:V-iJ.!l.l.i^.;;'^i',t ■:i1#':isj,:i From the library of Francis J. Koenig Library of the University of Illinois AT Urbana-Champaign ISTORICAt SURVEV. Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Wilbur D. Peat INDIANA HOUSES OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY INDIANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY Indianapolis 1962 Copyright © 1962 by the Indiana Historical Society Reprinted by Offset 1969 This volume has been prepared and published under grants to the Indiana Historical Society from Lilly Endowment, Inc. Pref: ace FVEKY AME^CAN who is in the habit of traveling, which is almost equivalent to saying every American, must have noticed the inexhaustible demand for rural residences that is perceptible in every part of the Northern States. Nothing like it has yet occurred in the world's history; and although hard times undoubtedly occur in America, as well as elsewhere, at occasional intervals, it would seem that the profits which are missed by one man, contrive, somehow, to slide into the pockets of other more successful operators; for the carpenters and masons appear to be always getting a full percentage of the floating capital, and the hall is kept merrily rolling under all changes of individual circumstances. Such being the fact, whatever may be its philosophy, it seems evident that the season must come when the importance of the whole subject of domestic architecture will be fairly and fully recogni^d. It can not he possible that the energetic vitality which pervades this branch of home manufacture will, for any great length of time, remain satisfied to expend its intensity on meagre, monotonous, unartistic buildings, or that it will continue to pay out millions of dollars every year without the propriety of getting, habitually, something worth having for the money. In an intelligent age and country like this, ugly buildings should be the exception: not, as hitherto, the almost invariable rule. The above transcript, which has a surprisingly contemporary ring, was written by an architect a little less than a hundred years ago. It appeared as the opening remarks in Calvert Vaux's work, Villas and Cottages, A Series of Designs Prepared for Execution in the United States (1869). My reason for quoting it is not so much to use it as the text of a sermon, lamenting the poor quality and low artistic worth of so many houses in our mushrooming suburban developments (which I am tempted to do), but to reiterate the first lines of his second para- graph: I, too, hope the time will come when the importance of the entire subject of domestic architecture will be fairly and fully recog- nized in this country. V Preface This book can do nothing to improve the quahty of mass- produced small homes in our time. This is not its purpose. But it might make a contribution to the "entire subject of domestic archi- tecture" by helping us analyze and judge architectural compositions, as well as by enabling us to appreciate some of the best of our fore- fathers' efforts in their desire to build good domiciles for them- selves. But more about this later. Here I would like to express my appreciation to the many people who helped make this book possible. I wish that I could somehow thank Calvert Vaux, and his partner Andrew Jackson Downing, and Asher Benjamin, and a score of other nineteenth-century architects for their treatises. Likewise, many living architects and architeaural historians have aided through their books, their magazine articles, and, in some instances, their valuable suggestions after reading the manuscript. Special mention may be made of the help given by Walter Creese, John T. Forbes, and Howard E. Wooden. Assistance was given, too, by many people working voluntarily on the county survey project who sent to the office of the Indiana Historical Society photographs and descriptions of old houses in their sections of the state. Acknowledgment of their help is made at the end of this volume. Wilbur D. Peat VI John Herron Art Museum, Indianapolis March, 1962 Contents Introduction xi I. Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century 3 n. . The Federal Mode 9 III. The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals 37 IV. The Gothic Mode 85 V. Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan 91 VI. The Anglo-Italian Mode 1 1 7 VII. The Franco-American Mode 129 VIII. The Neo-Jacobean Mode 149 IX. The French Romanesque Mode 158 X. Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century 181 Acknowledgments 191 Index by Towns 193 Vll Plates Plates I through ^2 follow page 20 Federal Style 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25- 26. Harrison House, "Grouseland," Vincennes Vance— Tousey House, Lawrenceburg Floyd— Hendricks-Griffin House, Corydon Coffin-Foreman House, Fountain City McKee-Powell- White House, Madison Allison-Hyatt House, Madison Robinson-Schofield House, Madison Goudie- Moore House, east of Brookville Bookwalter— Lordan House, south of Rob Roy Mills-Gregg House, Crawfordsville Stout— Brown House, west of Bloomington Ames-Paton House, west of La Porte Lantz-Mulligan-Boyd House, Centerville Jeremiah Sullivan House, Madison Wylie-Hershey House, Bloomington Roberts- Morton House, east of Newburgh Elston House, Crawfordsville Speakman— Tallentire-Johnson House, north of Rising Sun Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier House, Brookville Typical Federal-style doors, Taylor- May House, Madison Grisamore— Tyler House, Jeffersonville Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler House, Jasper Dufour— Andrew House, Vevay Conner-Lilly House, south of Noblesville Dewees-Preston— Smith House, Terre Haute Witt-Myers House, Dublin Smith-Huston House, south of Connersville Roman and Greek Revival 27. Ellis-La Plante House, Vincennes 28. Lanier— Jeffery House, Madison 29. Kintner— Withers House, south of Laconia 30. Canal House, Connersville 31. Rowell— Champion House, Goshen 32. Stockwell-Geiger House, Lafayette Plates 3 3 through g6 follow page 52 3 3. Billingsley-Miller House, west of Hartford 34. Swayzee— Erlewine House, Marion 3 5. Walker-Ewing House, Logansport 36. Hawkins-Lane House, Crawfordsville 37. Tripp-Cull-Johnson House, North Vernon 38. Hanna-Hayden House, Fort Wayne 39. Campbell-Banta House, Crawfordsville 40. Burgess— Schnelker House, New Haven 41. Potter House, Lafayette 42. Peacock-Poston House, Attica 43. Wright-Monroe House, west of Vevay 44. Marsh- Wesbecker House, Madison 4 5. Howe House, Howe 46. Wheeler-Gould- Mosier House, Bristol 47. Provolt-McGuire House, Rolling Prairie 48. Fowler-Oberholtzer House, Bristol 49. Butler-Lewis House, Dupont 50. Wilson-Gleason House, Peru 5 1. Armstrong-Copeland House, Vevay 52. Gray— Thompson House, southeast of Glenwood 5 3. Henry— Clawson House, Delphi 54. Kikendall-Welling House, north of Madison 55. Rapp-Maclure-Owen House, New Harmoily 56. Foster-Schuck House, northwest of Rolling Prairie 57. Vore-Hunnicutt House, west of Dublin 58. Amick-Ward House, northwest of Scipio 59. Smith-Anderson House, Perrysville 60. McMurtrie— Rupert House, east of Attica 6 1. Ewing House, Fort Wayne Plates 62. Conklin- Montgomery House, Cambridge City 6 3. Read-Foster-Reese House, Vernon 64. Jones-Hampton House, Perrysville 65. Grizard—Sieglitz House, Vevay 66. Murphy-Bailey House, New Castle 67. Holstein-Whitsitt House, Madison 68. Carpenter House, Evansville 69. McDonald-Scribner House, Attica 70. Schenck-Griffith House, Vevay 71. Milford-Miller House, Attica 72. Shrewsbury— Windle House, Madison 73. Lanier House, Madison 74. Parlor of the James F. D. Lanier House GotKic Revival 75- 76. 77- 78. 79- 81. 82. 85. 86. 87. Thompson- Mount-Ruble House, west of Greensburg Lyons-Jones House, Rochester Hunt-Hicks House, west of Danville Lehman-Rogers House, Hanover Halstead-Campbell House, Franklin Durborow— Broadie-Davisson House, Williamsport Chapin— Willis House, South Bend Fowler House, Lafayette Dewey-Clawson House, Delphi Ornamental gable, Sansberry-Riggs House, near Fairbanks Ramey-Milligan House, Crawfordsville Dumont— Miller House, Vevay Owen House, New Harmony Stone-Herron House, north of Wabash Swallow House, east of Pennville Composite Style 89. Houck— Harris House, Centerville 90. Hackleman-Dillon House, Rushville 9 1. Heritage-Cortner House, Knightstown 92. Riddile-Loomis House, Battle Ground Octagon Type 93. Horne-Michael-Sargent House, Cloverdale 94. Crooks-Painter-Anderson House, Rockport 9 5. Hall-Crull House, west of Raleigh 96. Rose-Kuehl House, Valparaiso Plates 97 through 12S follow page 100 Italianate 97. Riley House, Greenfield 98. Beeson House, west of Bentonville 99. Stonebraker-Harter House, Hagerstown 00. Sloan-Paris House, New Albany 01. Dietz-Ogden House, Lawrenceburg 02. Pleak House, north of Greensburg 03. Heaton-Bond-Irwin House, Michigantown 04. Hauck-Schaeffer House, west of Kokomo 05. Swan-Anderson House, La Porte 06. Ludovici-Cajacob House, Terre Haute 07. Sage-Robinson-Nagel House, Terre Haute 08. Gonter-Davis House, Brazil 09. Youngman-Becker House, southeast of Fairfield 10. Benjamin Harrison House, Indianapolis 1 1. James Whitcomb Riley House, Indianapolis 12. Bals-Wocher House, Indianapolis 1 3. Coleman-Lairy House, Logansport 14. Waldron-Frasch House, Lafayette 1 5. Guthrie-Pickett House, Tunnelton 16. Hamilton-Hunter House, Shelbyville 17. Smith— Cripe House, Kendallville 18. Edwards-Aimone House, Clinton 19. Justice-Puterbaugh House, Logansport 20. McCord-Stoll House, New Albany 21. Drover-Ditzler House, Huntington 22. McClelland-Layne House, Crawfordsville 2 3. Sonntag-Kiechle House, Evansville 24. Foellinger-Lutes House, Fort Wayne 2 5. Cromie House, New Albany 26. Sutton-Turner House, Richmond Plates 127. Thompson— Sconce House, Edinburg 128. Nixon-Fosdick House, Liberty Plates 129 through 160 follow page 132 129. Howard-Patrick House, Indianapolis 1 30. Hoerner— Zuttermeister House, Richmond 131. Tumey- Mathews House, Rising Sun 132. Bachman-Pitman House, Logansport 133. Stumpf House, IndianapoHs 134. Rinehart—Baum House, Delphi 135. Fitch House, Lawrenceburg 136. Mendenhall- Miller House, Richmond 137. Albert E. Fletcher House, Indianapolis 138. Heilman House, Evansville 139. Daum-Johnson House, Connersville 140. Wolcott House, Wolcott 141. Service- Vurpillat House, New Carlisle 142. Beckner-Nelson House, west of Arlington 143. GafF-Stark House, "Hillforest," Aurora 144. Hess-Penn House, Goshen 145. Hoshour-Medsker-Taylor House, Cambridge City 146. McNamee-Eilts House, Wabash F. P. Nelson House, Greencastle Franco- American 147. Howell— Dare House, north of Brookville 148. Gillett— Newman House, Evansville 149. Kilgore-Garber House, Peru 1 50. Hyatt House, Washington 151. Fletcher— Wasson House, Indianapolis 1 52. Reis House, Evansville 153. Reitz House, Evansville 154. Culbertson-McDonald House, New Albany 155. Morris-Butler-Pace House, Indianapolis 156. Probasco-Morrison-Silver House, Knightstown 1 57. Nisbet— Koch House, Evansville 158. Hayes-Cook House, Lawrenceburg 1 59. Sample— Hutchison— Little House, Lafayette 160. Matthews-Culbertson House, Ellettsville Neo-Jacobean Plates 161 through i(^^ follow page 164 161. Clevenger-McConaha House, Centerville 162. Hanson— Dowden House, Indianapolis 163. Daugherty— Tobian House, Shelbyville 164. Weesner— Talbert House, Wabash 165. Gilmore House, Greencastle 166. Wilson— Beck House, Washington 167. Woodfill— Robbins House, Greensburg 168. Kitselman-Rector House, Muncie 169. Hill-Phillips House, Plymouth 170. Wood-Royse— Speisshofer House, Warsaw 171. Redmond-Healy House, Logansport Staircase, Boyd-Love House, Indianapolis 172. Hignite-Wendel House, Columbus 173. Morris— Swearingen House, Indianapolis Fireplace, Boyd-Love House, Indianapolis 174. Shepherd-Sowder House, Indianapolis 175. Schmidt— Schaf House, Indianapolis 176. Emery— Ayres House, Indianapolis 177. Tate— Willis House, Indianapolis 178. Rogers-Krieger House, Michigan City 179. Dale— Zook House, Goshen 180. Barrett-Frazier House, Knightstown 18 1. Churchman House, Indianapolis 182. Orr-Richter House, La Porte County 183. Fildes— Wilson House, La Porte 184. Perrin-Steill House, Lafayette 185. Smith-Kielsmeier House, Rochester French Romanesque 186. Seiberling-Kingston House, Kokomo 187. Porter-Kerrigan House, Michigan City 188. Cox— Stewart House, Indianapolis 189. Bates-McGowan House, Indianapolis 190. Hull-Wiehe House, Fort Wayne 191. Taylor-Zent House, Huntington 192. Vaughan-Reath House, Richmond 193. Studebaker House, South Bend Introduction THE SUBJECT OF OLD HOUSES can be treated in so many different ways that a word about the purpose of this book may not be amiss. We are not concerned here with celebrated historical homes, but rather with well-designed houses. The examples chosen for reproduction are not necessarily the dwell- ings of famous people, but they are architectural works of considera- ble distinction and they represent the styles preferred by successive generations between 1800 and 1900. Here, then, is told in words and pictures the evolution of domestic architecture in Indiana during the nineteenth century. That it might lead to greater appreciation of our state's heritage and to better understanding of American architecture in general is the hope of the author and his editorial helpers. Indiana's architecture does not differ to any great extent from that of other states, and if the reader fa- miliarizes himself with local examples and learns how to distinguish one style from another, he can apply this knowledge to the analysis of houses which he sees in other parts of the country. This statement is made, however, with certain reservations: there are no Georgian Colonial houses of the eighteenth century in this area because it was not settled until after 1800; nor are there any Spanish Colonial examples such as one finds in the Southwest. It is our expectation that a book such as this will result not only in a better understanding of Indiana's architectural heritage, but also that it will make people realize that architecture is a form of artistic expression which deserves more than a passing glance. It is a curious fact that the form of art most in evidence seems to attract the least attention on the part of the general public, and is the least appreciated and understood. To most people buildings are merely buildings; and while the casual observer is able to distinguish his own house from XI Introduction his neighbor's, or a church from a courthouse, he is seldom aware of styhstic differences, and probably not at all familiar with terms that might designate the types. It is the author's experience that the majority of people who are faced with the problem of trying to name this or that style of house have only two words at their command: Colonial and Victorian. Unfortunately, the first is not applicable to nineteenth-century architecture and the second is far too general a term to have much significance or to be of any help in classifying houses or public buildings. Architecture, like painting, music, and poetry, is basically design. A building is a symphony of shapes and lines, lights and shadows, textures and colors, combined to bring to the eyes of the observer distinct aesthetic experiences. Sometimes these elements unite to create a sober, quiet impression; at other times they produce a restless, lively one. Some houses are unassuming and modest; others are pompous and arrogant. Some suggest intimzcy; others express aloofness. These, and many more, are the impressions left on our senses by houses when we stop to observe them. And these impressions are all valid — that is, a house should have character, style, "personality." A classic type (chaste, formal, and lucid in plan) is not necessarily better or worse than a romantic type. Through observation and analysis of buildings we learn that they not only differ in style but also in relative excellence, depending upon the degree of knowledge and artistic sensitivity underlying their creation. Our natural inclination to admire one style and condemn another — for instance, to eulogize the Neo-Classic and satirize the Victorian — tends to disappear when our critical judgments develop to a point where we understand and appreciate the best of each successive movement and can see wherein some architects succeeded and others failed to produce something fine within a given cultural framework. The panorama of domestic architecture in Indiana is rich and challenging. Some of her houses are among the most handsome in the United States. Others are less notable but not less successful architec- turally. The reader will be interested, no doubt, to see how widely scattered these houses are over the state: along the Ohio and Wabash Xll rivers, across the northern zone, along the National Road, and at Introduction many points between. The earliest examples are found, of course, in the oldest towns, and the best are in towns where the citizens had suihcient wealth to employ good carpenters, masons, and architects — although the last were not generally available in this part of the country in the first years of the nineteenth century. Influences of buildings in neighboring states to the east and south can be detected in many of the houses in Indiana. As settlers moved into the new lands, they brought with them clear impressions of the houses they formerly had lived in, and as soon as their economic status permitted, they erected new homes comparable to those left behind. Among the first dwellings erected by the early settlers were log cabins. As fascinating and romantic as these are to many people today, they are not being considered in this book because our theme is artistic architectural design, not mere housing. It should be pointed out, however, that numerous log cabins and log houses are to be found in Indiana today. Contrary to popular belief, all of the dwellings erected by the first settlers were not necessarily of log construction, nor were log cabins exclusively used at any one time. While it is true that they represent the typical home of the pioneer who settled in a wooded area, they were erected in different parts of the state at different times, some fairly late in the nineteenth century. In many early communities log houses stood beside or not far from frame and brick buildings, only to be replaced by more stately domiciles when the owners could afford something better. When, for instance, the Lincoln family was living in the humblest sort of log cabin in Spencer County (1816- 1830), there were many fine residences in southern Indiana. Among the best-known houses of log construction in the state are Westfall place, Corydon (the log section was built in 1807), the Granny White house now at Spring Mill State Park, the Abel Carpenter cabin at McCormick's Creek State Park, the Joseph Bailly homestead near Chesterton, and the log cabin now owned by the Daughters of the American Revolution at Lebanon. Another veteran of log construction is the original Wayne County Courthouse, built at Salisbury in 181 1, moved to Richmond and used as a residence for many years. It is now in Centerville, preserved as a historic pioneer building. Xlll Introduction Another type of house which will be missed, perhaps, by some readers of this book is the one that has historical significance but which has been so extensively remodeled and altered that little of its original architectural character remains. In this category' are the Nathaniel Ewing home of 1806, "Mount Clair," east of Vincennes; the old Amos Butler house, "The Hermitage," of 18 17, at Brookville; the Hugh McCuUochhouseof 1838, the John Matson house of 1848, and the Thomas Swinney homestead of 1844, all in Fort Wayne; the John Van Trees house, dating around 1830, at Washington; the Jesse Hol- man house of about 1835 at Aurora; the Webb Wallace house, now owned bv George E. Meeker, in Peru; the English homestead near Lexington, Scott County; the Isaac Evans house on the north edge of Richmond, now known as "Quaker Hill"; the Whitcomb-Matthews house (home of two Indiana governors) southwest of Clinton; and the Bonner-Allen mansion at Vincennes. A few altered houses have been included, however, such as the Henry S. Lane homestead, Crawfordsville, with its recent two-story classic porch; the Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier house in Brookville, with its relatively new semicircular portico; and the Tripp-Cull- Johnson home at North Vernon with a similar portico. Many simple frame or brick houses, whether of modest or grand proportions, have also been left out of this book for lack of space. This must not be construed as a lack of interest on the part of the author in the small Rappite houses at New Harmony such as the Fauntleroy house and the one recently restored by the Colonial Dames, or in such cabins as the birthplace of John Hay at Salem. Others which might be mentioned are the Paul Dresser birthplace at Terre Haute, the Edward Eggleston home at Vevay, the Joel Scribner house at New Albany, and the Winchel-Burkhart home at Brookville, built in 181 1. Another cottage which has been left out for lack of space is the "Old Homestead," home of Clarabel Clark Bevan at Crown Point. And finally, another category of houses that is of interest but which has been largely passed by comprises the homes of political or literary figures of Indiana, for, with a few exceptions, these have little XIV artistic or stylistic merit, or were built after 1900. Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century I Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century N THE BROADEST SENSE, the nineteenth century was the period of romanticism in all the arts. It was marked by individ- uality of thought, personal expression, spirited exploration. No firmly established canons of taste kept the artists within a mold for any length of time. Strange and often exotic subjects intrigued the painters, while buildings of the remote past and in foreign countries attracted the attention of architeas. Revivals of historic building styles followed one another in rapid succession or developed concurrently, modified to meet the comforts of nineteenth-century living and al- tered to suit the tastes of nineteenth-century architects and clients. Not only were several traditional European (and some Oriental) modes of building recast on our soil, but our architectural designers had no qualms about combining styles which hitherto had been re- garded as incompatible or even mutually antagonistic. These mixed modes, together with reinterpreted styles borrowed from abroad, pro- duced during the century an effect of variety, novelty, and, for many people, confusion. The word used most frequently by architects and writers of the nineteenth century in describing contemporary buildings, particularly in the second half of the century, was "picturesque." This architec- tural picturesqueness resulted from the use of projections, bays, towers, piazzas, window headings, brackets, and, in the case of the Gothic Revival, carved tracery, ornamental bargeboards, and pinnacles. The all-over effect of mass and silhouette was likewise varied and complex. If this term is kept in mind, we can better understand the aims of the architects and better appreciate the results of their creative efforts. One fundamental requisite in understanding and appreciating a work of art is knowledge of the artist's intention. When we know that the designer of a house set out to make a charming, embellished abode for Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century his client — in contrast, for instance, to an austere, sober dwelling — we are not likely to look for features which were not intended to be there and less likely to judge it adversely. Today we look back to the last century with mixed feelings, espe- cially to the last decades. Many of our contemporaries think of the Victorians as pompous, newly rich people with bad taste and stuffy manners, living in semicomical houses crowned with mansard roofs and overlaid with gingerbread ornamentation. To the architectural historian, on the other hand, it appears to be a time of individual expression and the striving for a building vernacular on the part of architects and clients, based largely on new interpretations of old styles or modes. While fundamentally romantic, architecture of the nineteenth century nevertheless reveals a strong inclination toward the classic idiom, particularly in the opening decades and again at the close of the period. These two currents of artistic expression appeared at times concurrently, with more emphasis on one than on the other; at other times they became mixed and amalgamated to produce new medleys, which some people regard as distinct American building styles. And so, few of the borrowed styles remained pure or traditionally correct in the hands of American carpenter-builders or architects. As we shall see, the Greek Revival evolved into something unlike anything to be found on Greek soil. Americans produced a pseudo-Grecian type of domestic architecture entirely our own and one of the most satisfying building forms known. The same applies to the other revivals: Italian medieval, French late Renaissance, English Tudor, and so forth. Perhaps at this point a brief survey of architectural styles of the nineteenth century will be helpful. The century opened with a manner of building which is usually called Federal or New Republican. In the East it appeared around 1780 (following the Revolutionary War) and continued to be fash- ionable until about 1830. In Indiana it ran from 1800 (when Indiana Territory was established) to about 1840. Many people are inclined to call the houses of this period Colonial, but a comparison of the two styles will show several differences, even though the Federal is an A off-shoot and successor of the Georgian Colonial. Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century Then came the Roman and Greek Revivals, frequently referred to as the Classic Revival movement. The Roman, largely fostered by Thomas Jefferson, had little influence on domestic architecture as a vi'hole — particularly in the midwestern states. The Greek, carried out in a variety of ways, ranging from small templelike dwellings to plain, well-proportioned farmhouses, was the accepted style in this area from about 1835 to around 1850. Next in vogue were the picturesque styles, inspired by medieval European architecture. The Gothic Revival, long fermenting and evolving in England, reached the United States early in the century and became popular in Indiana in the 1850's. In sharp contrast to the classical idiom of quiet simplicity, the Gothic exploited informality and richness based on medieval ornamentation. Contemporary with the Gothic Revival was the Italianate or Ital- ian Revival movement, which in its earlier stages showed a strong inclination toward informality of plan and massing, but later tending toward Renaissance balance and symmetry. Ornamental lintels, fancy porches, and extended eaves supported by brackets were the principal new features. When towers were added, they took the form of the Italian campanile. This was the stylish mode during the Civil War period and for several years after. Following the Italianate there appeared the French mode, based on the French Second Empire movement of the 1870's. This is charac- terized in most American houses by the mansard roof and frequently by an abundance of ornamentation derived from late Renaissance prototj'pes. Like the Italianate, some of the houses have towers and have become in the public's mind the pre-eminent expression of Vic- torian pomposity. It should be pointed out here that along side these rather clearly recognizable revivals there appeared a number of short-lived, exotic movements. Houses were designed in Byzantine, Saracenic, Moorish, Swiss, Norman, and other styles, most of which have little resem- blance to the original models. While plans and elevations of these are found in many of the builders' manuals of that period, few of them were carried out, particularly in this part of the country. After the French mansard influence waned, there developed a Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century movement known variously as the Eastlake, the Queen Anne Revival, and the Free Classic style. It appeared a little before 1880 and died out in the iSgo's. Theoretically there were two movements developing side by side — the Eastlake and the new Queen Anne- — but their indi- vidual characteristics were not clearly defined by the exponents of the movements, nor have later critics shed much light on the subject, with the result that no clear differentiation separates the two. Nearly every house built in the eighties and nineties in our American cities falls into this general category, which we shall call here the Neo-Jacobean style. At the same time another revival of the Gothic vernacular was advanced which was more suitable for large civic buildings and churches than for domestic structures. It became known as the Vic- torian Gothic. The nineteenth century closed with the exploitation of the French Romanesque on the one hand and a Colonial Revival on the other, both championing the cause of greater simplicity and a return to architectural honesty. The transition from the Free Classic or Neo- Jacobean to the Romanesque Revival is best seen in the preference for heavy stone walls and round-arched openings and in the use of large round towers and turrets, based on French chateau prototypes and very different from the preceding Italian campaniles or French man- sard towers. The chart on the following page may help in visualizing these movements in relation to one another. Dates pertain to Indiana, which are about ten years later than in eastern states. The reader must be warned that beginnings and endings of archi- tectural trends cannot be precisely established. In the first place, dates vary in different parts of the country. As mentioned above, most styles did not reach Indiana until approximately ten years after their intro- duction in the East. Second, the temperaments and tastes of indi- vidual builders — the people having the houses built — ranged from decided conservatism to daring modernism. It was as true in the nine- teenth century as it is today that the seeker of new and fresh ideas builds an ultramodern house long before the style is generally ac- cepted, and that the worshiper of the time-honored and familiar Architectural Styles of the Nineteenth Century builds a similar home long after the style has ceased to be the height of fashion. And the reader must be warned about something else in using this chart. The diagram has been kept simple, but its very simplicity can be misleading. Architecture — particularly that of the nineteenth cen- tury — is varied and complex, as was pointed out earlier, and while the major movements can be charted, many divergent and original direc- tions were taken and many mixtures concocted — some of which will be discussed later. Nevertheless, if this warning is heeded, the chart can help the observer detect a kind of order in what might otherwise appear chaos; and it should enable him to identify the major stylistic types and call them by name. Diversity then becomes interesting rather than confusing. Diversity of architectural styles in our country has long been rec- ognized by architects and historians as something typically American, and many people have stepped to the front to explain if not to defend it. Almost a century ago, for instance, Calvert Vaux stated in his book Villas and Cottages: In the United States it would seem that diversities of style and strong contrasts of architectural design are a perfectly natural occurrence, -when we take into account the early history of the nation and the circumstances under which it sprang into its Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 8 present prominent position. . . . The art of building faithfully portrays the social history' of the people to whose needs it ministers, hut can not get beyond those bound- aries. We must remember, therefore, that principles of action, perceptions, convictions, habits of thought, and customs are the directors of all architectural design, and that wherever and however it may exist, it is one of several national exponents, not an independent affair with a cut-and-dried theoretical existence. Good architecture of some kind must spring up in a society where there is a love of truth and nature, and a generally diffused spirit of politeness in the ordinary habits of thought. The Federal Mode IT EXCEPT for Spanish and French influences, American archi- ■ tecture of the eighteenth century was based on English mod- els, chiefly on English Renaissance buildings erected during the reigns of the Georges — hence the term Georgian Colonial. But toward the end of that century, with the termination of hostilities between England and ourselves, there developed a growing spirit or independence in artistic as well as political matters, and with it there appeared a new tendency in architectural thought and design. The Federal or Early Republican style, as it is now called, dating roughly from about 1790 to 1840, was not, however, a sharp break with tradition. It remained basically classic in conception, as was its predecessor the Georgian Colonial, stressing fine proportion, sim- plicity of massing, studied relationship of openings, symmetry, and refined ornamentation. In the last area it diff^ered rather strikingly from the full-blown Georgian Colonial of the mid-years of the eighteenth century, which tended to use pronounced embellishments and append- ages. Another tendency of the Federal architect was to escape some- what from the rigid restrictions of the true Georgian Colonial by adding, at times, such features as a single unbalanced wing, an ellip- tical wall, curvilinear elements inside the building as well as out, and, in general, an attenuated delicacy. Hence, the Federal architectural movement appears to us today as one with rather mixed interests and aesthetic conflicts. We detect a basic tendency to retain much of the traditional Colonial while being aware, at the same time, of a striving for freedom of expression. Coupled with this was a growing interest in ancient Roman architec- ture, stimulated by the tendency of our forefathers of the late eight- eenth and early nineteenth centuries to identify republican virtues with Rome. Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century There is a marked consistency of plan and elevation among Federal houses, even if their general aspects seem varied at first glance. They are oblong structures, usually with central halls, gabled or hipped roofs, and single or paired chimneys. Exterior ornamentation is reduced to a minimum. Cornices are seldom decorated; eaves barely extend beyond outside walls; windows, usually recessed, are rarely framed; small porticoes are not uncommon, although most houses of the period provide no shelter over entrances. Doorways are in most in- stances the principal decorative feature, but even these are generally sedate, if not stark, in their lack of embellishment. The most common Federal houses of this region are simple rec- tangular blocks, two stories high, three or five openings across each story of the front, with low-pitched gable roofs. A second popular form was the same oblong mass with a hip roof. Into the latter cate- gory fall the two earliest residences of architectural distinction in the state, the William Henry Harrison mansion at Vincennes, completed about 1804, and the Samuel C.Vance house at Lawrenceburg, later owned by Omer Tousey, dating from 1818. The Jeremiah Sullivan house at Madison, of approximately the same date as the Vance- Tousey house, will be discussed later, since it represents a slightly dif- ferent type of Federal domestic architeaure. The Harrison mansion, "Grouseland," is strongly reminiscent of its Colonial predecessors. It has an air of distinction without being pompous. Its fine proportions, pleasing scale, and satisfying pattern of openings show that it was thoughtfully designed, perhaps by Harrison himself. Entrance porticoes at the south and west sides are severely plain, in keeping with the taste of the period; and an elliptical north wall, not seen in the photograph, is a reflection of the new Federal tendency to use curvilinear forms, and is perhaps its most striking Fed- eral feature. The elliptical arch that spans the hall is in the same spirit. A circular fanlight over the door reflects a lingering taste for that particular Georgian element. Plate i The Vance-Tousey house effectively represents a modified version of the style, and better than any other dwelling in the state typifies the Federal mode. Its marked Adamesque effect seems to confirm the tradi- I O tion that plans for it came from England, although this would not The Federal Mode have to be the case since American architects in the East were designing similar houses. Its distinctive features are its hip roof and a classic pediment on the long or longitudinal side placed on line with eaves and cornice, and supported by a slightly projeaing bay or pavilion. A well- proportioned Palladian window on the second story and an unusually handsome door on the first combine with the pediment to give the house a chaste and stately classic bearing. It is composed of a central block and two wings, the latter being lower than the main unit. The wings extend toward the street(thephotographshows the river front), thus flanking the entrance court. This makes the house a good ex- ample of the American interpretation of the Roman Country House type of Palladio. In addition, the recessed window panels in the wings reveal again the interest in round arches, stemming, perhaps, from earlier examples by Latrobe and Bulfinch in the East. Other hip-roof examples, not illustrated in this book, are the Armstrong-BrindleyhomeinVevay and the Merit-Tandy house north of Patriot, in Switzerland County. The former, with attractive propor- tions and pleasing arrangement of windows and with a door that is more Greek Revival than Federal, has lost much of its effectiveness because of the recently added porch. While the hip-roof design is not unusual for two-storied houses, it is seldom found in connection with one-floor cottages of the Federal era. One of the few examples in our state is the Merit-Tandy house near Patriot now occupied by B. O. Hutcherson. Its general effect is that of a European rural homestead rather than American. Returning to the oblong, gable-roof type, we find that by far the largest number of early houses in the state. Federal and Greek Revival, belong to this family. Their sober severity is emphasized by the ab- sence today of shutters, in many cases, and by the relatively narrow doorways, as for example in the Floyd-Hendricks-Grifhn home at Corydon and the Levi Coffin house at Fountain City, now owned by Mrs. Nola B. Foreman. The absence of exterior enrichment is evi- dent. Their appeal stems almost entirely from good proportions and the relationship of openings and plain wall surfaces. The McKee-Powell- White house at Madison has a chaste beauty, /';,?; ;; too, but its more decorative doorway and the presence of shutters on II Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 12 the windows soften an otherwise stark countenance. The doorway, a recent reconstruction, is more characteristic of Greek Revival en- trances, with square pilasters or antae coupled with intermediate col- umns supporting an entablature-Hke lintel. Within this appears the door framed with side lights and glazed transom. The recessed panels under the first floor windows, with ornamental iron grilles, are also relatively new additions. Suggesting more warmth and hospitality, perhaps — and certainly with more of the grace and refinement of the eighteenth century — is Plate 6 the Allison-Hyatt house in Madison, now owned by Historic Madi- son, Inc. Its large windows (those of the first story reaching to the floor) and its pleasing proportions help to give this efl^ect. The en- trance here is modest. The hood over the door, supported by consoles, is a later addition. Attention should be called to the different treat- ments of roofs in these two buildings. That of the McKee-Powell- White house has an end wall with coping or fractable carried above the roof, while that of the Allison-Hyatt house projeas slightly be- yond the gable end. In both instances the chimneys are incorporated into the end walls. Both treatments of end walls are found on Federal houses, as are paired chimneys and stepped gables which will be ex- A, Fractable amined later. The last four homes discussed above have extensions toward the back, forming an L with the front unit, usually with two-storied porches or galleries facing the gardens. While not exclusively a Fed- eral tendency in house designing, this plan was prevalent in Indiana around the turn of the century and seems to derive from its popu- larity among Kentucky builders. This is borne out by the fact that most of the Indiana examples are found on or near the Ohio River. Plate 7 This L-plan is effectively carried out in the Robinson-Schofield house, across the street from the Allison-Hyatt residence at Madi- son. Its stark simplicity is due to the absence of cornice moldings and to unframed windows, framing being unnecessary because of deeply set window sashes. A slight yielding to refinement and charm is seen in the recessed semicircular arches over windows and doors facing Second Street. The rhythm of openings is unusual in that they are even in number instead of odd (four across the front and six along The Federal Mode the side) and may in this case represent a conscious effort to avoid rigid symmetry. The house was reportedly built in 1817. It may orig- inally have been a combination home and store. However, it has been maintained as a private residence for many years. The Grand Lodge of Indiana was organized here in 1818. Many stately examples of the sober, plain expression of the Federal style are still standing in the state, built for the most part during the 1820's and i83o's. Driving down the Whitewater Valley, along the Ohio River and its tributaries, and through most of the state's oldest towns, one's attention is repeatedly drawn to these veterans of the first decades of Indiana's history. Built of brick as a rule, sometimes painted white, they stand like lonely sentinels on farms or squeezed between modern business blocks in towns. Frame houses of the type are not infrequently seen; and in certain sections of the state it is not unusual to find them of stone construction. Many have been modified by later additions, periodic remodeling programs, or by attaching porches and large Roman porticoes to their otherwise modest fronts. Among the notable examples still to be found are the Williams- Butler house in Brookville, with a recently added circular porch; the John Coulter and James O'Hair homes in Laurel, unusual in the extension of their roofs; the old stone houses at Oldenburg and Cannelton; the John Ewbank house at Guilford; the John Paul house at St. Paul; the Bezaleel Maxwell house near Hanover, with its later porch; the Conrad homestead on old New Haven Road, near Fort Wayne; the Pat e-Gompf house at the west edge of Lawrenceburg; the Thomas Posey house at Corydon, with remodeled door; and the Julia L. Dumont house at Vevay. In Vevay, too, one sees the Lucie Detraz or "Roxy" house, scene of the novel by that name by Edward Eggleston, and other similar houses. Modifications of this standard type of Federal house (oblong, two stories high, low gable roof) are not unusual, as carpenters, brick- layers, and clients drew up plans to meet particular needs and tastes. The Goudie-Moore brick residence east of Brookville is closely related in design to the Vance-Tousey house at Lawrenceburg, although it has a gable instead of a hip roof. A pediment interrupts the cornice along the front, adding interest to the facade; a flat-headed triple lliiJiJ|niiriiioi inoflno John Coulter House Plate 8 13 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century window is centered under the pediment; and below, the well-designed entrance is capped by an elHptical panel which takes the place of a fan- light. The strong, clearly delineated pediment, with wide boards accentuating its triangle, is more in the spirit of the Greek Revival, as is the entablature under the eaves. Like several other houses, it stands between the Federal and Grecian, taking elements from both. Another example of the modified Federal style is the Bookwalter- Lordan house south of Rob Roy, built of grayish-tan stone with darker brown stone blocks used as lintels. The use of stone blocks or quoins on the corners is unusual for Federal houses, and represents a rever- sion to the earlier Georgian Colonial taste — another example of the persistence of a lingering tradition. Windows here are exceptionally large in scale, compared with most houses mentioned above, and their proportions more nearly approach a square. This, too, is a late Federal example, built in the 1840's, when the Greek Revival movement was at the height of popularity. The small Federal town residences of the gable-roof type, with three windows across the front and usually two stories high, tend to be, like their larger brothers, severely plain. Among the best examples from the standpoint of architectural design is the Mills-Gregg frame house at Crawfordsville, with its elliptical over-door fanlight, and the Stout-Brown country house, west of Bloomington, built of stone. The windows of the latter are capped with cut stone blocks in keeping with the treatment of windows during the English Renaissance and Georgian Colonial eras. The Ames-Paton one-storied country cottage west of La Porte is exceptional in that it has a single chimney placed in the center of the roof — a feature not imusual in New England in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but rare in this part of the country. It is surprising to learn that it was built as late as 1842. When passing tlirough Centerville, one's attention is drawn to rows of attached houses that stand in quiet dignity flush with the side- walks. They are similar to Federal houses in eastern cities, and although built in what was originally open country, they reflect the nostalgia of the builders for the kind of urban living which they had I A. left behind and a desire for quiet and sheltered back yards and gardens The Federal Mode as opposed to front lawns. Probably the most attractive of the series is the Lantz-MuUigan-Boyd house which, on account of its door, win- dow hntels, and wide fascia