoted, roo. Transoms, 102, 121. Treat, Governor, house, 58, 89. Trim, inside, 138. Trumbull, Governor, house, 143. Trumbull house, 14, 93, 108. Tuttle house, 72, 79. Two-room plan, 7, 11. Tyler house, 9, 106, 145. UNDERPINNING, 70, 71. WAINSCOT, 145, 146, 184, 186, 190. Walker, General, house, 77. Webb-Welles house, 17, 60, 138. Webster, Samuel, house, 79. Welles-Shipman house, 73, 140. “White Farm,” 75. Whitman house, 63, 89. Whittlesey, Captain Ambrose, house, 199. Williams house, Older, 7, 8, 37,5 T2775 003 Se Gaos Williams, Warham, house, 13, 110, 141. am Spear G1). dv 7 > c ae ‘ ee) * GETTY CENTER LIBRA \RY MIT il 3 3125 00601 4704 ; } aa 4 44 tea * * i" it it te! att j ate hd ti Ty " ieeael rah teary oaeee peateereses es eSess etree ts Bae pee we Rebs FEES SASS reees eee alaeeed Sb- bbe Sabing eb ate ood ait ete eed ee Sees Ce eases eeaneeb ee } j H nese * Yeatrae iit wee ’ 1 sHtt itt t { if if it i i +e Lad ie i i . i f i # ee te i i - if : t : : t { t t i ' ; ; i 7 t : ! + ; f ; { + s roxas Se [eennoennsiid rsasess { se (3 * i . i t + t ? f 4 ; 7 - ’ i 2 + b . iS iY ta ‘ . * $ret tit tress tet S55 Saat Sy ene a Pe Se Sere ee tee etree Peete eee etree error tree re Eee hse SEyae sirssty DRS eee eee << eRe eee wie eee wee eae hn ee oe et TE ES SEN SADE REA ee ee RAR EE TREES OE EEE RED. She SeE ase bean teen Sede hee eee ete ae See tee ett e el . SSS Ss oe ee erste SS SSS SESS Se ES SSS Se SSS SS SSE SES esas wee Wit ee Sse iat yu re eek pwe ca ay SENS eS UR Oe eS al eee PREPS Seep eee eee. pepeptrsiirist ee tistics eee tet eee eee tte ee EES EES eS iitsp Stet iiatieseesar ete beeetes ebay aay 4 y ¥ } ! : t t } t ‘ serene et t + ¥ ’ ‘ ‘ + + ] 4 ¥ i "i { * t i : } + + + t , + N ) f nith t Bitet ast ! H - Ht FePEeeee eat erecenn t + ey bees ertagh sit esata heey i $33 +} ‘4 pitictoss Hib} ests ats ipabths et } ‘| why aot 4 ye eee So RSE a OEE T OST eRe ER TE TSE SOS Re ee ee Oe OEE Sele ate eleeaeeen eee ss Sha Prd eh ee het ee Ure ETE See Seen eeyekebed Steg b eee ates aes ee eee < Sere SSS STS Treks yi eee eee. Satie: Sezesecr eet. eae ee = i eererersye Hite : | f ' ; t ‘ : ; t f t : . { ; . f Hat > id r 4 x % 323 SHEET e Sst e heel e eset eee e ee =o eee ries ap ao er ale ale a ey Oe Re ENO SNe E TSE Ee ee eR er ele ee Ege es Le ew eee eS RN os ee ee eee eee ee ee PEE See Tee eS ee Tae ee beens tet pe eee eee rts et eet tt eee Sovestseareneescp ests o=3e~s septa ae ae oa ee Ss kines woke oe Sse plers tet escsew eset esse ene ae t Tis! ye He one ee Sehr ke ae ee ery tt eo oe oe i ¢ were eee oe ee ee ete ET STO Ore OM ee oro pesetese es eases SaSe warp Saane Sheet ee : pepe eee e ee eee cae b we rew ars web hw pre nen BEE STEEP TS ESS Spe Sa Reese ree vase aress nearest ' S hakemned lalpdb died Inde ted ip dh ed intend oda ddedtehehdnehtehdiehettheh oe —- a ae sob bates . D296 64-9 68 e+ * pa iisietsesitssiss Araeewsreepeee eran preee ne wena tas ey eS Pere Weep Bre eee, ~ oo ee ree center ers! SSeS Bree Te os Bae asa a ors: perererersaerert anes f sss ste af Farere shenee ® ep eeeert tease . . > rehe * then = sitrieticste t Hi . ‘ Risbibataled ohare - f ‘ eeey t reve ' yan Gn eone ny eee ot W ee Se ene Oe ee