board under the eaves, is as much in the spirit of the Greek Revival trend as in that of the Federal. The treat- ment of the gable, however, is characteristically the latter with the coping following the slopes of the roof, as was seen on the McKee- Powell-White house at Madison (Plate 5). Variations in the Federal family came about in a number of ways, so far as their outward appearances are concerned: by enlarging and pairing the chimneys, by the use of stepped gables, and by adding porticoes or galleries on the fronts. Chimneys in pairs, joined by a deck and built flush with the end walls, are not specifically Federal features — nor are stepped gables. They are typical of many houses built in the eastern and New England states prior to the War of Independence, and their use in the Middle West after 1800 reflected a lingering sentiment for things back East. The Federal gable-roof house, such as the ones discussed above, assumes quite a diff^erent aspect when large paired chimneys are used. Even the small two-storied urban dwelling, such as the Jeremiah Pl>!tc 14 Sullivan house, Madison, seems to impart an air of stateliness with paired chimneys at one end. Other elements help, of course, in giving it charm, such as pleasing proportions, intimate scale, and an ex- ceptionally beautiful door. Its lawn, like those of many houses built flush with the sidewalk, is in the rear, while a wing with a two-storied gallery on its east face extends into the back yard. Closely related in design is the Wylie-Hershey brick house in T' '1 '^ Bloomington, with sturdy paired chimneys at the west end and a lower addition extending toward the right. Similar houses, but having paired chimneys at both ends, are the Dunihue-Short house in Bed- ford and the Wilber-Peterson house on Laughery Creek near Hartford (Ohio County), the latter with its door in the center shielded by a small square-piered portico. Many of the paired-chimney examples found in different parts of the state are larger buildings with five instead of three windows across the front. Among the most imposing of these is the Roberts-Morton mansion east of Newburgh. Built of stone and standing on a bluff I K Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century overlooking the Ohio River, it makes an impressive picture at all times of year. The windows are framed in smooth stone; and in front of the severe, circular-arched door stands a two-storied portico with square piers (a recent reconstruction or addition). Other examples of this general type of structure are the old James Welsh house in Vevay, the old Michael Malott house in Bedford (now the police station), the Widow Thompson residence on East Wayne Street, Fort Wayne, the Zulauf-Stoner home in Jeffersonville, and the large brick residence at Chesterfield, now owned by George Hardy. There is another house belonging to this architectural family Plate 1 which deserves special mention, the Isaac Elston home in Crawfords- ville, not only because of its exceptionally good design but on account of certain peculiarities. Two features that are not typical of houses of this period will be noticed by the careful observer: the dormers in the roof and the central window on the front which is located between the two stories. The former were added recently to the roof (dormers had gone out of fashion by 1800). The latter is accounted for by the fact that what is now the front of the house was originally the rear, and the window on the stair landing is now above the principal en- trance facing Pike Street. Some of the large paired-chimney homesteads were given added magnificence by attaching a classic portico to their fronts. A good Plate 1 example is the Speakman-Tallentire-Johnson house on the Ohio River near Rising Sun. The balustraded deck on the ridge of the roof is appropriate and functional here because it commands a splendid view of the river. The difficulty of placing some buildings in clear-cut cate- gories is seen in the case of this house. The main block is a brick paired-chimney type of Federal origin, but the two-storied portico is Greek Revival in spirit. It is possible that the portico was a later addi- Plate 1 tion. The same is true of the Howland-Goodwin-Strohmier home at Brookville. Its semicircular portico of attenuated Ionic columns is of recent date, although the house itself is said to have originated in the 1850's. The second story was also added later. Another unusual example of this paired-chimney type is the large Plate 20 Grisamore-Tyler house in Jeffersonville, a double residence with three I D sturdy Doric columns forming the portico and framing a recessed en- t. The Federal Mode trance. Twin doors with well-designed elliptical fanlights and narrow side lights are seen below iron balconies that serve similar doors on the second floor. Its large pediment, supported by this trio of columns, contains a large elliptical window (having the same arc as the fanlights) and is given additional interest by a brick dentil mold which follows the line of the cornice across the facade. The original small window panes have been replaced recently by large sheets of glass. Houses with stepped gables are less numerous in the state than those with paired chimneys. This corbiestep or crow-stepped end wall, a throw-back to early Flemish and Jacobean buildings, is found on houses of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in our eastern , - ^ states, but seems to have lost its popularity as the Georgian Colonial ( 1 style reached its full maturity. It must not be regarded as a typical architectural device of the Federal period but rather as an anachronistic or abnormal feature when it appears after 1800. The Gramelspacher-Gutzweiler house in Jasper is the most im- Plate 21 posing representative of this class in Indiana. The number of corbie- steps (they are usually larger and fewer), the well-defined windows with painted frames, and the circular-arched door combine to give the house a strong, rather noble character. A smaller home, built of stone and having a pronounced flat- roofed portico on the front, is the Lackey-Rariden house in Cambridge City. This portico is so imposing with its heavy parapet that the step gables are dwarfed beside it. More individual in design is the Richard Tyner house in Brookville, where the stepped-gable end serves as the entrance front, hiding the shallow curb roof. The width of the facade is almost twice its height, making the house appear rather squatty. Neither of these homes is pictured here. A fourth type of Federal house is the one with a gallery or long porch across the front. Perhaps it is incorrect to designate this as a Federal or New Republican type because it goes back, in point of time, much farther. In fact, in its plainest expression it has no marked stylistic characteristics and might well belong to any time and place. When most simple in design, one might call it folk construction in contrast to sophisticated architecture. The most humble member of this clan is the one-storied log or ly Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century frame cabin with a down-sweeping roof that extends over the front porch. According to descriptions, the homes of early French settlers at Vincennes and elsewhere were of this design. A few are still stand- ing in the state that date from the first decades of the nineteenth century, one of the most interesting being the O'Neill place west of Shelburn, now owned by James Noel — an old log house covered with siding (not illustrated). A more elongated example with low-pitched roof and additions at the ends, is the Dufour-Andrew house at Vevay. A larger and more imposing veteran is the Hamer-Bridwell home- stead at Avoca, northwest of Bedford (not illustrated). A two-storied porch of recent construction, with slender square posts, gives an air of simple dignity to the Conner-Lilly house south of Noblesville even if it is a recent addition. It is on the west or river front (it faces the White River), the front on the road having a one- storied entrance porch of modest design. The house most reminiscent of southern American houses is p . the Dewees-Preston-Smith house at Terre Haute. Major George W. Dewees, having come to Terre Haute from the South in the middle 1820's, built his new home with a high basement, like many southern houses, the family's living quarters being placed on the upper level. The long front porch is reached by a flight of steps from the lawn, and a similar porch, extending the length of the building, is at the back. Undressed stone was used for the ends of the house. A good example of a two-storied gallery is that of the Witt- j Myers house at Dublin. Examples of this type are not common in this area, especially where the gallery faces the street. Most of the two- storied porches on houses in southern Indiana face the river. An un- usual feature of the Witt gallery is the brick walls or screens at the ends of the porches which are extensions of the end walls of the house. These extend out to the porch railings, and they have windows pierc- ing them on both levels. The most imposing and stately of the porch type is the Smith- Huston mansion, now a Masonic Home, south of Connersville. The central unit, which is the original, is very classic in feeling. The porch, perhaps a later addition, is a fine example of the colonnade entabla- I o ture style of ancient Roman buildings. This two-storied, flat-roofed The Federal Mode porch became a popular feature in the southern states during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Mount Vernon is a good example), but there are relatively few in this region. Designating this mansion as a Federal type may be questioned. It might just as logically be classified as a Roman Revival example with its strong classic flavor and traditional Roman Doric columns. The old Judge William Niblack residence at Vincennes, now owned by the American Legion, is another impressive member of this flat-roof portico group. It occupies the site of the original Knox County Courthouse. Interiors of Federal Houses Interiors of Federal houses show a strong inclination toward restraint and simplicity when compared with their Georgian Colonial predecessors. Walls were usually painted in light tints; wallpaper was often used in halls and bedrooms, sedately designed with motifs based on classic ornament; paneled walls were exceptional. Moldings were narrow, in contrast to earlier and later styles, and those used for framing doors and windows were delicately reeded or grooved; square blocks at the corners where lintels and jambs met contained stylized flowers or concentric circular grooves (Plate 19). Low wainscoting or chair rails appeared in halls and sometimes in dining rooms. Wood- work was invariably painted white. The principal decorative feature was the fireplace, which was framed in wood delicately carved and painted (Plate 5). Designs for mantelpieces were basically Adamesque, although original patterns were often carried out by local carpenters in the same spirit. Stairways, too, were constructed to convey an impression of lightness: railings were graceful, with frail balusters (square or round), and handrails terminated on slender nonbulbous newel posts (Plate 17). Interior furnishings showed a decided inclination on the part of householders to achieve an effect of delicate elegance. Heavy rococo Chippendale (or quasi-Chippendale) furniture was replaced by the more refined pieces designed by, or in the manner of, Hepplewhite and Sheraton. 19 I Lester H'. Routt HARRISON HOUSE, "Grouseland." Vincennes, Knox Counry. William Henry Harrison original owner, Francis Vigo Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, present owner. Federal st)-le, 1803-4. Probably designed by Harrison. (Page 10) VANCE-TOUSEY HOUSE. 504 W. High Street, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. Samuel C. Vance original owner, Omer Tousey later owner, Quaker Oats Company present owner. Federal style, 1818. (Pages lo-u) Hedrich-BUssing 3 FLOYD-HENDRICKS-GRIFFIN HOUSE. 202 E. Walnuc Street, Corydon, Harrison County. Davis Floyd original owner, William Hendricks and William A. Porter later owners, Daniel P. Griffin present owner. Federal style, 1817. Milo Davis builder. (Page 11) COFFIN-FOREMAN HOUSE. 115 Highway 27, Fountain City, Wayne County. Levi Coffin original owner, Mrs. Nola B. Foreman present owner. Federal style, 1827. John Wright Johnson brick mason and carpenter-builder. (Page 11) 4 McKEE-POWELL-WHITE HOUSE. 428 Mulberry Street, Madison, JefFerson County. James McKee original owner, Mrs. Edward Powell later owner, Leslie O. White present owner. Federal style, 1832. Mathew Temperly and sons architects. (Pages II-12) ALLISON-HYATT HOUSE. 301 W. Second Street, Madison, Jefferson County. James Y. Allison original owner, Benjamin C. Hyatt later owner, Historic Madison, Inc., present owner. Federal style, 1815; additions, 1840's. (Page 12) 6 ROBINSON-SCHOFIELD HOUSE. 223 W. Second Street, Madison, Jefferson County. Thomas Robinson original owner, Mrs. William P. Schofield present owner. Federal style, 1817. (Pages 12-13) 7 GOUDIE-MOORE HOUSE. State Highway 252 east of BrookviUe, Franklm County. Samuel Goudie original owner, Henry Moore present owner. Federal-Greek Revival, 1843. (Pages 13-14) 8 BOOKWALTER-LORDAN HOUSE. U.S. 41 south of Rob Roy, Fountain County. John W. Bookwalcer original owner, Mrs. A. M. Lordan present owner. Federal style, 1840. (Page 14) 9 MILLS-GREGG HOUSE. 2 Mills Place, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. Caleb Mills original owner, Orpheus M. Gregg later owner, Wabash College present owner. Federal style, 1837-38. (Page 14) T ^"iiitiifi X X STOUT-BROWN HOUSE. Maplegrove Road off State Highway 46 west of Bloomington, Monroe County. Daniel Stout original owner, Hubert A. Brown present owner. Federal style, 1828. Daniel Stout architect-builder. (Page 14) AMES-PATON HOUSE. Waverly Road west of La Porte, La Porte County. Charles Ames original owner, Maurice E. Paton present owner. Federal style, 1842. fPage 14) Maurice E. Paton 12 13 LANTZ-MULLIGAN-BOYD HOUSE. 214 W. Mam Street, Centerville, Wayne County. Daniel Lantz original owner, Walter Mulligan later owner, George Boyd present owner. Federal style, 1835. (Page 15) JEREMIAH SULLIVAN HOUSE. 304 W. Second Street, Madison, JefFerson County. Jeremiah Sullivan original owner, Mrs. William J. Gibbs later owner, Historic Madison, Inc., present owner. Federal style, 1818. (Page 15) WYLIE-HERSHEY HOUSE. 307 E. Second Street, Bloomington, Monroe County. Andrew Wylie original owner, Amos Hershey later owner, Indiana University present owner. Federal style, 1835. (Page 15) ROBERTS-MORTON HOUSE. State Highway 662 east of Newburgh, Warrick County. Gaines H. Roberts original owner, Thomas J. Morton, Jr., present owner. Federal style, 1834. John Memhardt contractor. (Pages 15-16) B. J. Scott i6 ELSTON HOUSE. 400 E. Pike Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. Isaac Compton Elston original owner, Isaac C. Elston, Jr., present owner. Federal style, 1835. (Page 16) 17 SPEAK MAN-TALLENTIRE-JOHNSON HOUSE. State Highway 56 north of Rising Sun, Ohio County. Stephen S. Speakman original owner, Thomas L. Tallentire later owner, Mrs. William Walker Johnson present owner. Federal style, 1846. (Page 16) ;.>■ ifi nuini^ iTirtiin — =*> = f 1 Plate 27 37 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Plate 28 Plate 2g 38 lature and pediment. The semicircular window in the pediment is also in the Roman tradition. . The Lanier-JefFery residence is of wood construction rather than brick. The slender, widely spaced columns and relatively steep-pitched roof (steeper than that on the Ellis house) combine to give the build- ing a lighter, less substantial character. The opening in the pediment is an unusual adaptation of the three-part Palladian window, the central section having an angular arch that repeats the sloping lines of the roof. This was the home of James F. D. Lanier before he built his more imposing mansion shown in plates 73 and 74. "Cedar Farm," the Kintner- Withers stately mansion, command- ing a fine view of the river, has a sturdier portico of four large Roman Doric columns, wide entablature, and well-proportioned pediment pierced by a semicircular window. The second-story porch within the portico is cantilevered, standing free from the columns in front of it. The entrance facing the road (not seen in the picture) does not have a columned portico like that of the river front, but has a two-storied recessed porch, less imposing but equally handsome. Hard on the heels of the Roman Revival came the Greek. Senti- ment for things Grecian, stimulated by architectural handbooks repro- ducing details and elevations of buildings and extolling the merits of the new trend, was given additional impetus by the Greek war of independence and America's sympathetic attitude toward a nation struggling to free itself from political bondage. As Greek architec- ture was notably more austere and stocky in its general aspect and more severe in design than the Roman, so the exponents of the Greek Revival idiom strove to produce buildings that reflected these characteristics. Symmetry, good proportion, and classic details were already a major part of the architectural vocabulary, as we have seen. It only remained to put greater emphasis on sturdy simplicity and greater refinement. First, an attempt was made to build small Doric temples of wood or brick, as in the case of Roman Revival residences, with the hope that our American families would adapt their living habits to the rec- tangular spaces within "cella" walls. Temple porticoes became front porches. Circular columns supporting low-pitched pediments often I The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals gave way to square piers since the latter were more easily fabricated out of wooden planks. As the original Greek system of construction was a relatively sim- ple one, based on the column and lintel and without the intricacies of arch or vault, it appealed strongly to the American carpenter-builder and the brick mason. When the oblong mass of the house was of brick construction, the portico and outside trim were inevitably of wood. It should be mentioned here that the master carpenters and masons who were responsible for most of these houses in the Middle West got their information about Roman and Greek architectural orders and ornament indirectly. Few of them had access to good reproduc- tions of antique structures and none, so far as we know, had had an opportunity to see the originals. What they used were architectural guidebooks or builders' manuals written and published by architects of England and the eastern United States, with plans and elevations of dwellings to suit any taste and pocketbook. John Haviland's Builder's Assistant, the first American publication of the kind, appeared in 1818; and soon after came books by Asher Benjamin, John Hall, Minard Lefever and others. One of the leading architects of America, Ithiel Town, an enthusi- astic practitioner in the new Grecian movement, submitted the win- ning design for Indiana's first statehouse in the competition held in 1831. It was an imposing Greek peristyle temple, in the best Doric tradition, and remarkably authentic in proportion and decoration except for the addition of a circular cupola on the roof. At the same time, and for the next decade, all of the new residences, churches, and banks built in Indianapolis were Greek Revival in style, but the rapid growth in population and the inevitable changes in taste caused all of these to be razed in our Capitol city, as well as in nearly all other large Indiana towns. Although this survey of Indiana architecture is limited to domes- tic buildings, mention should be made of the few remaining public edifices in the state designed in the Greek Revival idiom. These in- clude the Ohio County Courthouse at Rising Sun, the old State Bank (now headquarters of the Red Cross) at New Albany, and the old courthouse at Terre Haute, now the home of the Sons of the Ameri- OJd Roberts Park Church Indianapolis 39 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century A, Pediment B, Frieze: Triglyphs and Metopes C, Architrave B + C, Entablature D, Capital [Doric) E, Column 40 can Revolution. Perhaps the most stately of the Classic Revival public buildings in Indiana, antedating the Civil War, are the Orange County Courthouse at Paoli, completed in 1S50, and the Jefferson County Courthouse at Madison, built in 1854. At this point it might be well to mention the principal features of American Greek Revival design as compared with the Federal. In keeping with the old Greek ideal, columns, when used, were stocky, supporting a wide entablature which, in turn, supported the pediment. The thickset columns, which were preferred but not always present, were generally reflections of the Greek Doric order. Ionic and Corin- thian columns were also used, particularly for more ostentatious houses and civic buildings. The roof was lower in pitch, or less steep, than that of most Federal and Roman Revival buildings, and kept as inconspicuous as possible. No dormers marred its chasteness; chimneys were unobtru- sive; the gable end of the roof came to be regarded as a major element since it was the equivalent of the Greek pediment. The wide entabla- ture board under the eaves, another identifying feature, extended the full length of the houses, as well as across the ends, simulating its ancient prototypes by being divided, in many cases, into two bands — the frieze and the architrave. In most instances this entablature board did not go all the way across the ends of houses but stopped after extending a foot or two around the corner, breaking, so to speak, the base or cornice of the pediment. But even in those cases the pedi- ment was often emphasized by wide boards in the angle of the gable. If columns were not used, pilasters often appeared on the corners of houses and at intervals along the sides or across the gable ends. The inset panels thus formed contained windows and doors. This was especially true of brick buildings. Frame residences in the best of the carpenters' Grecian examples also showed vertical boards at the corners. Entrances became austere, rectangular, and rather massive. Fanlights gave way to rectangular transoms. Small columns flanked entrance doors in the costlier houses; and not infrequently the entrances were recessed, thus eliminating porticoes or porches. Windows were usually framed in a stark manner with either a simple block on top or a wide lintel repeating the entablature. The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals The figures here in the margin suggest the basic compositional types in this general Greek Revival family. The first is the temple type with front portico. The second is a close relative but without columns: this use of the gable end of the house as the front became generally accepted during the Greek Revival era, whereas it was not widespread during preceding periods. The third has a temple-type central unit (with or without columnar portico) with one or two low lateral wings. Another type is the oblong mass type, with its entrance on the side, not unlike the Federal houses previously discussed except for lower-pitched roof, wide entablature board, and pilasters at corners. Related to this is the hip-roof type with Greek Revival elements, sometimes with a false pediment on line with the eaves, which is basically the same design as the Vance-Tousey house (Plate 2). In some cases a balustrade crowns the roof to hide its pitch and to emphasize horizontality. While the above remarks have stressed the characteristics of the Grecian idiom, the reader must bear in mind that many houses of the 1830's and 1840's in this region strongly reflect Roman principles, as suggested earlier. Others seem to combine both so successfully that Classic Revival is sometimes a safer nomenclature to use. Actually this term is frequently employed by architectural historians as a gen- eral classification, incorporating both the Greek and Roman revivals as well as composites of the two. Turning now to actual examples, we find that the best-preserved temple-type structure in the state is the old Canal House in Conners- ville, now the home of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in that city. Authentic Greek proportions, strong pediment, wide entablature board clearly divided into horizontal bands (architrave and frieze), and fluted columns resting, without bases, on the pavement of the porch, are in the best antique Doric tradition. On the portico of the Rowell-Champion house at Goshen one sees a faithful reproduction of a Greek Doric frieze with its triglyphs, or grooved blocks, under the cornice. The pitch of the roof would have been too steep for the tastes of the original Athenians, but it was doubtless considered more practical for northern Indiana climate. The Doric columns are more widely spaced in the center so as not to 101 |B| B Plate 30 Plate 31 41 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century obstruct the paired doors facing the street. The porch extending half- way down the sides of the house as well as across the front is most unusual and illustrates an American version of the original Greek peri- style system, and is closely related to the T plan of some Classic Revival homes which may be seen in New England, New York state, and Alabama. Mention was made above of the common use of square, instead of round, columns or piers during the Greek Revival era. A good Plate J2 example of this is seen on the Stockwell-Geiger house, now the First Church of Christ Scientist, at Lafayette. The sturdy proportions here reflect old Grecian Doric models, as do the pronounced pediment and entablature. The louvered attic window, echoing the shape of the gable, gives emphasis to the triangular shape of the pediment. Large porticoes, two stories in height, were frequently attached to the long sides of houses better to convey the spirit of ancient classical architecture and to add impressiveness to the mansions. This was pointed out above in connection with the Speakman-Tallentire- Johnson home near Rising Sun (Plate i8). A similar portico, project- ing from the side of a gable-roofed frame building, is seen on the Plate ?? Billingsley-Miller country home near Hartford. The house itself possesses no architectural distinction but the portico is imposing, even if its widely spaced square columns emphasize the sheltered porch areas (the void) rather than their structural function. More often the two-storied portico on the long side of a house is narrow, shielding the front door and window above, leaving four Plate 34 windows unobstructed on either side. The Swayzee-Erlewine house at Marion is a notable example. This general design is not unusual among Federal and Classical Revival homesteads throughout the state — particularly in the country — but we have here one that shows exceptional taste in proportion and detail as well as having a strong Grecian flavor. It will be noticed that the columns of the portico are Corinthian. pl(,te 35 The stark simplicity of the block of the Walker-Ewing house in Logansport is pleasantly relieved by a graceful superimposed portico, the columns on the first level being Doric while those on the second A.X floor are Ionic. On both levels the round columns are flanked by The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals square piers (disn^le in antis). The wide, plain entablature board is enhanced by a dentil mold under the cornice. A similar portico is seen on the Hawkins-Lane homestead in Plate j6 Crawfordsville. Here, however, we have a recently constructed porch with two square posts below and four Doric columns above. The house, chaste and sensitively designed, is L-shaped and has a low hip roof. It is the home of the Montgomer\' County Historical Society. The semicircular portico on the front of the Tripp-Cull-Johnson P/.;f. .'- residence at North Vernon, with the upper porch smaller than the lower, forms a pleasant if somewhat inconsistent adjunct to the house. It was added about 1900, and having been designed in the spirit of the late eighteenth century and attached to a mid-nineteenth-cen- tury house it introduced a certain incongruity of effect. A most unusual portico treatment is seen on the Hanna-Hayden P^ate ^S homestead at Fort WajTie. Two porticoes, each with three square piers, project toward the street with the entrance between them. Low-pitched pediments, wide entablature, and stocky proportions are in keeping with the Greek Revival spirit. This is accentuated by the Doric columns that support the roof of the entrance porch, by alternating dark and light panels in the entablature above these columns (suggest- ing ancient triglyphs and metopes), and by the pseudo-Greek pediment or blocking course over the central window. When builders concluded that pillared porticoes were superfluous or too costly, they resorted to a simple expedient. They retained the general effect of the classic temple front, with the gable end or pedi- ment facing the street, but eliminated the portico. This scheme of having the end of a house serve as the front was not as popular in the Georgian Colonial period and is seldom found among Federal build- ings, except in cases of row houses in some of the larger eastern cities. Midwesterners in the iS4o's not only became conditioned to the plan because of the prevalent craze for things Grecian and Roman, but also because it was a practical solution to the problem of placing houses on narrow city lots — although many are in the country. The large number of homes of this tv'pe built in Indiana, as well as in other parts of America, attests to the popularity of this scheme in the decades before the CivilWar. On the surface the plan would A,^ Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century seem to be limited in lending itself to varied treatments. But existing examples prove otherwise. Of the many handsome dwellings still standing in the state only a Plate 3g f^y^ can be singled out for analysis here. The Campbell-Banta brick Plate 40 residence at Crawfordsville and the Burgess-Schnelker homestead at New Haven in Allen County are among the most imposing. While in no way imitating the Greek temple, they reveal a superiority of design, a feeling for proportion and a sensitivity for the relationships of openings and wall spaces that strongly reflect classic ideals. Low- pitched roofs give proper angles to the pediments, the bases of which are only suggested by the returns of the entablature boards around the gable ends. Doors and windows are well proportioned, the former recessed and framed in keeping with the prevailing Greek Revival preference for modest entrances. Other similar designs, but with less forceful pediments, are the Angell-Huffman and John Lindsey houses in Fort Wayne, both on West Wayne Street (not illustrated). These, like the two mentioned above, are built of brick. A handsome veteran in wood, recently razed, stood facing the highway north of Mongo in La Grange County, with its framing of windows and doors more in keeping with interior trim of Greek Revival houses than exterior ornamentation, the lintels having "keys" that projected beyond the edges of the up- right jambs (see page 51 below). Another house in this general category, and one that effectively Plate 41 employs pilasters and retains a good pediment, is the Potter house at Lafayette. Instead of an unbroken face, the wall is marked off by four pilasters into three panels, within which the windows and doors are set. The recessed door is flanked by simple Doric columns. Another Plate 42 example is the Peacock-Poston home at Attica. Two unusual members of this family, marked by the gable end at Plates 4j and 44 the front, are the Wright-Monroe and the Marsh-Wesbecker cottages, the former west of Vevay, the latter in Madison. The Wright house is actually closer in design to the Federal movement than it is to the Greek Revival. The three-part attic window with a semicircular panel over the central light is a Palladian motif. Colonettes at the A A corners match the slender posts of the entrance porch. The woodwork The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals both inside and out was the work of shipbuilders who came from Nantucket, Charles B. Freeman and his son Thomas. The Marsh- Wesbecker house is not a typical example of Greek Revival expressions with possible exception of the entrance and the pitch of the roof. The cusped ornamental bargeboard presages the next movement to capture public attention, namely, the Gothic Re- vival, and it might well be a later addition. The Grecian pediment here has given way to a low-pitched medieval gable. Another architectural innovation that became rather common practice in the 1840's was the use of central temple units (with or without columned portico) with lateral wings. These houses, such as the charming Howe and Wheeler-Gould-Mosier cottages at Howe Plates 45 and 46 and Bristol, respectively, have one-and-a-half-storied central units and lower extensions. The Helm-Hart house on State Road 44 east of Rushville and the Yoder house near Brimfield in Noble County (not illustrated) have two-storied porticoes on the central mass. Equally popular were the designs with plain gable ends, without porticoes, such as the Provolt-McGuire house at Rolling Prairie and the Fowler- plate 47 Oberholtzer cottage at Bristol. The former has its entrance door in Plate 48 the center, the wide lintel of which echoes the strong entablature board and the pronounced pilasters at the corners. The twin entrances to the Oberholtzer house are by way of the porches, to the left and right of the central unit. Most of the houses of this type are found along the northern zone of the state, havmg been built by settlers who moved into Indiana from north-central Ohio (the old Western Reserve district), bringing with them an affection for this particular Greek Revival design. Roads from Orland to Michigan City are dotted with them. Unfor- tunately most are in a poor state of preservation or have been so remodeled (and covered with modern asbestos shingles) that little of their original charm remains. The small American-Grecian cottage is a most satisfying solution of the problem of home designing. In addition to the type discussed above (central unit and wings) we find in the state many pleasing one-storied dwellings of wood and brick, based on the same classic principles as their larger cousins and growing out of equally high ^^ Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 46 architectural abilities. Rectangular in plan, simple in mass, seemingly proud of their Hellenic ancestry as reflected in refined moldings and nice proportions, they stand quietly in many sections of the state. Plate 4g One of the most handsome is the Butler-Lewis home in Dupont, Jefferson County, with its graceful Doric portico attached to its long side. Located out of sight of the traffic on the highway, the cottage is not known to many people outside the village. An equally charming Plate 50 Grecian cottage, and one having a different personality, is the Wil- son-Gleason home southeast of Peru, now on the Municipal Golf Course. Its two small, square-pillared porches on the south and west sides (three pillars instead of the customary four) and its low-pitched hip roof terminating in a deck and parapet give it an alluring quality. Another, without porch or portico, but with strong, clear entabla- Plate 5 1 ture and pilasters, is the small Armstrong-Copeland home in Vevay. Still another, again relying on pilasters for exterior enhancement, is Plate 52 the Gray-Thompson rural home southeast of Glenwood in Fayette County. The last two have inviting recessed entrances, the one in the Fayette County home being flanked by well-proportioned Doric columns. The entablature board here assumes the appearance of a frieze with a pleasing pattern of grilles serving as attic windows. The roofs of both are pitched so low that they are hardly visible. Other examples of the small one-storied classic cottage are the Plate 53 Henry-Clawson house at Delphi, with its "salt-box" shape, and the Plate 54 Kikendall-Welling home north of Madison, chaste in its simplicity and restraint. Other notable small Greek Revival houses which deserve special Plate 3J5 mention are the Rapp-Maclure-Owen house at New Harmony, the Mills-Davis house, with its severe square-piered porch, at Crawfords- ville, and the Fred Purnell house in Attica, with its good recessed door — but with dormers which were added later. Returning to the subject of large two-storied houses (interrupted by our cons'ideration of the small Grecian cottage), we find that the next type of Greek Revival design to be analyzed is found in the resi- dence whose entrance is on its broad side. This design, always popular among home builders, was adopted just as frequently during the Greek Revival era as in previous decades. The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals The plain oblong farmhouse of the Federal period (discussed in the first chapter) was transformed into a pseudo-Grecian dweUing by the simple expedient of adding wide entablature boards, reducing the pitch of the roof, occasionally accenting the corners with pilasters or wide boards, and adding a door in keeping with the Greek Revival idiom. As mentioned above, the entablature board frequently stops after turning the corner onto the gable end. The entrances of these houses are often their principal decorative features: pronounced door frames of simple jambs and lintels, plain rectangular lights in the transom and at the sides, and the door itself divided into large well- proportioned panels. Small columns frequently flank the doors. One of the best preserved of this family is the Foster-Schuck pJate 56 residence, a large white frame farmhouse northwest of Rolling Prairie. Its divided entablature board under the eaves and wide pilasters at the corners echo the ancient Doric order. Lintels over windows and door are bold, well designed, and consistent with the entablature. Although pilastered corners are lacking on the Holmes-Ausley residence near Fort Wayne, on Illinois Road, the strong Greek Revival door and wide entablature place it in the Grecian family. It is one of a score of stately houses throughout Indiana and the Middle West conforming to this general type, and which deserve more recognition than they are getting. The Vore-Hunnicutt farmhouse west of Dublin is pleasing in i-'/(7fe ^j design, with fairly wide entablature and typical small porch. Similar farmhouses are the Amick-Ward residence near Scipio, the Smith- Plate 38 Anderson place at Perrysville, with well-defined pediments at the pjate sp gable ends and original porch, the McMurtrie-Rupert house east of Plate 60 Attica, the story-and-half Rutherford home south of Liberty, the Fletcher-Bell house north of Lewisville, and the Boyd-Francisco place at Wirt (the last three not illustrated). Perhaps the most pretentious example of this type is the Ewing pjatc 61 mansion in Fort Wayne. Built as late as 1854 '^^ ^^55' when affection for classical discipline had succumbed to a desire for the picturesque, it nevertheless retains the best of the Grecian elements, such as a low- pitched roof, wide entablature, and austere design. The newer atti- tude is reflected in the tall and relatively narrow windows, higher A7 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 48 rooms, and high basement, which combine to give the house more of a perpendicular stance than is usually found among Greek Revival houses. A comparison of it with the Foster-Schuck house (Plate 56) demonstrates this change in attitude that took place during a period of about twenty years. Differences here might also be attributed to different sources of inspiration: the Foster-Schuck house, being in extreme northern Indiana, is an offshoot of the Ohio-Western Re- serve building tradition, which stems from Connecticut, while the Ewing mansion reflects that of New York state. A large brick house, arresting in design but difficult to classify, is Plate 62 the Conklin-Montgomery residence at Cambridge City. The unusual treatment of its roof (step gable at the east end, hipped at the west) and exceptionally refined and satisfying entrances and windows com- bine to produce a distinctive work of architecture. The recessed front door, flanked by graceful columns and surmounted by a paneled lintel of Greek design, is repeated on the second story, where it serves as a small balcony. As was true of their Federal predecessors, the smaller town houses of Greek Revival style, two stories high and with three windows across the front, are exceptionally charming when well designed. One Plate 6 J of the most appealing of these is the Read-Foster-Reese home in Ver- non. Its recessed windows (without frames) are more Federal than Greek Revival, but the door with a low pediment-shaped lintel is Plate 64 Grecian in design. Another example is the Jones-Hampton house in Perrysville, with its recessed Greek Revival door, typical window treat- ment, and decorative iron balcony. Another distinctive type of large Greek Revival residence is that with a hip roof. This method of capping a house, popular throughout the eighteenth century, continued to appeal to builders and clients through the years under consideration here. As with the gable roof, the ridge was kept as low as practical in order to make it inconspicu- ous. In some instances the pitch is so shallow and the parapet so high that roofs cannot be seen from street level. Houses of this sort tend to be rather cubical in mass, with small entrance porticoes or no porches at all. One of the most beautiful and most effective in depicting the aim of builders and architects im- The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals mersed in the Greek Revival tradition is the Grisard-Sieglitz home in Vevay. The rhythm of windows, paired and set into panels framed by pilasters, is exceptional. A narrow Greek pediment caps the central second-story opening; rectangular attic windows in the frieze board effectively repeat the spacing of the windows below, and, like the Ewing house (Plate 6i), suggest the pattern of alternating triglyphs and metopes found on ancient Doric temples. The small porch, charming with its well-proportioned Ionic columns, is crowned with an iron railing which was doubtless made by the original owner who was a manufacturer of ornamental cast iron. A house similar in almost every respect except for the absence of attic windows is the Murphy-Bailey house at New Castle now owned Plate 66 by the city. Still another is the HolsteinWhitsitt home at Madison Plate 67 with a balustraded deck on the roof, the whole strongly suggestive of houses in New England. Attic windows appear again in the frieze board of the stately Willard Carpenter mansion at Evansville. Here Plate 68 the wall surfaces, unbroken by pilasters, give a more austere aspect. Still another large house in this general category is the McDonald- Plate 6g Scribner home in Attica. Its unusual features are the tall windows or French doors on the second floor, opening out onto an unroofed balcony with handsome cast-iron railings, and the greater height of the second story as compared with the first. This house is said to have been built around 1855 which would account for its proportions and certain unusual details. Adherence to pure Greek principles had weak- ened by this date and the Italianate movement was getting under way toward the middle 1850's. The last five houses mentioned above have five windows across the front, or four windows and a door. We will consider next the three-window design. While the difference between five windows and three may not seem significant, it does produce quite dissimilar visual effects: rhythmic patterns of solids and voids differ as openings increase or decrease in number, as do the proportions of the walls themselves. The three-window mass is closer in shape to a cube than is the five- window block. Among the good large houses in this group of three-windowed, hip-roof Greek Revivals are the Schenck-Griffith house at Vevay, Plate 70 A,Q Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century with its Ionic porch and tall window openings indicative of a late Plate 71 Greek 'Revival date, and the Milford-Miller home in Attica with entrances sheltered by square-piered porches. . The two most eminent mansions belonging to this series are the Plates 72 and 73 Shrewsbury-Windle house in Madison and the James F. D. Lanier house in the same city. Both are the work of Francis Costigan, archi- tect; the former was built in 1849 and the latter five years earlier. In this connection it is rather surprising to learn that the Lanier house is the older of the two: its richer and more plastic design would lead one to place it late in the 1840's with the rise of romanticism, while the Shrewsbury house, retaining more of the chaste spirit of the An- tique, appears to be an earlier design. The Shrewsbury house, almost cubical in shape, has a stark and noble beauty unmatched by any other house in this category. Taste and sensitivity on the part of the architea have produced a design of pleasing proportions, and one which needs no enrichment beyond the pattern of cornice, pilasters, windows, and door. Inside, the treat- ment is richer: handsomely carved moldings, a columnar screen dividing the parlor, and one of the most beautiful spiral staircases in the country. The Lanier mansion incorporates nearly all the Greek Revival elements which have been referred to in above paragraphs, including a strikingly beautiful two-story portico on the river front. Its most unusual feature is the octagonal cupola with diamond-shaped panels in the sides (visible in Plate 73) and a projecting cornice. The cornice of the house itself is rich with moldings, being capped front and back by Grecian blocking courses. Below this is a wide entablature, boldly divided horizontally and with circular windows in the frieze band. The strong plasticity of this crowning member is matched by clearly defined pilasters and by pronounced window lintels, jambs, and sills. Interiors of Greek Revival Houses Interiors of Greek Revival homes differed rather strikingly from Plate 74 their Federal predecessors, particularly in the framing of doors and 50 windows and in the entablature-like bands or frieze boards carried The Neo-Classic Mode: Roman and Greek Revivals around the walls. While the Federal jambs and lintels were narrow and usually carved, those of the Grecian style were broad and un- decorated. The inspiration for the latter apparently came from such originals as the doors of the Erechtheum at Athens and of the Temple of Hercules at Cora, the principal characteristic features being the croisettes ("ears" or "keys") at the upper comers. The flat boards were framed with simple moldings; and in many instances the jambs tapered, becoming slightly narrower as they ascended. All woodwork was painted white. Paneling was not a part of the decorative scheme. Mantelpieces were more massive than those of the Federal period, and rather severe in their plainness. Delicate carving had become un- fashionable and in its place appeared simple panels and occasionally pilasters or engaged columns, capped with conventionalized Grecian capitals, usually Doric. Stairways were similar in design to those of the Federal era, although late in the Greek Revival period the balusters and newels became heavier. Walls were usually painted in light tints, as in the preceding decade; wallpaper was used for certain rooms such as halls and bedrooms. In both Federal and Greek Revival homes large areas of floors were left uncovered. Carpets (preferably Oriental) were used, leaving much of the floor showing. As the century advanced the amount of floor coverings increased until wall-to-wall carpeting finally became the vogue. Taste in furniture swung from the simple and chaste Sheraton to the more curvilinear Dimcan Phyfe or Ameri- can Empire designs. 