ve ae oe ee ee gieteeserrates sacisiiepsese Becsssstetpessresestssitstst erst ciety sy rSesthres ibs iri lone; stieiey ne iH ether + rf : thea or Ser perp ap ae eee Teens tis ea len ias to esesa pes ey ee egey seater eeererane Se re pare ew So ee ee Rae Sea. eee SESE PS SS a ae seeee Pere eres Sebibbebodbihbe bee bttee eee Bee ee cose SRO RS OE EON LR ee IN ST TENE RO ENTE CRIS ee ost ew tee aes iss $4 ewer: ca of i bid ea ae etat bias +e be Set $ oebetheeell = pesoes Stee vee eee” peep wee re Saree = tty > Re Sa chained behead LA LE MR hO MRAEO E oe Da eC bak pie ws wa ese se peewee) ot cf + : 78 See idle hE EOE OSES Re St btn binban en benlh bane bern per g—-5 24 eerie eS: oe ee es Lag Fees ae ei rate Fe ee abe kas rece ees Warten ap Weert PRES ape wap S ePaper Sehr ee. ib ted nh aed etbab taeda etededebad ae ahah eet eee en eee a ~ Sot eo eens ale edhaiethanedh dedobed ae a Srp ese Sas ae ceepetoerern epee Tt Salvbn dads feta sSsrs Sets ee ae ress srersrare ines SPSS S TTS ee Paeges tere lo ts taeet aslo ns SeSO PSSA a Ee eee ee See Sale ee es Sat eee eae anes Peel tasesapres tataee Sti SSS ee o—3s ane Se OG OO Eh mh —F -8 —S ee See pip esate ee een pe pene eee en ren peee gre eere rere eee ae SeS Eph ee eee te ae ike Feet rs eer e we werere et ele rs baa pte se wees Se reat epee re hs eee ees Teese ee Forae te .—o-—1—9— : pigh ft pis betoe eS plsi cist ie he eine tes pmees pea vewe 6 hh ae 9 DNDN EY eae ep Sewn eh s ewe ba ya ey mre ONE R eS 2 ERE RSE ESPN. S523 Sepaean ce — $738 9—-8 7 Saeeseletss sae erreur teed : : : a Srebarsbanseeracnls 3 Pht nitepeette esate Perestrerree noes Saar aero ets peretoiitarsresstcrsreet see e ee eer seer ep sstaes tals Sere ais aee seis ee iat eete ee gere pesreeersiissrsigrersisstistniesesraseseepereeepes sey Sirprs: “ Setatstetess pesibstes hat pbk ye ’ € + Tit i bik see rors t at ath rd i ’ u , seeehenpat + + ir ieh4 Hervey islet 4 reeks Hot th ri oe 4 ees oe Sea ee ets Seen Warr ri - t t i | ) i; | babs i aeetitey ra ese SR ea me eee PRS ES OSS CIEL ES SES ES Ee Re ESS See Set ee ee ee eer Pse4tee et bebe tesa eae Re Rae ke Se eh Vara tes : ae a ee oe & xt Pete SSS Seve el eS eee pis tse tases Pert eepeee: ree oe *. Se rere ap arabs carpe yp epee ep eens Pee e epg eet apes eee ge peseeers [Sieees = LPP RN EMER A EM ETRE ERENCE R TAR RES TOD we ee Se eee SS Spry ele gegr ce pegeseusprsryeaecetege : re e—% 9 Oe Oe eee > Debs See oe Se bet eR is 2s tea + Te SSR es oS oe ey rete ee otras eee tb peo So Se ne er Sahendhdieibeed-tedseedy- tot ad tock oc eho eteed pnd e-bande id + Se oe ee de od ee oh edad eae —e Pee eee ee Te SAA a ee a ae ae eer eore. web Shs PeeS SS ets ee ees s ere es. 44 pists REAR RIE EFS Se Oe Re ie 8 ERE ES NEED REEL OED DOE OO ek Ca Te TOM Ce EE ne Ree EE SES Ee PTE R AAO EE NE et Le eee eh Ee OR ee Oe estes tateteteeeiceei epee babsness ep ey epee eels wee eee ee te ee ee — ss prerprsasserarase Seen pee sere eee peers bso ess ee stat ssseress Re a Sette ern: = Seteee rterssrse> Neral erste berse sip yersrtrpres peerprersesrerarer: eeuenn precarpravessrererers Sots eat eres Sine eek pers cahies Were wee se mey wert rset hale Seep eee ce haga wees eee See Tee