51 BILLINGSLEY-MILLER HOUSE. Laughery Creek Road west of Hartford, Ohio County. James Billingsley original owner, Cora E. Miller present owner. Greek Revival, 1846. (Page 42) 33 SWAYZEE-ERLEWINE HOUSE. 224 N. Washington Street, Marion, Grant County. Aaron C. Swayzee original owner, Mrs. Henry L. Erlewine present owner. Greek Revival, 1850. (Page 42) 34 WALKER- EWING HOUSE. 905 E. Broadway, Logansport, Cass County. George B. Walker and George W. Ewing former owners, Young Men's Christian Association present owner. Greek Revival, c. i860. George W. Bevan architect and builder. (Pages 42-43) 35 HAWKINS-LANE HOUSE, "Lane Place." Water Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. W. P. Hawkins original owner, Henry S. Lane later owner. City of Crawfordsville present owner; home of the Montgomery County Historical Society. Greek Revival, 1836-43. (Page 43) TRIPP-CULL-JOHNSON HOUSE. 318 Jennings Street, North Vernon, Jennings County. Hagerman Tripp original owner, O. M. Cull later owner, William A. Johnson present owner. Greek Revival, 1853. (Page 43) HANNA-HAYDEN HOUSE. looz E. Lewis Street, Fort Wayne, Allen County. Samuel Hanna original owner, Fred J. Hayden and Eliza Hanna Hayden later owners, Fort Wayne Community Schools present owner. Greek Revival, 1845. Henry Williams architect. (Page 43) 39 CAMPBELL-BANTA HOUSE. 211 E. Pike Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. John P. Campbell origmal owner, Richard E. Banta present owner. Greek Revival, 1852. (Page 44) BURGESS-SCHNELKER HOUSE. U.S. 30, New Haven, Allen County. Gideon Burgess original owner, Alban Schnelker present owner. Greek Revival, 1840-50. (Page 44) Peter Certia POTTER HOUSE. 915 Columbia Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe Count)'. William A. Potter original owner, George L. Potter, present owner. Greek Revival, 1845. (Page 44) 41 PEACOCK-POSTON HOUSE. Washington and Brady streets, Attica, Fountain County. Joseph Peacock origmal owner, Floyd Poston present owner. Greek Revival, 1847. (Page 44) 42 ^43 WRIGHT-MONROE HOUSE. State Highway 36 h Cit of Vevay, Switzerland County. John W. Wright original owner, Harry Monroe present owner. Classic Revival, 1836. Charles B. and Thomas Freeman architects-builders. (Pages 44-45) ■■■Bli 1 1 l^i^uJtm 1 iL-L MARSH-WESBECKER HOUSE. Telegraph Hill, Madison, Jefferson County. John Marsh original owner, John Wesbecker present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1840. Francis Costigan (?) architect. (Page 44) 44 45 HOWE HOUSE. Howe, La Grange County. John B. Howe original owner, Howe Military School present owner. Greek Revival, 1840. (Page 45) WHEELER-GOULD- MOSIER HOUSE. Charles Street, Bristol, Elkhart County. Thomas Wheeler original owner, Henry Gould later owner, H. F. Mosier present owner. Greek Revival, 1834. (Page 45) 46 47 PROVOLT-McGUIRE HOUSE. Rolling Praine, La Porte County. Ezekiel Provolt original owner, W. C. McGuire present owner. Greek Revival, 1843. (Page 45) FOWLER-OBERHOLTZER HOUSE. Bristol. Elkhart County. Henry H. Fowler original owner, Lena E. Oberholtzer present owner. Greek Revival, 1836. (Page 45") 48 BUTLER-LEWIS HOUSE. Dupont, JefFerson County. Levi Butler original owner, George B. Lewis later owner, Marjorie and Ruth Lewis present owners. Greek Revival, c. 1847. (Page 46) 49 WILSON-GLEASON HOUSE. Municipal Golf Course, Peru, Miami Count)'. Alexander Wilson original owner, Reuben Gleason later owner, City of Peru present owner. Greek Revival, 1845. fPage 46^ Lti Burns 50 ARMSTRONG-COPELAND HOUSE. W. Mdikcc ^^Lieet, Vc^ay, bwiucrlaiiu County. Thomas Armstrong original owner, Mrs. R. M. Copeland pesent owner. Greek Revival, c. 1840. George H. Kyle architect. (Page 46) 51 GRAY-THOMPSON HOUSE. Southeast of Glenwood, Fayette County. Hugh Gray original owner, O. H. Thompson present owner. Greek Revival, 1846. (Page 46) 53 HENRY-CLAWSON HOUSE. 318 W. Front Street, Delphi. Carroll County. L. D. Henry original owner, Mrs. Dora Lyons later owner, Walter Clawson present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1840. (Page 46) KIKENDALL-WELLING HOUSE. State Highway 7 north of Madison, Jefferson County. Samuel Kikendall original owner, Jacob Bramwell later owner, Harry S. Welling present owner. Classic Revival, c. 1840. (Page 46) 54 . Jrr^\- .U. F" "^ r'a^^ l^ W^ "« t ''rrj^ i,*>'. lNi..:r¥^\ .►*j 5^'7tttii >« '»».^ RAPP-MACLURE-OWEN HOUSE. Mam and Cliurch streets, New Harmony, Posey County. Father George Rapp original owner, William Maclure later owner, Kenneth Dale Owen present owner. Greek Revival, 1844. George Beal and John R. Hugo master carpenters. (Page 46) llomir hmntUrcv 55 FOSTER-SCHUCK HOUSE. Northwest of Rolling Prairie, La Porte County. Scipha Foster original owner, Arthur F. Schuck present owner. Greek Revival, 1833. (Page 47) VORE-HUNNICUTT HOUSE. U.S. 40 west of Dublin, Wayne County. Jacob Vore original owner, Mr. and Mrs. J. R. Hunnicutt present owners. Greek Revival, style of 1845. (Page 47) A MICK-WARD HOUSE. State Highway 7 northwest of Scipio, Jennings County. Obed Amick original owner, W. Robert Amick later owner, Lester Ward present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1845. (Page 47) 58 SMITH-ANDERSON HOUSE. Green and Liberty streets, Perr)'sville, Vermillion County. John F. Smith origmal owner, John Anderson present owner. Greek Revival, 1835. (Page 47) 59 McMURTRIE-RUPERT HOUSE. State Highway 28 east of Attica, Fountain County. Joseph M. McMurtrie original owner, Thomas M. Rupert present owner. Greek Revival, 1835-40. (Page 47) 60 ^6i EWING HOUSE. Berry and Ewing streets, Fort Wayne, Allen County. William G. Ewing original owner, Albert Bulson and Don Cameron later owners, now the Red Cross Chapter House. Greek Revival, 1854. (Pages 47-48) CONKLIN-MONTGOMERY HOUSE. 302 E. Mam Street, Cambridge City, Wayne County. Benjamin Conklin original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Montgomery present owners. Greek Revival, 1836. (Page 48) READ- FOSTER-REESE HOUSE. Brown Street, Vernon, Jennings Count) . Samuel Read original owner, Riley Foster later owner, Nolan Reese present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1840. (Page 48) JONES-HAMPTON HOUSE. Perrysville, Vermillion County. John N. Jones original owner, Calvin C. Hampton present owner. Greek Revival, 1845-50. William G. Torrance master carpenter. (Page 48) 64 65 GRIZARD-SIEGLITZ HOUSE. E. Main Street. Vevay, Switzerland County. Frederick L. Grizard original owner, C. O. Sieglitz present owner. Greek Revival, 1848. (Page 49 j MURPHY-BAILEY HOUSE. 321 S. Main Street, New Castle, Henry County. Eli Murphy original owner, Cicero M. Bailey later owner, Cit)' of New Castle present owner. Greek Revival, 1847. (Page 49 66 HOLSTEIN-WHITSITT HOUSE. 718 W. Main Street, Madison, Jefferson County. Louis Holstein original owner, Mrs. S. A. Whitsitt present owner. Greek Revival, 1840. Francis Costigan (?) architect. (Page 49) CARPENTER HOUSE. 405 Carpenter Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. Willard Carpenter original owner, Claude Winfrey and American Legion later owners, WTVW TV Channel 7 present owner. Greek Revival, 1848-49. (Page 49) '^:-i« liMlu McDONALD-SCRIBNER HOUSE. Main and Jackson streets, Attica, Fountain County. James McDonald original owner, Robert Scribner present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1855. (Page 49) 6 SCHENCK-GRIFFITH HOUSE. 209 W. Market Street, Vevay, Switzerland County. Ulysses P. Schenck original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Clyde Griffith present owners. Greek Revival, 1844-46. George H. Kyle architect. (Pages 49-50) 70 71 MILFORD-MILLER HOUSE. 414 E. Main Street, Attica, Fountain County. Marshall M. Milford original owner, Howard Miller present owner. Greek Revival, c. 1845. (Page 50) SHREWSBURY-WINDLE HOUSE. 301 W. First Street, Madison, Jefferson County. Charles L. Shrewsbury original owner, John T. Windle present owner. Greek Revival, 1846-49. Francis Costigan architect. (Page 50) LANIER HOUSE. First Street, Madison, Jefferson County. James F. D. Lanier originaJ owner, State of Indiana present owner. Greek Revival, 1844. Francis Costigan architect. (Page 50) Parlor of the James F. D. Lanier House, Madison, as restored and furnished by the State of Indiana. (Page 50) 74 THOMPSON- MOUNT-RUBLE HOUSE. State Highway 46 west of Greensburg. Decatur County. Polk Thompson original owner, Clarence Mount later owner, Orvel T. Ruble present owner. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) 75 LYONS-JONES HOUSE. 901 Jefferson Street, Rochester, Fulton County. Daniel Lyons original owner, Mrs. H. A. Jones present owner. Gothic Revival, 1856. (Page 87) 76 HUNT-HICKS HOUSE. State Highway 36 west of Danville, Hendricks County. Zimri Hunt original owner, Carl Hicks present owner. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) 77 LEHMAN-ROGERS HOUSE. West and South streets, Hanover, Jefferson County. Robert O. Lehman original owner, Henry C. Rogers and Jane Rogers present owners. Gothic Revival, 1858. (Page 87) 79 HALSTEAD-CAMPBELL HOUSE. 560 E. Monroe Street, Franklin, Johnson County. E. Halstead original owner, George Shepherd later owner, John Campbell present owner. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 87) DURBOROW-BROADIE-DAVISSON HOUSE. 108 E. Monroe Street, Williamsport. Warren Count)'. Allan Durborow original owner, A. G. Broadie later owner, Mrs. C. V. Davisson present owner. Gothic Revival, 1855-60. (Page 88) So 8i CHAPIN-WILLIS HOUSE. 407 W. Navarre Street, South Bend, St. Joseph County. Horatio Chapin original owner, Leone Willis present owner. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 88) FOWLER HOUSE. 909 South Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. Moses Fowler original owner, Cecil G. Fowler later owner, Tippecanoe County Historical Association present owner. Gothic Revival, 1851-52. (Page 88) Ornamental gable, , Sansberry-Riggs House, near Fairbanks in Sullivan County. DEWEY-CLAWSON HOUSE. Front and Union streets, Delphi, Carroll County. Aaron Dewey original owner, Jesse and Gearold Clawson present owners. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 88) Juliit Peddle RAMEY-MILLIGAN HOUSE. Meadow Avenue, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. Mrs. Abby Ramey original owner, Joseph Milligan and Clarence Leavenworth later owners, R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, present owners. Gothic Revival, 1854. (Pages 88-89) 84 DU MONT- MILLER HOUSE. 304 E. Main Street, Vevay, Switzerland County. Sidney Dumont original owner, Julian F. Lamson later owner, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Miller present owners. Gothic Revival, c. 1855. (Page 89) 85 OWEN HOUSE. Church Street, New Harmony, Posey County. David Dale Owen original owner, Kenneth Dale Owen present owner. Gothic Revival, 1859. David Dale Owen and James Renwick architects. (Page Hedrich-Bltssing 86 87 'i ^j^Q^^^HH ' /^ i ^k^ viii k^s^^^SclSHHE ^^^ '^ ^^^gj ^^^\a '^ >^^I^^H BEH MM Vr - -• ^ \:.v^^}ifii£^-^*>.-< ^|-'^JL ||iia|MM STONE- HERRON HOUSE. State Highway 15 north of Wabash, Wabash County. Silas H. Stone, original owner, Joseph A. Herron present owner. Tyrolean Gothic, c. 1855. (Pages 89-90) SWALLOW HOUSE. U.S. 40 east of Permville, Wayne County. Ephraim Swallow original owner, Beatrice Swallow present owner. Composite style, 1861. (Page 90) 88 8 9 HOUCK-H ARRIS HOUSE. 120 S. Spruce Street, Centerville, Wayne County. George Houck original owner, Roy M. and Elsie Harris present owners. Composite style, c. 1850. (Page 91) HACKLEMAN-DILLON HOUSE. 312 N. Main Street, Rushville, Rush County. Pleasant A. Hackleman original owner, Otto P. Dillon later owner. Veterans of Foreign Wars present owner. Italianate-Gothic Revival, c. i860. (Pages 91-92) 90 HERITAGE -CORTNER HOUSE. 126 W. Pine Street, Kmghtstown. Henry County. Dayton Heritage original owner, L. A. Cortner present owner. Gothic-Italianate, c. 1866. (Page 92) 91 RIDDILE-LOOMIS HOUSE. Battle Ground, Tippecanoe County. H. D. Riddile original owner, Jesse Francis later owner, I. Lyle Loomis present owner. Gothic-Italianate, 1866-68. (Page 92) 92 HORNE-MICHAEL- SARGENT HOUSE. Cloverdale, Putnam County. Thomas Home original owner, Mrs. Christine Michael later owner, Mrs. Ernestine Sargent present owner. Octagon, c. i860. (Pages 93-94) 93 CROOKS-PAINTER-ANDERSON HOUSE. 410 Walnut Street, Rockport, Spencer County. John W. Crooks original owner, Welker Painter later owner, Halleck Anderson present owner. Octagon, bracketed, 1859. (Page 94) HALL-CRULL HOUSE. One mile west of Raleigh, Rush County. William S. Hall original owner, Mrs. Walter Crull present owner. Octagon, 1855. (Page 94) 95 ROSE-KUEHL HOUSE. 156 S. Garfield Street, Valparaiso, Porter Count)-. David Garland Rose original owner, Eva Kuehl present owner. Octagon, c. i860. (Page 94) 9 The Gothic Mode IV A SHARP BREAK with the classic tradition occurred in domes- tic architecture around the year 1850 in this part of the country. The Gothic Revival movement had reached the Midwest. A few churches had been built in the revived Gothic idiom in the decades of the thirties and forties, while it was still fashionable to erect Wren-type meetinghouses, but the people of Indiana were not ready before the middle of the century to accept the idea that recast medieval architeaural forms were suitable for domestic living. The indoctrination process was slow but sure. Books were appear- ing extolling the spirit and unique beauty of Gothic architecture; novels by Byron, Scott, and others, based on legends and historic episodes of the Middle Ages, were widely read; artists were choosing as subjects for their canvases romantic medieval themes; and architects were publishing builders' guides and handbooks, demonstrating the use of Gothicized ornament and forms for up-to-date cottages and stress- ing the appropriateness and charm of the new picturesque designs over austere and unfashionable Grecian models. Basically, the Gothic style is one of vertical or perpendicular accents in contrast to Greco-Roman horizontality. Builders achieved this by using steep roofs, tall and pointed windows, and sometimes by resorting to vertical boards and battens for siding. Another major difference between the Gothic and Greek lies in ornamentation and the manner of applying it. As we have seen, buildings of classic inspira- tion were, as a rule, simple in mass and restrained in ornamentation, and decorative motifs were derived from ancient classical monuments. Gothic Revival buildings were more varied in structural form and richer in embellishments, and the ornamental motifs were borrowed from buildings of the late Middle Ages. The reader will find now that architectural terms change. No 85 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century A, Pinnae u B, Finia! C, Bargeboard with Cusped Tracery D, Hood Mold 86 longer are the words pediment, entablature, portico, and so forth, applicable. These have to do specifically with discussions of classic or classically derived buildings. For an analysis of Gothic architecture we turn to such terms as gable, bargeboard, tracery, and cresting, to mention only a few. Rich carving, so characteristic of Gothic Revival houses, ap- parently delighted the American carpenter of the mid-nineteenth century. Pattern books with drawings based on old medieval build- ings were readily obtainable; and with drills, scroll saws, and chisels the average carpenter could turn out relatively authentic (or, if he wished, freely interpreted) pinnacles, finials, cusps, bosses, trefoils, and all the finery needed to transform a simple prairie farmhouse into a charming picturesque cottage. Both French and English prototypes were used, with more em- phasis on the latter, judging by existing houses and by designs found in popular architectural guides. Most of the men who wrote or edited these publications in the decade before the Civil War (A. J. Downing, Edward Shaw, Samuel Sloan, etc.) preferred the old English styles — Elizabethan or Tudor — and so titled their creations. These plans were shown, however, along with Rhenish, Castellated, and Pointed styles which seem to have been derived from Continental models. In this cormection it might be well to point out that these builders' guides reveal another fact that is frequently overlooked; namely, that no one style was promoted exclusive of others. Books by the above authors and their contemporaries continued to illustrate Grecian along with Gothic designs (with more examples of the latter in the publica- tions of the late 1840's and 1850's), and introduced at the same time a second novel mode, the Italianate — the subject of our next chapter. Gothic Revival houses in the Midwest fit into four general groups, as illustrated by the accompanying figures. The common farm or town dwelling, consisting of a simple rectangular block with a roof of nor- mal pitch and with an acute-angled gable attached to the main roof on the side, is the most usual. The type with its entrance in the gable end and without extensions or ells is illustrated on the preceding page. A similar plan, but with matching gables facing left and right, corresponding in design and detail to the front or entrance side, is The Gothic Mode frequently seen. And equally popular was the L-shaped plan with a porch in the angle and the door opening out onto the porch. Whatever the type, it had to display prominently a large pointed gable with lacy bargeboard — and not infrequently a lancet window. Verandas or porches were modest in size, and strikingly different from the porticoes of the previous decades. Posts were usually square, slender, sometimes with beveled corners, and frequently joined along the top by an ornamental band suggesting Gothic tracery. Two other features should be pointed out. Roofs extend beyond the outside walls (unlike classic examples) so that marked shadows were cast by eaves and ornamental bargeboards; secondly, chimneys become important factors in enriching the total effect or silhouette. A frame house that represents the commonest type of American Gothic is on the Thompson- Mount-Ruble farm west of Greensburg. It is a simple rectangular block, with a relatively steep roof from which a large gable springs. The attractive, lacy pattern that decorates the gable is continued under the eaves. A pointed window in the gable and tall paired windows on the first floor give the vertical accents charac- teristic of a building in this style. The Lyons-Jones cottage at Rochester is not unlike the Thomp- son-Mount-Ruble home in plan. Its carpenter's lace, designed like festoons, is exceptionally handsome; and while the windows are of normal proportions (that is, normal for the period), they all have triangular heads. Straight-sided triangles were easier to make of wood than curved and pointed arches. Similar window treatment is seen on the Hunt-Hicks farmhouse west of Danville. All of the windows on the front of the Lehman-Rogers cottage at Hanover terminate in Gothic arches, the one over the entrance being tripartite with the middle opening taller than the side lights. The dormers in the roof are decorated in keeping with the rich foliated band that follows the gable and eaves. The designer of the Halstead-Campbell house at Franklin em- phasized its medieval derivation by having pointed hood molds over the windows. Painting these white to match the window frames and muntins emphasizes the Gothic character of the house and creates a striking effect of white accents against dark-red bricks. Plate 75 Plate Tj Plate 78 87 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Plate 80 Another attractive building in brick is the Durborow-Broadie- Davisson homestead at Williamsport. Its centered cathedral window with small panes of glass is well designed; Tudor hoods over the other windows, a low-pointed arch over the front door, and a pleasing bargeboard on the central' gable combine to create a convincing neo- Gothic house. The porch of a much later date is unsatisfactory in scale and design, detracting considerably from an otherwise unified architectural composition. Plate 81 Larger examples of the Gothic Revival variety are the Chapin- Plate 82 Willis frame house at South Bend and the Moses Fowler stucco house at Lafayette. The former, in addition to its undulating, vinelike bargeboard, has characteristic English Gothic arched windows: lancet in the gable, Tudor four-centered on the second floor, and flat-arched on the first floor, all with heavy hood moldings. The outer walls have been treated in such a way as to increase their textural qualities: cus- tomary clapboards on the first story, a band of boards laid like shingles in the area between floors, and board-and-batten treatment on the second story. The last was a favored device for adding to the illusion of verticality mentioned earlier. The Fowler house is probably the finest of the large Gothic Revival residences still standing in Indiana. In addition to features already mentioned, it has a large bay window on the central projection and an oriel window to the left of it. Dormers break the line of the eaves, and a chimney, designed after English medieval models, rises from the ridge of the roof. The woodwork both inside and out is skilfully carved in keeping with original Gothic inspirations. The second interpretation of the Gothic in terms of American home building is the simple oblong block with the entrance in the end. A handsome example of this, which is in good state of preserva- Plate 8 J tion, istheDewey-Clawson home at Delphi. Its exceptionally attractive bargeboard ends in pendants at the lower corners, matching the one in the apex; the central window of the second floor accurately simu- lates authentic Gothic tracery, and the square-headed windows that flank it, as well as those below, have the traditional hood moldings. The best example in the state of the T-plan house, with three sim- O O Plate 84 ilar gables, is the Ramey-Milligan brick home in Crawfordsville. Here The Gothic Mode the mullions of the windows divide the openings into two sections, in the best Gothic tradition; while the pinnacles on the peak of the roof as well as at the lower ends of the bargeboards are complimented by long pendants. Interior woodwork carries out the tradition as effec- tively as the exterior does, and both show exceptional craftsmanship and devotion to detail. The L-shaped plan with a small porch in the angle is a common building form throughout this region and only becomes identified with the Gothic Revival by virtue of decorated bargeboard and orna- mental woodwork on the porch. A good example is the Dumont- Plate 83 Miller house at Vevay. While the type is not unusual, this particular cottage combines in a most pleasing way many of the features which have been pointed out above. The most individualistic of the Gothicized buildings in the state is David Dale Owen's house and laboratory at New Harmony. Basi- Plate 86 cally, in plan, it is an L-shaped dwelling with a stubby projeaion facing the street, and an extension at left housing a laboratory. Its varying masses and ornamental features lend to it an air of picturesqueness and informality. Crestings on the eaves and over first-floor windows are medieval in spirit, although unusual in American nineteenth-century domestic architecture. The cupola with its sweeping roof (resembling a Chinese coolie's hat) echoes this cresting and adds picturesqueness to the skyline. The feeling on the part of many people in the 1850's that Gothi- cized houses tended to look more like chapels than homes probably had something to do with the brevity of this style's popularity. Gothic Revival's contemporary rival, the Italianate, was more widely accepted and lasted longer. A second Gothic movement, usually called the Vic- torian Gothic, appeared in the 1870's and i88o's, largely as a result of John Ruskin's preachments. This was based on Northern Italian medievalism, rather than English, and was found to be best suited to large civic or educational buildings. More about it later. A number of houses of medieval inspiration, contemporaneous with the Gothic Revival of the 1850's, are not based on French proto- types but appear to be more Germanic or Swiss. For instance, the Joseph A. Herron farm home, north of Wabash, is remmiscent of O Q Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Bavarian houses, particularly in the use of flat balusters cut to form picturesque, rhythmic patterns along the railings of porches. These are painted white while the adjoining wood members are gray-green. The bargeboard is attractively decorated with a cusp and foil fringe. Plate 88 Another engaging country house is that of the Swallow family east of Pennville, on the National Road. Its low-pitched gable roof strongly reflects the Italianate spirit that was competing with the northern Gothic for attention, but the absence of brackets under the eaves (an Italianate feature) and the presence of Gothicized elements place it more in the domain, stylistically speaking, of the north. Judging by similar examples in northern Germany, one might reason- ably label it Teutonic. And then, too, it is not unlike a type of house found in early builders' guides christened Cottage Ornee by the designers. 90 V Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan MENTION was made previously of the strong tendency during the nineteenth century to combine historic styles, „, generally regarded as incompatible, in designing new houses. Such practice in the first decades of the century was not unorthodox because the popular styles — Georgian Colonial, Federal, and Neo-Classic — were all basically Greek or Roman in inspiration and therefore belonged to the same general family. But with the swing toward medieval prototypes in the 1850's, mixtures of Gothic and Roman, or Greek and Italianate, occurred frequently. Although such unorthodox practices have distressed more than one historian or critic, we must confess that many of the composites are far from unpleasant. A white farmhouse which is clearly a composite of Grecian and Gothic elements is the Hunt-Hicks place, already discussed (Plate 77). The Houck-Harris frame house in Centerville is typical of a Plate 8g large number of American dwellings of the 1850's which are basically Greek Revival in their simple oblong masses, low-pitched roofs, corner pilasters, and classic doors, but which have carpenter's fringe decorating gables and eaves. The brackets supporting the cornice or hood over the front door is in the Italianate spirit, as are the tall win- dows. One might justifiably speculate in this case on the possibility of this house being a Greek Revival structure of the late 1840's with "modem" touches added in the fifties. This happened to numerous homes throughout the state. The careful house observer will find that the commonest device used in the 1850's and i86o's to modernize and embellish older houses was to put brackets under eaves and ornamental lintels over doors and windows. An amalgamation of the Gothic Revival and the Italianate is successfully achieved in the present home of the Veterans of Foreign Plate go Wars at Rushville. Unlike the Gothic Revival residences discussed Q I Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century in the preceding chapter, it has a flat roof and wide eaves supported by handsome brackets or consoles. Paired Gothicized windows adorn the facade and end walls (the lower ones are capped with hood molds), and there are latticed trefoil canopies between the porch posts. A rather diverting, yet not unpleasant design, incorporating classic Plate gi and romantic traits, is the Heritage-Cortner cottage at Knightstown. The cusped bargeboard and the window in the front gable are defi- nitely Gothic, but the front door with its semicircular light capped by a paneled arch and the flat-arched window heads are Italianate. Plate g2 The Riddile-Loomis residence at Battle Ground in Tippecanoe County presents to the passer-by a semi-Gothic gable combined with a mansard-type (Franco-American) tower. The carved ornament in the apex of the gable and the pointed-arch windows of the second floor are of one idiom, while the first-floor windows and the tower belong to another. But the marriage, while capricious, is not an unhappy one. Octagon Flan Before taking up the subject of the Italianate movement in Ameri- can home building, it might be well to discuss a relatively minor architectural tendency that appeared around this time; namely, the octagon house or "round house." Residents of Indiana are familiar with round or octagonal barns because a number of them are to be found throughout the state, but less conspicuous are our eight-sided domiciles. Only about half a dozen are known to the author; and if it were not for their intriguing concept and unorthodox planning, one would be inclined to disregard them in a survey of this kind. While the concept of polygonal buildings — whether six, eight, or more sided — appeared well before the nineteenth century, it had its greatest vogue in this country from about 1850 onward. Its princi- pal protagonist was Orson Squire Fowler, of Fishkill, New York, a philosopher, lecturer, writer, and authority on phrenology, who pub- lished his well-known thesis, A Home for All, in 1854. The influence of this work (which came out in subsequent editions for the next Q 2, five years) was widespread, but in spite of the enthusiasm of the Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan author and his disciples, relatively few home builders succumbed to the novel idea. Fowler advanced his argument for the octagon dwelling upon logical and clear-cut points: it was economical, practical, and aesthetic. Octagons provided more usable volume than ordinary' rectangular buildings; to quote him: "the nearer spherical our houses, the more inside room for the outside wall." The octagonal plan reduced heat loss, and aftorded more exposure for light and ventilation. Octagons are more pleasing aesthetically, according to him, because the more closely the angle approaches the circle the more beautiful is the effect. Since the Fowleresque scheme placed such strong emphasis on utility and beauty, it is surprising that more people did not succumb to it. Tenacious adherence to tradition and fear of being regarded as an advocate of freakishness probably kept most people on the easier path of conformity. And then, too, the layout of rooms within an octagon was not as practical for ever^'-day living as it appeared on paper. Octagon houses, for the most part, are two-storied buildings with low-pitched p\Tamidal roofs and little or no ornamental treatment on the exteriors. They do not belong to a specific architectural style, because, having been built in different decades, they took on the embellishments of the st^'le most in vogue at the time: Neo-Classic, Gothic, Italianate. In many instances, however, no particular idiom is evident, the satisfj'ing geometric shape being sufficient, in theory, to please the critical observer. Houses of octagonal design in Indiana are of wood fabrication, although brick, stone, and gravel with concrete were used in their construction in other parts of the country'. Although Fowler advo- cated large porches, preferably encircling the houses, local examples are restrained in this regard. Their floor plans vary slightly from a general scheme to provide the necessary' number of practical rooms, with cupboards, vestibules, and stairhalls occupying the remaining segments. The Horne-Michael-Sargent house in Cloverdale in Putnam County is a simple geometric statement, with pleasing double win- dows. A porch — its only decorative feature — follows the contour of \^!uuh::>-^-iiiuLj :re gj 93 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century the building on two sides. The eight segments of the roof meet at a deck from which rises the chimney. Plate g4 The Crooks-Painter-Anderson residence at Rockport is more im- posing with its varied fenestration, small but attractive entrance porch, and cupola crowning the very low-pitched roof. Plate p5 A recessed porch gives' the Hall-Crull home near Raleigh, Rush County, a different effect. Unobtrusive brackets, unadorned windows, and plain wall surfaces lend, by contrast, more emphasis to the porch railings with their rhythmic paddlelike balusters. The porch posts are octagonal, echoing the plan of the house itself. Plate g6 Most unusual because of its roof treatment is the Rose-Kuehl frame house at Valparaiso. Eight gable roofs meet in the center, their bargeboards embellished with rows of leaflike pendants. The porch, probably of later date, does not conform in design nor follow the shape of the building itself. The Merriam house in Logansport, on East Market Street, is of later date (although reportedly built in the i86o's) and lacks the charm of the above octagons. Pedimentlike gables extend from two of the hipped sectors of the roof. This type of construction, together with the use of shingles on the face of the gable, is charaaeristic of the Neo-Jacobean style which will be discussed later. The one-storied "round house," owned by Carl Valentine, east of Terre Haute on State Road 42, is the most modest of the octagons in the state. It is believed to have been built about 1856. Residents of Indianapolis will recall a landmark on North Meri- dian Street in the 3400 block which was razed recently. Built of brick, its red tile roof made it conspicuous among neighboring residences, and its plan was unusual inasmuch as it was designed like an elongated octagon. It, too, was later in date than the ortagonal homes discussed above, probably having been built in the first years of the twentieth century. Two well-known examples of octagon houses in the northern part of the state have been razed recently: the Slabaugh-Rohrer stone building in Clay Township near Logansport and the George Mathews home east of New Carlisle. A third one, at Zionsville, has been gone Q\A for several years. A modest member of this class that still stands is the Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan "round house" on the east edge of Newport, built around 1850 to serve as an office for John Wesley Parrett, a justice of the peace. American Vernacular The repeated references in this book to the various foreign influ- ences exerted on American building during the nineteenth century, and the use of European terms in designating the new styles, probably leave in the mind of the reader the impression that our architecture has been predominantly imitative and eclectic, and that no effort was made to stimulate or encourage original, creative designing. Such was not the case. Emerson, for instance, expressed himself forcefully on this point: Why need we copy the Doric or the Gothic model? Beauty, convenience, grandeur of thought, and quaint expression art as near to us as to any, and if the American artist will study with hope and love the precise thing to he done by him, considering the climate, the soil, the length of the day, the wants of the people, the habit and form of government, he will create a home in which all of these will find themselves fitted, and taste and sentiment will be satisfied also. On the other hand, many people believed that the study of older architectural monuments on the part of young designers — perhaps even to the point of copying them — would result in greater appreci- ation and understanding of sound architectural principles, and that such an approach would lead to originality and eventually to the achievement of an American vernacular. In the middle of the century, for instance, and at the height of what we have come to call the "revivals" (a term not used, so far as this author knows, by early nineteenth-century writers) there ap- peared in A. J. Downing's book. The Architecture of Country Houses (1850), very pungent statements along this line. For Downing, the fine old buildings should serve to develop ideas of beauty, har- mony, and morality in addition to revealing the basic elements of good architecture — proportion, symmetry, variety, harmony, imity, and so forth. But they should not be copied slavishly. In one place he makes this very clear: Q C Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 96 There is no reason why the architect of this country and age should not adopt the ideas of other countries, as manifested in the styles of art begotten in those countries. But he should do this understandingly, and with some purpose in it. There is little to he said in defense of those who copy foreign houses and imitate foreign manners, for the mere sake of imitation, in a country so full of good and noble suggestions for social and domestic life as our own. .' . . Our own soil is the right platform upon which a genuine national architecture must grow, though it will be aided in its growth hy all foreign thoughts that mingle harmoniously with its simple and free spirit. As for our having attained an indigenous American style during the nineteenth century, a number of opinions have been expressed. One of the earliest essays along this line appeared in The Architectural Review and American Builders' fournal, November, 1868, in vi^hich the author, probably one of the editors of the Journal, wrote: The climate of our country, if nothing else, must prompt the production of an indigenous style in architecture, the precedaneous styles of which are already discernible by the European observer. It is, as yet, in the external design of our domestic con- struction, that the dawn of the coming style is to be detected; and the necessities of climate have prompted its appearance in that department, as being the more intimate dominion of our human family. . . . Its \_distinctive American style' s'\ appearance is pleasing to Europeans; and, indeed, it has many points about it superior to the domestic architecture of Europe. . . . Those prominent cornices, so highly ornamented, and those brackets, which, while they support them, give, at the same time, such a distinctive feature of this style, as to be known to English architects, as American Bracketed Architecture; those umbrageous "stoops"; those broad and shady piazj:as, all now so peculiarly our own, are some of the features, which go to make up this new style. Yet, it is the combination of them, that makes the distinctiveness, for, the features just named are, of themselves, all derived from Euro- pean sources. Our climate prompted their application to our wants; and the native taste of our architects created that effect, which may now take the name of a style. The author of this editorial was referring to the then popular movement know^n as the Italian, or Italian Villa style, which is being discussed in the next chapter. But each of the preceding movements that lasted for any length of time and found wide acceptance, pro- duced statements in dialects that have a truly American ring. Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan The average Federal house, for instance, could not be mistaken for a European residence, particularly the type represented by the Jeremiah Sullivan house at Madison — a type that is so characteristic of old Georgetown as well as of this region. The same can be said of the small Greek Revival cottages, analyzed in a previous chapter. Except for those few edifices purposely imitating antique prototj'pes they are as Yankee as anything we have. It is of interest to notice that the possibility of this becoming an American vernacular was foreseen (and dreaded) by the editor of Sloan's Architectural Review and Builders' Journal in 1868, who wrote: In times past, which, in this young country of ours we are apt to look upon as ages, the Grecian and Roman styles were models adopted for public and private build- ings. And fearfully were those models treated. In fact, so great was the liberty taken with them, that we narrowly escaped the misfortune of this being taken by the world Jor an indigenous style. Nor can our Gothic Revival houses be mistaken for any of the medieval models from which they superficially stem. Neither the English nor the French evolved domestic architectural designs like them. The English clung tenaciously to their Tudor or Elizabethan building traditions throughout the nineteenth century in building in the Neo-Gothic tradition, except for the last phase, when they turned to Venice and north Italv for inspiration. There appears to this author less of a purely native or indigenous stamp on the Italianate houses than on the preceding ones just men- tioned. However, the first editor quoted above felt certain that in this style, too, we had achieved something distinctly ours: an American Bracketed Architecture. Interiors of Gothic Revival and Italianate Houses Interiors of Federal and Greek Revival homes were discussed in previous sections of this book. Here we shall deal with those of the 1850's and i86o's, when the Gothic and Italian influences were the strongest. As no authentically furnished rooms of those decades can now ^y Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 98 be seen around here, so far as we know, one has to turn to old publica- tions for information. One which is especially informative is Down- ing's The Architecture of Country Houses, cited above, and it is from chapters in it that most of the following observations stem. Downing was writing at a time when the Grecian vogue was all but over and the Gothic and Italianate were in the ascendancy, so his remarks were based on a comparative analysis of these styles, pointing out correct architeaural details and appropriate furnishings for each. The importance of carrying out the same style both within a home and on the exterior was emphasized by the author. This involved not only the shapes of doors and windows but the types of moldings as well. It also had to do with kinds of fireplaces, newel posts, wall treat- ments, floor coverings, and furniture. Taking the Gothic style first, we learn that while pointed arches over doors and windows were preferable, most home builders settled for flat-headed openings and relatively plain moldings. The latter, however, should be different so far as the two contemporaneous styles were concerned: the Gothic being rather thick and bold in relief, in contrast to flatter and broader moldings for the Italianate. This applied especially to the framing of doors and windows. An attempt was made by the carpenter-builder of the Lehman-Rogers house at Hanover to achieve a Gothic effect by raising the central portion of the door headings (Plate 78). Pointed openings might be "ecclesiastical" (high pointed) or "Tudor" (low pointed). Square-headed openings could be made to appear Gothic by the introduction of anarch in the wood- work of the architrave. On several of the houses already alluded to (Plates 76, 77, and 78) the triangular spaces over the windows are false, having no lights. Ceilings of rooms in this idiom should be traversed by ribs or small beams, usually of plaster, to convey the impression of medieval timber construction, the ribs resting on brackets where they meet the walls. In larger homes the beams were of wood, with chamfering and beading on the undersides, and stained. The general effea of these interiors was more Elizabethan than French Gothic, as Downing pointed out. This is understandable, since English and American builders were better informed about and Composite Styles and the Octagon Plan more sympathetic, temperamentally, with the former. Fireplaces (chimney pieces) and furniture were most frequently modifications or new interpretations of it. The Elizabethan spirit was also carried out in the use of dark wood trim and wainscot work, the latter appearing most frequently in libraries. Floor coverings, wall treatments (paint or wallpaper), and drap- eries were decorative and colorful, becoming more ornate in the fol- lowing decades. A Gothic touch was achieved for window draperies by cutting the valance in such a way as to form a pointed arch. The Italian style, as Downing termed it, is more difficult to sum- marize than the Gothic. To quote him: The new element of beauty introduced into the style called Italian is the use of the circle, subordinate to, and contrasting with, the hori^ntal or straight line. This is seen, chiefly, in the round arch, which appears in the doors and windows. There is also far greater latitude and variety in the ornaments of the different modes of the Italian architecture — including the Florentine, Venetian, and French under this head — than in the purely classical style. It addresses itself more to the feelings and the senses, and less to the reason or judgment. . . . Hence, we think it far better suited to symbolize the variety of refined culture and accomplishment which belongs to modem civilisation than almost any other style. Ceilings of important rooms had plaster relief decorations, some- times with trellis patterns, sometimes with floral motifs. Mantel pieces were based on early Italian or Romanesque prototypes, banister and newels of stairs were heavier than the Greek Revival, and openings were framed with strong, stained moldings. Like the Gothic Revival, floor and wall coverings were rather rich in color and pattern. 