SSE Se RE SSS es V9 Dee eS eas bte sc eube eee oe: phpheess See bskshe sec annsupepasrp etapa seep Ter pee es eae a nas Sy BERS a SISA SSS Pees hSts Stay syste tse. pisesieesetesesesitestess per se ses tse tes tes aehs claire esate epe eterna eewperpateenetrsorsepe ee - beteie sete trie sree t Pot ct tet rte tees tet ttn eset restate test ee bette bso st o—$-3 Spictetsatsrogheapes eye Bae epg h ee shies a ese ea See re terse Seti pes bebe reese Webs eel ses tils bl terse eae DPS SE ESSE SES = : ei eeer Srerscee ss, Rat apepepeerseprerseti tier nsees: Pawn ene ae we NS eee PES St Sees een eerie a newt esses beta eeee ss Sst ee eae Sesssn pany sereceseseecrn een sas peees ep teeee cSs4 7 2 oe ee es ae rare TL ee eee ee ase h +4: ett ty : BPR Oe reapers - * eae be 2 eee or ss > - : ross > + ieendetetes ened SE gestelpi esas ; SP ee ot hr hai i ab eae od Ere heen ene ee ey eee SETS TOS etary Drs epee apes eee eepe Sipe t ep uebemphtepechelcne tents: aaee eae eehe eee Sect Ee es a Se eeieees kis tyit iy rssrass rare an aint elehn siete tseets apres pe larsrecareessnwere peateteeseasee ses Senet ep epee eet pap veep rs rast earnes ates. Sepep rarer eee seer ere eer oe ap eere er erp ey ere erase. ree ree pee we eps ee ee aew eee ewenpwe serene mtreee newer Bes ee aa eee a aa career avase ra eeveee rere ee rte ees seen See sts} a Tape entr pores ere aaa ease ae eipestetr sects iris iret SS neeoRine nie je b-bd ob a a a ese oe eben aoe See SwiGers—s- Sens Sees Se oer Seah b sapere wer seis Spiesrssipie? Sek Ses cers Rodaineecbedbome baa le oa Poets is Rrseetsete se gest sere Spe pr pee sys peers Webra ye eRe ane a wee we ese Sagas aen sey Pes SSS TSI SS war gepee es ee fees pam ree pee Seherse sees pes i abdadtebinee ite reste. See weep RET Rae ke eae oe Rae te Oa ee ne gb er ee Ae a ni ee ee eae re 6 or ore res Sepueend a. erp le wpes rel tae ae ne ep eee Soe rains Sere ce Sec sd ee ree peep eee re Serer ergy =e a Pris bo! Aeebnguerasnducbonton tomb $2 oe parte G aban) ah ani mar has fea> fr Sanh arb ake b= ey ed oh ed we hae peheleh one a EMSRS: s cnedbaleiiane dh dnditcedhahedhieedhaiedh athens iedeeeeh - — rs or eae FO Re inh Sa a ee , Betetetiisieisiiig isis Sistite te tesa te ese a tetet re rieeetetreetees treo tots Menec nara reyeey. EC tab ease Sree tor ererses Siti SS SSS SS SPS Sees > Sa teaaes Sis ae bee aa mee en akg ten Sees eee arene eae eee at tear ee, — OG ent Bae dant ee ep ee - Sete dot rie bh pone Bnd — bh heap 25S — beeleeh ahd we Sab Fe) ab wa bah A oe be eee Sadapocetyeen wep eaere: ee Fern tty eae Sie stetactes Pets eee eee SS eS. Stoset Iyukaas et wy syn eeepersert wen reas aap burner Tepes esiiet ries Steste retype tes oni Siow Eheree cee be lel ee ee eee wake ered sa seeeetel oe pele See aees Dh ip arsed bhindood beth e ten ene ~~ + Seis care prea peerney prekn esse ines Sees n cheer epee ese snp ye ee rp ESes eee pes Sent es eee eae Seer pitapsrsssss pe seel eesti ee rises + Seen are were y ye Seep epee ee oree Tereres ery Biter arssssS ts Sec ena sis sis =s is PES bend Shades —t— OS 252s iezeers aby awe be Sr rw org ene pO =m Syeeestet stats. PRESSES ATS sss ere .. rersrerstes sl ereyer at ee