99 RILEY HOUSE. 250 W. Main Street, Greenfield, Hancock Count)'. Reuben Riley original owner, James Whitcomb Riley later owner, Riley Old Home Society of Greenfield present owner. Italianate, 1849-50. (Page lli 97 BEESON HOUSE. West of Bentonville, Fayette County. Temple Beeson original owner, Robert Beeson present owner. Italianate, c. 1855. (Pages 118-19) 98 STONEBRAKER-HARTER HOUSE. 199 S. Washington Street, Hagerstown, Wayne County. William Stonebraker original owner, C. B. Harter present owner. Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 119) 99 SLOAN-PARIS HOUSE. 600 E. Main Street, New Albany, Floyd County. John Sloan original owner, Mrs. John M. Paris, Sr., present owner. Italianate, 1852. (Page 119) 100 Carolyn E. M^Manaman DIET2-OGDEN HOUSE. 562 Main Street, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. A. V. Dietz former owner, Louis Ogden present owner. Italianate, 1860-70. (Page loi) lOI PLEAK HOUSE. Moscow Road north of Greensburg, Decatur Count)-. Walter B. Pleak original owner, Mrs. Elizabeth Kanouse and Mrs. WiHiamette Lemmon present owners. Italianate, 1864. (Page 120) 102 103 H EATON-BOND-IRWIN HOUSE. State Highway 29 south of Michigantown, Clinton County. Theodore Heaton original owner, James Perry Bond later owner, Mrs. William H. Irwin present owner. Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 120) HAUCK-SCHAEFFER HOUSE. 00NS-880W, Kokomo, Howard County. Isaac H. Hauck origmal owner, Edward M. SchaefFer, Jr., present owner. Italianate, c. i860. (Page 120) ^^^ O j^^^ 104 I05 SWAN-ANDERSON HOUSE. 1020 Indiana Avenue, La Porte, La Porte County. Fred Swan original owner, W. J. Anderson present owner. Italianate, 1870. (Page 120) LUDOVICI-CaJACOB house, iooo S. Sixth Street, Terre Haute, Vigo County. John B. Ludovid original owner, Melville Cajacob present owner. Italianate, 1873. Josse Vrydagh architect. (Page 120) 106 SAGE-ROBINSON-NAGEL HOUSE. 141 1 S. Sixth Street, Terre Haute, Vigo County. William H. Sage original owner, Henry Robinson and Clemens W. Nagel later owners, Vigo County Historical Society present owner. Italianate, 1868, with later additions. (Page 121) 107 GONTER- DAVIS HOUSE. National Avenue at Lambert Street, Brazil, Clay County. Jacob M. Gonter original owner, Mrs. Daniel Davis present owner. Italianate, 1859. (Page I2l) 108 DoTsey O. Thomas YOUNG MAN-BECKER HOUSE. Southeast of Fairfield (P.O. Oakford), Howard County. Frederick Youngman original owner, Mrs. Rosie Becker present owner. Italianate, 1876. (Page 121) 109 Indianapolis Star BENJAMIN HARRISON HOUSE. 1230 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Benjamin Harrison original owner, Arthur Jordan Foundation present owner. Italianate, 1874. (Page 121) no - JAMES WHITCOMB RILEY HOUSE. 528 Lockerbie Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. John R. Nickum original owner, Charles L. and Magdalene Holstein later owners (with whom Riley made his home for thirty-five years), Riley Memorial Association present owner. Italianate, 1872. (Page 121) III BALS-WOCHER HOUSE. 951 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Charles H. G. Bals origmal owner, John Wocher later owner, George H. Pattison present owner, Hisey and Titus Mortuary leaseholder. Italianate, 1869. (Page 121) 112 T^ ^^^^^^^ m ^1 J' '^^l tt 4 1 rffl 1 -r>.'^- ■ , .V^-s;?^? Will Ball COLEMAN-LAIRY HOUSE. IOI2 E. Market Street, Logansport, Cass Count)^ Asa Coleman original owner, Mrs. John S. Lair^^ present owner. Italianate, c. i88o. (Page I2l) 113 WALDRON-FRASCH HOUSE. 829 N. Twenty-first Street, Ufayetre, Tippecanoe County Edward H. Waldron original owner, M. G. Frasch present owner. Italianate, 1877-78. (Page 121) David IV. Peat GUTHRIE-PICKETT HOUSE. Tunnelton, Lawrence County. Alfred Guthrie original owner, Thomas Pickett present owner. Italianate, 1879. (Page 121) 115 HAMILTON-HUNTER HOUSE. 132 W.Washington Street, Shelbyville, Shelby County. Samuel Hamilton original owner, Burton Steinhauser later owner, William C. Hunter present owner (Hunter Hotel). Italianate, c. 1855. (Page 122) SMITH-CRIPE HOUSE. Diamond and Water streets, Kendallville, Noble County. John Smith and Albert Hutchins former owners, Otis C. and Leila (Hutchins) Cripe present owner. Italianate, c. i860. (Page 122) 117 EDWARDS-AIMONE HOUSE. 145 S. Fifth Street, Clinton, Vermillion County. George H. Edwards original owner, Jennie Hedges later owner, John R. Aimone present owner. Italianate, 1875. (Page 122) 118 JUSTICE-PUTERBAUGH HOUSE. 412 Tenth Street, Logansport, Cass County. DeWitt C. Justice original owner, Mary E. Puterhaugh present owner. Italianate, 1874. (Page 122) 119 Will Ball MCCORD-STOLL HOUSE. 1206 E. Main Street, New Albany, Floyd County. Robert G. McCord original owner, Fred Stoll present owner. Italianate, 1866-67. (Page 122) 120 121 DROVER- DITZLER HOUSE, 327 Etna Street, Huntington, Huntington County. Henry Orover original owner, Ray L. Ditzler last owner. Italianate, c. i860. Razed. (Page 122) MCCLELLAND-LAYNE HOUSE. 602 Cherry Street, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County. James S. McClelland original owner, Mrs. Minter D. Layne present owner. Italianate (Tuscan Villa), c. i860. (Page 123) 122 Ine^ Twitchell SONNTAG-KIECHLE HOUSE. 726 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. George S. Sonntag original owner, Frederick L. Kiechle present owner. Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1859. (Page 123) 123 FOELLINGER-LUTES HOUSE. 447 Wildwood Avenue, Fort Wayne, Allen Count}'. Jacob Foellinger original owner, Mrs. Albert M. Lutes present owner. Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1872. (Page 123) 124 Elsa Strassweg CROMIE HOUSE. 1003 E. Main Street, New Albany, Floyd County. John P. Cromie original owner, Turley Nursing Home present owner. Italianate, 1866. (Page 123) 125 SUTTON-TURNER HOUSE. National Road and S. W. 15th Street, Richmond, Wayne County. David Sutton original owner, E. M. and Addie V. Turner present owners. Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1875. (Page 123) 126 THOMPSON-SCONCE HOUSE. io6 N. Pleasant Street, Edinburg, Johnson County. John A. Thompson original owner, J. B. Sconce present owner. Italianate (Tuscan Villa), 1867. (Page 123) NIXON-FOSDICK HOUSE. One Fosdick Street Liberty, Union County. John S. Nixon original owner, Eugene and Janet Fosdick present owners. Italianate— Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875. (Pages 123-24) The Anglo-Italian Mode VI TALIANATE is the term now commonly applied to the mid- century movement based on the Italian medieval and early Ren- aissance architectural works. It became one of the most popular building styles in our country during the nineteenth century, even to the degree of leading some Europeans to regard it as a significant American architectural statement and to refer to it as an American vernacular or indigenous development — as was noted in the preceding chapter. Its popularity, according to a writer of the period, was due both to its beauty and elegance and to its appropriateness and ready adaptation to every kind of building. Results of the Italian fever which swept across America were numerous and varied in the field of home building. Small or large, brick or wood, urban or rural, stylish new houses were cast in one or another interpretation of the Italian idiom. So plentiful were the plans and elevations in current carpenters' guides and magazines that the prospective builder had no difficulty finding something fashionable that would fit his particular need and pocketbook. Manuals and handbooks of the 1850's and i86o's for architects and builders not only contain many intriguing and picturesque designs, but they reveal the names with which architects christened their creations: Tuscan Villa, Cottage in Italian Style, Villa Farm House, Bracketed Villa, Italian Style Lodge, Anglo-Italian Villa, Irregular Villa in the Italian Style, and so forth. Seldom was a home called a house; it was either a villa, a cottage, or occasionally, a lodge — particu- larly if it was in the English medieval tradition which was based on Anglo-Norman structures still extant. The intention of the exponents of this new trend in architecture was to achieve comfort and livability along with informality and a de- gree of picturesqueness. The Italian medieval or Romanesque system 117 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century ILL 'Hiyirmri'P _s_ti?s: Plate 97 ii8 Plate g8 of building lent itself admirably to these. It was informal without being bizarre; it could be stately without being ostentatious; it could adapt itself to American methods of living, in cities or country. As the following pages show, the early Italianate movement here assumed a number of guises, but all examples had in common a studied irregularity of masses (sometimes with towers), a preference for round-arched doors and windows, low-pitched roofs, and over- hanging eaves supported by brackets. Most of the features that distinguish Greek Revival houses, and those that mark the Gothic Revival, are not to be found in the Italianate. And here again we find a different architectural vocabulary. To most people who have delved into the subject of American architecture the term Tuscan Villa conjures up a picture of a square- towered, flat-roofed house with projecting eaves supported by brackets, as shown in the builders' guides of the period. Actually, while these were popular in all parts of the country, they were by no means the common type. The one most frequently built was the simple oblong block with medium-pitched gable roof and, of course, prominent brackets under projecting eaves. Doors and windows tended to be circular headed in brick dwellings, but usually flat in frame houses. This is obviously the same house, basically, as the simple, rectangular type we analyzed in the Federal and Greek Revival periods. But while proportions are the same, the classic entablature has given way to a cornice board and conspicuous brackets; win- dows are taller and narrower, and a picturesque piazza or porch was invariably an important part of the total composition. A typical example of this type is the Reuben Riley house in Green- field, boyhood home of James Whitcomb Riley, built in 1850. It will be noticed that the cornice returns around the gable ends of the building, as in previous examples, and that the brackets, also, continue around the corners. The porch here appears to be a later addition. Another fea- ture that is characteristic of this gable-roofed oblong type is the hori- zontal gutter and cornice. Instead of having the slope of the roof con- tinue until it reaches the eaves, it levels off when it meets the gutter. An exceptionally chaste and attractive representative of this group, without alterations, is the Beeson farm home near Bentonville, Fay- The Anglo-Italian Mode ette County. The modillions used here, instead of large brackets, to support the eaves and the sturdy pilasters along the front give it a decidedly classic flavor. However, the level gutters, ornamental win- dow heads, and rather tall openings are in the new Italian spirit. Houses of this type in wood or brick are so numerous in the state that space does not permit listing them here. In addition to those which were built in the 1850's one frequently comes across older houses — Federal or Greek Revival — which were modernized in the fifties by adding brackets under the eaves and porches along the front. Another interpretation of this general t^e is the Stonebraker- Plate gg Harter house at Hagerstown built of brick. The roof treatment is similar to that in the Riley and Beeson homes, but stronger adher- ence to the picturesque movement is shown in the arched panels in the walls and the ornamental lintels above windows. Recessed doors reflect the Greek Revival tendency, but the arched opening and small balcony on the second floor are in the spirit of the new romantic trend. Brackets are paired and widely spaced. A more pretentious member of this group is the large brick Sloan- Plate 1 00 Paris residence at New Albany. While retaining its tie to the preced- ing decade with its Greek Revival door and window heads, it aligns itself with the fashion of its day by its display of paired brackets supporting a leveled-off cornice and prominent hoods over the second-story windows supported by large brackets. A considerably smaller urban home in this same general category is the Dietz-Ogden residence at Lawrenceburg. Its square facade, in Plate 101 contrast to the oblong proportions of the above, and small dimensions (three windows across the front) give it quite a different aspect from the ones we have been discussing. Prominent brackets and elliptical hood molds over windows and door relate it even more closely than some of those mentioned above to the true Italianate and suggest a building date in the i86o's rather than in the fifties. The reader will notice that we have here the same basic plan as the small urban Federal or Greek Revival houses, as seen, for instance, in Plates 14 and 62. Although the intention of builders who worked in this new aesthetic climate was to achieve picturesqueness through informal design and superimposed ornamentation, many of the early Italianate ^ ^ 9 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century buildings were basically simple and symmetrical, as seen in the ex- amples above. This was due to the practicality and economy of the oblong house, as well as to a lingering preference for former styles. The preceding classic idiom had another feature which some of the buildings of the 1850's seemed reluctant to abandon, and that was the false gable projecting from the long or front slope of the roof, as on Piiiic > the Pleak farmhouse northwest of Greensburg, and on the old Livy Hamilton brick home north of the same city (not illustrated), both having the same design and apparently the work of the same architect or master builder. All the features pertaining to the Italianate house with its entrance on the long side apply to the gable-end entrance type. The latter, too, is closely related to the Greek Revival examples discussed in the last chapter, its principal mark of differentiation being the use of brackets, arched windows, and steeper roof. Piiiic ivj A modest representative of this series is the Heaton-Bond-Irwin home, a story-and-a-half frame cottage south of Michigantown, and Plate 104 its country cousin, the Hauck-Schaeffer home, near Kokomo. People driving north of Indianapolis on Highway 31 have doubt- less noticed the attractive Hunt-Richards residence west of Westfield. It closely resembles the above, but its triple window above the front door, three circular "portholes" in the gable, and cusped bargeboards give it an individual flavor. Two-storied examples are numerous in communities throughout Piiuc 10 j Indiana. The Swan-Anderson home in La Porte and the Thomas Mayhill home at Knightstown (not illustrated) show variations in roof pitch and window treatment within this family circle. Many more are seen on farms and in towns throughout the state. A house of this general type, but more Renaissance in spirit than medieval, is the brick and stone building in Terre Haute, originally Plate 106 built by John Ludovici but now owned by Dr. Cajacob. The cus- tomary brackets have been replaced with modillions, quoins have been used on the corners, and curved pediments appear as hoods over the windows. A triangular panel in the gable follows the angle of the low-pitched roof. The original porch has been removed. 1 2.0 More closely related to the ideal Italianate spirit are the residences The Anglo-Italian Mode of irregular masses, asymmetrical planning, and low-pitched hip roofs. At times they are L-shaped, having a projection toward the street, as represented by the Sage-Robinson-Nagel house at Terre Haute, now Plate 107 the Historical Museum of the Wabash Valley. Residences of this type are so numerous that only a few can be mentioned here. There are many in Indianapolis in various stages of disrepair and remodeling, the old Byram house at 1828 North Illinois Street being the best pre- served. The Gonter-Davis house in Brazil with its recently added porch, Plate 108 the John Barnes house in Logansport, and the Scott-Cordingly home at Clinton are among the many recorded by the author. Similar in effect, but so designed as to emphasize a large squarish block with a minor side projection, are the Youngman-Becker coun- Plate log try home near Kokomo and the President Benjamin Harrison house ."/(jfe lio at Indianapolis. Originally a small porch was tucked into the angle to the left of the entrance of the Harrison house. Later a large porch was built across the front and along part of the south wall. The front door is in the main block facing the street. Another favored design was that of combining masses or blocks of different sizes in an informal way, as seen in Riley's Lockerbie Plate ill Street home, Indianapolis, and the Bals-Wocher residence in the same city. The central pavilion of these Indianapolis examples are placed off-center and suggest lower sections of towers. Porches are set in the angles of the blocks, seldom across the entire front; windows tend to be curved at the top, and strongly accented lintels or frames give them extra prominence; small attic windows alternate with brackets under broad eaves; and flat decks crown the hip roofs. Projections in the form of bays rather than rectangular blocks were popular in one phase of development, as seen on the Coleman- Lairy residence at Logansport with its interesting step-back compo- sition, and on the Waldron-Frasch home at Lafayette, with two bays, ; one on the end, the other on the side. A more ostentatious structure of this type is the Guthrie-Pickett home at Tunnelton in Lawrence / ' ., County, with conspicuous stone quoins, lacelike iron porch, and octagonal tower base or cupola crowned with iron cresting. The Gothic windows in the cupola add still another medieval touch to the rich ensemble. 1 2 I m.f I'iiu Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Two bays on the side of a house are less usual than a single bay, and when they are incorporated in the design they are usually sym- metrically placed toward the ends. This is the composition of the Hamilton-Hunter house at Shelbyville which is now the Hotel Plate 1 1 6 Hunter and the E. P. Knight house at Lafayette (not illustrated), now owned by the Odd Fellows Lodge. The use of a gable roof, as opposed to a hip roof, brought about a different effect even when floor plans were similar or identical. This Plate 1 is evident when one compares the Smith-Cripe house in Kendallville with the Terre Haute house above (Plate 107). Modifications are evident, to be sure, in the porches and window treatments, but the most striking difference is in the roofs and the effects they have on the character of the buildings. On the Cripe house the projecting block facing the street becomes a gabled facade with triangular peak. Plate 118 Others in this Italianate category are the Edwards-Aimone house at Plate iig Clinton, the Justice-Puterbaugh home at Logansport, and the rather Plate 120 palatial New Albany residence now owned by Fred Stoll. A similar but more modest example is also in New Albany (not illustrated), belonging to Robert Cade. Plate 121 An unusual gable-roof Italianate design was the Drover-Ditzler house at Huntington, recently razed, whose floor plan resembled a Y. The three radiating units were of equal size, and the entrance was built into the angle of the two front wings. The double windows in the gabled ends were based on old Italian models, known as Floren- tine arched windows or windows in cortile. A similar one can be seen on the Kendallville house (Plate 117) and the imposing Edwards- Hodges residence, not illustrated here, at Clinton. As mentioned previously, a characteristic feature of the Italianate style was the tower, a square campanile closely resembling original models that appear so frequently in old Italian towns. For most builders of the mid-nineteenth century, as well as for historians of recent years, this was the distinguishing mark of the Tuscan Villa residence. Like the roof of the house itself, the tower roof is almost flat, its p^Tamidal shape almost hidden by projecting eaves when viewed from the street. 