en ee ht 8 5 hehe hah 8 5 — EO LF ee OS ST RE REE OEE OL RT OT eee LS 22-6 raesres prtistsns rte Ee Sess om ood ch eine Oe San Gen eh doa gard om arabe bel RS ret isse see eee Peep e: Seer eee trees e a. ee area eRe pw an pore te tear res pares hs Tye seperti nye anes. Sp ene pare a een oe ee mee mare Fetes ea ecen en ee pd Soph pepe re ag eee Inmet teas te Debs eeeee aarp . posse res Oe ere ieee t ett ss ae: = ad ww Oe o oe Peete hee ere ars Beah meh bo oF Ppt ard og nee eine pmb om pees 4 Vetabnnpepent aterebers ree o-$—t— 6-5 piipTeteratseaees pistserisiss epee ter atest aise reris sis attest es Soesiees sisss tates =o Sawa e - are. = =e SPR eR CR eR eee Pe teed eae jad aetna Pe ne i PssS3eFIReS peeeshe ear Ta rae ers we Ra ee SN Re ep cree Aeseeey eee eeere : ae ae Shibensts ee Seeded ee he ok ed ee L ecdy cand aedeed a mar eer Orr eee. —s a2 ae + hen ee Dae Serpe peieteesissetss sta eitbisessatess Si baeechd soho eee Rae MO le .2a — o> oe = To yee nw} Teh ae pe ee Ly a py page ee pee pa sap tyes reise keane eee ee. ~o—' Tess 5 ried cee eae isele assets heye see ee rate Tee Sete Bere pe ee Pe ae eet = ss eee 2 4k +t — + » eae se he 7 Srerer Sarge phy erect ees 4 bore! wo See pe seg ugh por i) SiS he asenepee Sparel tam rete te esSeteitete eee Catt te Scene Cease ete ieee! STererepistsisige cipeperssas ere enieibeesieacereiees rete eee pesetissteiss Spestseeneristetssetststsestsi stg tees eset es pies ete artn ts eta e reget: ese s erie opt pistes attest ttre tes teee eer es Seen on re sn ee wrere mene > pbatereseses eeeaer roe e neers ee. ec teee Ite ese te see e ee ~i gore rar ie eeepc erias: eee ssesestissisisesed ne tes PrEL PLA Seed eee (ib aebard pb obobertet ot _—- beeaaaea Sp cindanel Sead diedaedeed “~ steisitsi eeee es Se Ee SSS = a ~ — o= ——s + oe pa-¢<4 ? Cie sia bsbocpwsenwawnepecee cae geet ie Soir ess ees pire ee 32042 -y eo as3 os +76 eroeres) Poe a ey ae é ieieace etets eis > : art =F; 22; =2° stistissecisti ih: es. . RsSetetes hat mie ng ore beak tn Om hae Seranee. oe era ie betserears : Kes oek S55 Es! : Se ipiesststeeersests Bisnle bse nase. wer prEpeape ts 4 ~ bn Bo Toy : ~~ he eed ae a dp ind oe el eee eres % rts 4 Teirsecseper trent se peste vere Santos Reap is Snccsacarseprers types etesesorece eiSSeeetetetetess bestitzes tee =o as eestetesess PEP ena SSaREciaee eMirssegisstseere ze a SeRtereceMeTe ee ieireraaas ateeee ieee i: esti setattapate leit teresa Sees pits Se Sie ee es estas sainsacasen sist eens a Tirh re rers steko teenie be ceenss anes, i ere pet testet se <= eee seeteastetesi Seeee sss =< 375: ris ==. ete Cs = += s 3335 si5= ange ep atee barter. ent eeeeey Seioioe sae Sarno - : rf siiipie iste Dercr ees piers erst > 2; : : eee seet ro ASRS eT aay 4 + = — & ms = ->. pipapepeskes, Ppicics tapisers ltr es gra pipe restate tos $e 2 323 4 : - DEES ee SS Senko, Pineiro poe $e~ Sa ee ee ahareoeee S Von enhe wan ee pe vam as wen 3 iT ss4 Let bre tre Sno wary ‘s—< ape ping ine kis ges ena ean > hehehe ny cere ee reese erie es = are. See be > ros oS ts rots CE daed-ede one Sadek aeenedel ae deseresptateissrert cher sesereeet gaeerits pnd rg ete iol dps eilenipgetn aie dt dio lemeed aed < ; Pi teretate ry * ears ner a bas pare en ts ee taae priaten inks enn bere mes 54 athena ee we we be Lae eee ee tz Sioa Setrerts tS rir apasaes Seszrss estat apes wale. pire Sasscaseusesietesees predescerrocopeen phetreresserrate i Saeeeee be baent eed heap Rereaecneabres ieiiariewesssptree ae en be bane be pe savers’ Rip ier eeee eet eras Ay meee ee kine eee on wp kes te Sere 4 Persie barn dam bry Pee Benn ye Peaebedaeetsted eget sed penta Seeetsetessstis rane pire porte 23: pepe ee ye a oe aodeiedend S gendaiel pesreests = Sareea estes ssh Selieeees te papie ae te eeepie weke enh Stee, Santee tees esis 7 taper seyeaee teste tiiete peso pete pagers sigisie wets Sele Sele pater eee. eerie ra xoee rerexenserseceses perraeesteracemsrstetsesesrer scares Sess = eon. eo o-— oes -> ae Pate aeerieeets. ScaEsEseeEnicees SESSTALETE PEST esate oes Stites ipiee ee. ES Ss ixts. eeprprere es are piiisg stat Se aa ae, fp sigiiist: Se int anh oe b= +. ph etme bb eo eres srseres $5: ete te Sesspesisse tie sheerprphinriststssy eeeese rs Soregereses ppartebeeebannee Srsrtrostee sess tortie fete eerers (e338 2% -s-3 pak sa TSSsrst ao Perec pire cpt seat kebewent bans be basnene : SSE ER ease Pare ease = Ser critesatststrtsesisrstesessyresassaeieseie teeeee erie DSispelemececete ties SrEmisprrsee traepesrgcrstensyet 3 pty eiteaetes. aig teti tee $ Sorererstecesesesesrsptstetp estate bait 22. qepessresterstes <2 bp trepertser terse ers peste ss ert riers rs ease ware eee ees = “eFs esse pernes i Pebrsptrepipisisistsiitatsts Sesetecstetert es paperes: bebe rare $m PSrits ptititisene renee pes gest atiese sete ee aeeee eee Srerbesstecd Sateecbatesese ebaeree Serapebesees terre ser eespere tet ereatasseiteeee > ee Se a nore aemsosere eae" sae ne — were Pon SStetse tae rarsess roe ose apse rit ++ > roetree=as reas rosieir sete; tn G ont bbe ee .aee Spa eepwesecewpecrerse = Dee ewee pee arew: Spares sasie Stixse erie paattteteieestreritsssc ities rect on eee rer ert. fire pies el ell wenn senaee FELIS TNs wa sett. SSigisst > Se Sereasss tbe eel ~ Peacrssrssetes Spesatrongereceess etree lees ote tee Saree 2 pirstiisicssscerssststscstetes pipeiiqetaretee sts tsthes eit etes Siststees cepeprttsreee eeiisisetespincds hess ; Sstsiss i aoe > Babhet eee ene bee ee db bib ob dh bree beer oles oped eb bb terroir fondu imbie Seared ob. eles seeteseet treet eere es rs Se Sstes bese er Sts ere tt sees ie Sele les Sehatess spepcteenerarees eat => Perr es lle ies tt aeenses cetanryee : posi tetestessebibasstteeeieesieeiseaie 23 me gtacesratcslopetstsentssate tarsi reese eres igis eee est 4-09 ae a5435 arose is f tt i o-oo ees sore ete Sree presS: : e393-o3es~>. rest ees ae —erheieere sre: eas Se. ote ee Soe oo itis a 332 bless ts SiwaRRPAEK ATOR ROR ET TIRE RRAS TOA U RS ERT ET feriptsiigstiessasisiassesssiassisetwseseagegisaitistes eetet tees asst) “2s eiees = pitetstsispeietereeres perer posta saeceebesesenees “2 z tit et beset wetatbanssrereses PS tstsee <3 F Sitstet : pistes raks rs Pibebsrass sr ersesats tes Petrie sr stecsa ss exes Setstss. Sri Set actsetesesesetefs eGo b ae bab abana ae le hae ee alee wR eRe Fe rvastseberarelese ee eee e were aes