1 2. Z Unbalanced or nonsymmetrical massing was preferred in design- The Anglo-Italian Mode ing Tuscan Villas in order to convey more strikingly the architectural tendencies of the Middle Ages (as American builders understood them) and to cater to the prevailing nineteenth-century desire for picturesqueness. The McClelland-Layne home at Crawfordsville is a good representative example of this type, with the tower rising from the angle of the building. The Sonntag-Kiechle residence at Evans- Plate 12J ville is a variant, with its tower protruding from the building rather than receding within the mass. Ornamental lintels and a fringed hood over the first-floor window enhance the composition. Other good examples of the towered Tuscan Villa are the Foel- Plate 124 linger-Lutes brick residence at Fort Wayne, the Carnahan-Tinsman home at Attica, with the tower set at an angle to the main part of the building, and the old Kent house at Williamsport. Triple windows in the top story of the campanile and heavy, elaborate window heads add richness to a design, as the old John P. Plate 125 Cromie home at New Albany shows. A more ostentatious example is at the west edge of Richmond, built in 1875 by David Sutton. It Plate 126 should be noted that both have their towers in the center of the facades and that symmetry has been preserved throughout. These houses represent a large number of sedate and tastefully designed Tuscan Villas throughout Indiana. A related series differs only in roof treatment; namely, in the use of gable roofs rather than hip roofs, resulting in gabled projections rather than horizontal bracketed cornices flanking the towers. One of the best preserved and most handsome in the state is the fine brick Thompson-Sconce resi- Plate I2j dence at the edge of Edinburg. Its well-designed tower, projecting gabled unit at the left with an attractive bay window, and colonnaded porch to the right combine to produce this satisfying effect. Other houses of this type include the old Evans place on East Main Street, Fort Wayne, the home built by Frank M. Harwood on Eel River Avenue in Logansport, and the old DePauw house at New Albany, which is now the St. Paul's Episcopal Church Parish House. A late and very unusual member of this group is the Fosdick resi- Plate 128 dence at Liberty. Having been built when the Tuscan Villa was out of fashion (1879) and when the so-called Free Classic was becoming stylish, it represents a mixture of the two. Superficially it resembles ^ -^ 3 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century the Tuscan Villas discussed above, but actually it is a campanile-like tower (only the top portion of which is somewhat authentic) placed against the gable end of a typical Free Classic (Neo-Jacobean) house of the late seventies and eighties. Although the towered Tuscan Villa was usually informal in its plan and elevation, several old residences built in this general style are strikingly formal and symmetrical, as is seen in those at New Albany and at Richmond (Plates 125 and 126). This is due to the influences exerted on American architectural designers by Italian Ren- aissance buildings, influences which seem to have appeared shortly after our zeal for Italian medieval tj^es had reached its zenith. This tendency toward axial balance led architects and builders to exploit both the Italian and French Renaissance archet^-pes. The period in which this tendency seems dominant — from about 1865 to 1880 — saw the erection of many agreeable and imposing residences in the state, which, because of their studied formality, appear more sophisticated than their Tuscan cousins discussed above. What we will call here the formal Italianate, to distinguish the Renaissance-inspired from the medieval, are oblong or cubical blocks, usually two stories high and crowned with low-pitched hip roofs and projecting eaves. Brackets, of course, are in evidence, and windows are treated in a variety of ways, more or less faithful to original Ren- Plate i2g aissance models. The old Howard-Patrick house in Indianapolis was typical of the medium-sized urban dwelling with three windows across the front on the second story and a centered door. Frequently Plate ijo the door is placed at the left or right, as was done in the Hoerner- Zuttermeister house at Richmond. Two distinctly different treat- ments of windows are seen in comparing these two houses, the former having round-arched openings, the latter being rectangular with con- sole-and-head lintels. Another satisfying design with round-headed windows, quoins, and original iron cresting is the Thompson-Coons house at Edinburg, on North Pleasant Street (not illustrated). Larger houses of this same symmetrical design are as numerous throughout the state as the smaller ones. Customarily they have five openings across the front on each story and therefore are usually 12, A, longer in relation to their height than the ones just mentioned. A The Anglo-Italian Mode few examples will suffice to illustrate these and to show the range of individual interpretation within this style in the hands of midwestern carpenters and builders. The Tumey-Mathews house in Rising Sun Plate iji and the Bachman-Pitman home at Logansport show restraint in their Plate 1J2 designs and reflect the Renaissance love of order and harmony. The Stumpf house, south of Indianapolis, is taller because of the addi- Plate ij^ tional attic story. In contrast the Rinehart-Baum residence at Delphi Plate 134 is longer for its height and is more picturesque with its paired windows and ornamental porch. The old DeWitt Fitch house at Plate JJ5 Lawrenceburg, now the American Legion Post, expresses forcefulness and grandeur with its boldly framed attic windows, richly bracketed cornice, and tall windows. The two-storied porch is doubtless a later addition, detracting somewhat from the nobility of the mass. More sumptuous results were achieved in these buildings when brackets became more ornate and cornices were enriched by fancy attic windows. The Henry G. Olds house, now the Mizpah Temple Shrine, at Fort Wayne (not illustrated), and the Mendenhall-Miller Plate 1 j6 residence, now a mortuary, at Richmond, are noteworthy examples. The addition of a slight projection at the center of the facade gave a somewhat richer effect to a building, as this Richmond house illustrates. This pavilion, as this projection is sometimes called, is typical of Renaissance architecture and was, therefore, appropriate for American homes designed in the spirit of the old pala^. In the case of the Mendenhall-Miller house a classic pediment surmounts it, reflecting, but not imitating, a similar architectural device used in connection with the Vance-Tousey house in Lawrenceburg (Plate 2). A related scheme, but with a curved pediment above, is on the Albert E. Fletcher mansion in Indianapolis. Its rich and sturdy character I'late ijy results from the blocky quoins, stone balcony, and large brackets. Another example, with the pavilion projection terminating in an elaborate dormer, is the Eden-Hyde mansion at 1336 North Delaware Street in Indianapolis, now owned by Mrs. G. H. A. Clowes and Allen W. Clowes (not illustrated). The Earl-Clauser residence, "Earl- hurst," on Union Street, Lafayette, has a pavilion that rises beyond the roof of the main structure but terminates in its own low-pitched roof instead of a tower. 1 2. 5 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century In contrast to the above, several of the large residences do not have pediments or other architectural features crowning the pavilions, notably the old Muhler home at West Wayne and Fulton streets in Plate 1 ,'<•-' Fort Wayne (not illustrated) and the old Heilman house at Evans- ville, now a day nursery. The latter is exceptionally sophisticated, with its air of noble simplicity and calm. The facade is smooth stone, while the side and back faces are brick framed with stone quoins. Another Italianate domicile type is the cubical block surmounted by a cupola. This cube-and-cupola design was used occasionally in the Federal era, but it appears most frequently in the i86o's and 1870's when brackets and ornamental window heads were fashion- able. Characteristic members of this family are the Probasco-Ludlow house at Lawrenceburg (not illustrated), the large and imposing Plates J ?(p atid 140 Daum-Johnson home at ConnersviUe, and the stately Anson Wolcott residence at Wolcott, the latter with portholes in the parapet wall above the eaves. Its porch, built in the early 1900's, replaced the original smaller one. A very dramatic house of this series was the Rockhill-Fleming mansion on West Berry Street in Fort Wayne, recently razed, its perpendicular thrust being accentuated by the excessively tall windows of the first story. Another, and the most Plate 141 embellished of the group, is the Service-Vurpillat house at the east edge of New Carlisle. The large and handsome brackets under the eaves are echoed on the cupola, the roof of which is crowned with a Moorish onion dome. The porch in this case appears to be original since its design harmonizes with the rest of the building. At this point in our review it might be well to call attention to Plate 142 some Italianate houses of exceptional design. First, there is the Beck- ner-Nelson house northwest of Arlington in Rush County. At first glance it appears to be a Greek Revival building, with square col- umns, but the use of brackets under the eaves and large consoles to support the front balcony gives it an Italianate flavor. Actually it is a transitional piece (as its date, 1853, confirms), revealing the archi- tect's attempt to combine the old and new. Two other Italianate houses of unusual design, so far as this Plate 14? region is concerned, are the Gaff villa, "HiUforest," overlooking the 126 Plate 144 town of Aurora and the Ohio River, and the Hess-Penn residence The Anglo-Italian Mode south of Goshen. The former, erroneously dubbed "Steamboat Gothic," is basically in the ItaHan Renaissance tradition with its flat roof, overhanging eaves braced with modilHons, quoins (made of wood) at the corners, and round-arched windows. The semicircular porch, surmounted by a cupola or belvedere, resembles a pilothouse. The Goshen house is remarkable because of its roof construction: four elliptical or bowed cornices and arched-roof surfaces. It is so unusual (actually unique in this region) that one cannot help but wonder where the builder got his inspiration. Before leaving the subject of the Italianate style reference should be made to houses in this category with French towers. In contrast to the campaniles of the Tuscan Villa variety (Plates 122-27) the French towers are topped with imposing roofs usually convex or concave in form and inevitably containing dormer windows. This combination of an Italian building and a tower based on the mansard tradition of France may be regarded as another transition style, a movement from the Italianate into the Franco-American — the latter being the theme of our next chapter. There are many examples of this composite mode in the state. The Hoshour-Medsker-Taylor house at Cambridge City and the Plate 145 McNamee-Eilts house, at Wabash represent contrasting members of Plate 146 the same family: the former tall and gaunt, and latter thick set and richly adorned. It is of interest to note that the Hoshour-Medsker- Taylor domicile is of frame construction, and that wood was used in imitation of stone in making the quoins and the blocks that form the arch of the front entrance. This is the second known house in the state "signed" by the builder or architect. A brass plate on the base of the newel post bears this engraved inscription, ' Ferd Jones, Builder, 1877." Better known is the round brass plate on the top of the newel post of the Lanier mansion at Madison (Plate 74) bearing Costigan's name. Another composite house is the Hendricks-Coburn house at In- dianapolis. Here the gable roof appears again, as was noted on the Thompson-Sconce house (Plate 127), but a concave French roof, with excessively large dormer windows, crowns the tower. Perhaps the most pretentious of the group is the large Schenck-Wiseman house over- ^^V Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century looking the town of Vevay. Its stocky tower is surmounted by a convex hood and cast-iron cresting, and the main structure is so broken by bays and projections that the effect is one of restlessness bordering on confusion. Unfortunately, space here does not permit our repro- ducing all of these important examples. The closing remarks in this chapter demonstrate that the two principal architectural movements of the late i86o's and the 1870's (the Italianate and the Franco-American) intermingled in many of the designs which came from the drafting tables of architects. And although this chapter and the next treat the two styles separately, we must bear in mind that one did not stop abruptly with the establish- ment of the next. Homes designed in the French mansard tradition arose on our streets and farms while Italianate villas and cottages were still being built. Around the year 1870 one style was apparent- ly as popular as the other. 128 The Franco-American Mode VII THE NEXT MOVEMENT in which American architects became engrossed was what is now generally known as the French Imperial or French Second Empire. It was not a revival in the sense of being a free interpretation of an antique Euro- pean style, but rather an adoption with relatively minor modifications of a current French movement — a late or baroque stage of Renais- sance architecture. The newly completed wing of the Louvre and the Hotel de Ville in Paris — rich, exuberant, strong, and expressive — made a deep impression on architects in this country and changed the course of American building designs for two decades, from about 1865 to 1885. Styles other than architectural also were being im- ported from France during those years and eagerly adopted by Ameri- cans who wanted to be fashionable. Most of our builders who fell in step with this new and imposing architectural statement — which they found appropriate in expressing the ambitions and achievements of successful industrialists and busi- ness leaders — called it the French Style. Its principal distinguishing feature was the mansard roof, pierced by ornamental dormer win- dows and sometimes capped with cast-iron balustrades or cresting. Brick was the preferred building material, although a few modest frame examples are seen in our communities. Being a phase of the Renaissance movement, this new French style adhered to the classic principle of symmetry, lucidity, and sim- plicity of plan, and remained faithful to Renaissance details, such as moldings, cornices, and lintels. This applies to houses which we might call the purer tj^es, or to houses built by architects who were conscientious in their adherence to Renaissance canons. But, as in other decades, liberties were taken. Here we are subdividing the houses into three groups: the oblong, a HI HO ,x 129 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century the oblong with a central projection or pavilion, and the latter house with a central tower. Variations of these will be discussed later. Plate 147 The Howell-Dare house in northern Franklin County incorpor- ates all the features of the severe cubical type. Of brick construction, with stone quoins and lintels, well-designed cornice, slate mansard roof, and iron cresting, it combines stateliness and vigor without being overly opulent. The iron porch echoes the cresting of the roof. In this connection it should be pointed out that porches were modest in size on houses of this type, seldom becoming more than entrance porticoes. Verandas were not used, although in some instances they were added in later years — along with the rocking chair. Plate 14^' A similar residence, in several respects, is the Gillett-Newman home in Evansville. It has three windows across the front instead of five, more ornamental lintels over the windows, and richer bracketing under the eaves. Its large two-storied iron porch on the front is exceptional, a feature that is reminiscent of similar galleries on build- ings in New Orleans. The date given for its construction is 1 8 60-61, and if this is correct, one suspects that the mansard roof and some of the trim were added in the seventies. Smaller versions, one story in height, are exemplified by the Plate i4g Kilgore-Garber house in Peru which has exceptional charm in scale Plate ly. and details, and by the distinctive Hyatt home at Washington. The high mansard roof of the latter, as tall as the first story and contain- ing remarkably large dormer windows, produces a top-heavy effect. The porch, more in keeping with the later Neo-Jacobean movement than the Franco-American, helps to give the house a feeling of sta- bility, even though it is out of character. The projecting central unit or pavilion, tapered to repeat the silhouette of the roof, is an ambi- tious feature on so small a building. This pavilion brings us to our second group of French mansard buildings. Even when slight in projection, it adds richness to the formal facade and breaks the plane of the roof, as seen in such Plate iji examples as the Fletcher-Wasson house at Indianapolis and the An- Plate 1^2 thony Reis residence at Evansville. These two houses are more alike in design than is at first apparent; the surface coloration of the latter 120 — freshly painted bricks and stone quoins — ^is so rich in comparison The Franco-American Mode to the rather bland tones of the former that their close relationship is obscured, particularly in these photographs. The persistence of the romantic tendency during the nineteenth century resulted in the building of many asymmetrical or informally designed residences simultaneously with carefully balanced ones. Pic- turesqueness was achieved through the disposition of parts or masses more than through the use of enriched details. The use of an L plan with a porch tucked into the angle (reminiscent of some Italianate designs already illustrated) was a popular way of achieving informal- ity without losing the stateliness of the late Renaissance idiom. This is seen in the Reitz house at Evansville. Plate i^j More varied massing occurs in the old Culbertson-McDonald Plate 1^4 house at New Albany where a semicircular bay projects toward the street from the principal mass to which a secondary block is attached. This stepping back of the planes of the building is similar to some of the Italianate houses discussed in the last chapter (compare, for instance, the Culbertson house with the Coleman, Plate 113). The difference lies chiefly in the types of roofs. Informality of plan is apparent, also, in the Morris-Butler-Pace house at Indianapolis, where yinre J55 various shaped openings, porches, and studied irregularity of planes help to achieve the desired picturesqueness. Similar varied masses and planes were used on the Probasco- riatc ijO Morrison-Silver house at Knightstown, and a strong romantic touch was achieved, as on the Morris-Butler-Pace house, by adding a prom- inent tower, whose mansard roof and dormer windows echo those of the main block. Nothing contributed more to the ostentation and pomp of a mansion, or even to a less pretentious residence, than a tower. This we found was true in the case of Italianate buildings, and it certainly applies to those of the French Second Empire. In many instances the towers were set off-center and the masses that flanked them were un- like in size and proportion, producing an informal composition. This is seen in the two large residences discussed above. Two more mem- bers of this group which deserve recognition are the stately Nisbet- Plate 157 Koch home at Evansville and the Hayes-Cook place at Lawrence- Plate 158 burg. A comparison of these will reveal the variety of roofs that I^I Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century surmounted the towers and the picturesque composite of masses. In Plate 1 59 contrast to them, the Sample-Hutchison-Little residence at Lafayette retained the strict symmetry of the Renaissance. The feehng of refined aloofness which it seemed to convey was due to this for- mahty plus the restraint in the use of ornamentation. Unfortunately it was torn down recently. One of the most interesting of this Franco-American group of Plate i( houses is the John Matthews stone residence near Ellettsville now owned by J. Edwin Culbertson. Its straight sloping mansard roof (in contrast to the concave sway of those just described) is pierced by large dormers topped by segmental arches; the roof is crowned by a chaste cast-iron railing or cresting; and a short tower, with a circular window near the top, is almost obscured by a large pedimented classic doorway that opens upon a small stone balcony. The exterior of the first floor shows a nice relationship of open- ings and pilastered wall surfaces, while windows and doors are framed with good moldings. Niches near the corners complete the design of the facade in a pleasing way, and are unique among private residences in this state. 132 Indianapolis Star HOWARD- PATRICK HOUSE. 425 N. Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Edward Howard original owner, Edwin L. Patrick later owner, razed, July, 1962. Italian Renaissance, 1873. Dietrich A. Bohlen architect. (Page 124) 129 HOERNER-ZUTTERMEISTER HOUSE. 37 S. Fourth Street, Richmond, Wayne County. David J. Hoerner original owner, Henry Zuttermeister later owner. United Ancient Order of Druids present owner. Italianate, c. 1870. (Page 124) 130 Carolyn E. MrManaman TUMEY-MATHEWS HOUSE. 310 S. High Street, Rising Sun, Ohio County. Percy Tiuney former owner, Mrs. Pearl Mathews present owner. Italianate, c. 1865. (Page 125) 131 BACH MAN-PITMAN HOUSE. 901 E. Market Street, Logansport, Cass County. Harry Bachman original owner, estate of Edward E. Pitman present owner. Italianate, c. 1855. George W. Bevan architect and builder. (Page 125) 132 STUMPF HOUSE. 3225 S. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. George Stumpf original owner, Frank L. Stumpf present owner. Italianate, c. 1855. (Page 125) 133 RINEHART-BAUM HOUSE. 121 W. Front Street, Delphi, Carroll Count)'. Enoch Rinehart original owner, Mrs. Isabel Baum present owner. Italianate, 1858. (Page 125) Carolyn E. McManaman 135 FITCH HOUSE. W. High Street, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County. DeWitt Fitch original owner, American Legion present owner. Italianate, 1868. (Page 125) MENDENHALL-MILLER HOUSE. 222 N. Tenth Street, Richmond, Wayne County. A. W. Mendenhall original owner, John F. Miller later owner, Stegall-Berheide-Orr Mortuary present owner. Italianate, 1870. (Page 125) 136 Indianapolis Star 137 ALBERT E. FLETCHER HOUSE. 1121 N. Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Albert E. Fletcher orii;inal owner, Michael Clune later owner, Harley L. Horton present owner, occupied by LaRue's Club. Italianate (Renaissance), 1873-74. Joseph Curzon architect. (Page 125) HEILMAN HOUSE. 611 First Avenue, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. William Heilman original owner, St. Vincent's Day Nurser}' present owner. Ital.ianate (Renaissance type), 1869. Henrj' Mursinna architect. (Page 126) DAUM-JOHNSON HOUSE. S. Vine Street, Connersville, Fayette County. John W. Daum former owner, Benjamin F. Johnson present owner. Itahanate, c. i860. (Page 126) 139 WOLCOTT HOUSE. N. Range Street, Wolcott, White County. Anson Wolcott original owner, Roger Wolcott later owner, Princeton Township present owner. Italianate, i860. T. Tilly architect. (Page 126) 140 141 SERVrCE-VURPILLAT HOUSE. East Michigan Street, New Carlisle, St. Joseph County. J. H. Service original owner, F. J. Vurpillat present owner. Italianate, c. 1870. (Page 126) BECKNER-NELSON HOUSE. U. S. 52 west of Arlington. Rush County. Jeremiah Beckner original owner, John W. Nelson present owner. Classic-Italianate, 1853. J. T. Smith architect. (Page 126) 142 Charles Driver GAFF-STARK HOUSE, "Hillforest." 213 Fifth Street, Aurora, Dearborn Count)-. Thomas Gaff original owner, Agnes Howe and WilHam E. Stark later owners, Hillforest Historical Foundation present owner. Italianate, 1852—56. (Pages 126-27) 143 HESS-PENN HOUSE. 2309 S. Main Street, Goshen, Elkhart Count}\ Elias Hess origmal owner, Ralph S. Peon present owner. Italianate, 1859. (Pages 126-27) 144 HOSHOUR-MEDSKER-TAYLOR HOUSE. 315 S. Walnut Street, Cambridge City, Wayne County. Samuel H. Hoshour original owner, William F. Medsker later owner, Wilmer W. Taylor present owner. Italianate, 1877. Ferd Jones master builder. (Page 127) 145 MCNAMEE-EILTS HOUSE. 208 W. Hill Street, Wabash, Wabash County. Henry H. McNamee original owner, Vern Roberts later owner, Ted Eilts present owner. Italianate towered, 1870. (Page 127) F. P. NELSON HOUSE. Greencastle, now owned by De Pauw University, 1878. Note Italianate tower. 146 HOWELL-DARE HOUSE. Liberty Pike, north of Brookville, Franklin County. Isaac C. Howell original owner, W. Keith Dare and Macel Dare present owners. French mansard, 1883. (Page 130) 147 GILLETT-NEWMAN HOUSE. 706 S. E. First Street, Evansville. Vanderburgh County. Simeon P. Gillett original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Alan Newman present owners. French mansard, 1860-70. (Page 130) Ine^ Twitchell 148 David W. Peat I "^^^ 'K-:^ KILGORE-GARBER HOUSE. 60 E. Third Street, Peru, Miami County. W. W. Kilgore original owner, Mrs. David R. Garber present owner. French mansard, 1865-70. (Page 130) 149 HYATT HOUSE. 608 E. Main Street, Washington, Daviess County. Hiram Hyatt original owner, Mrs. Harry V. Hyatt present owner. French mansard, 1880. J. W. Gaddis architect. (Page 130) 150 LHTCHER-WASSON HOUSE. 1116 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Stephen K. Fletcher original owner, Hiram P. Wasson later owner, Arthur Jordan Foundation present owner. French mansard, 1876. John Stem architect. (Page 130) REIS HOUSE. 704 First Avenue, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. Anthony Reis original owner, now St. Anthony's Catholic Church rectory. French mansard, 1872. (Pages 130-31) 152 153 REITZ HOUSE 224 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County. Francis J. Reitz former owner, Catholic Diocese of Evansville present owner. French mansard, 1871. (Page 131) CULBERTSON-MCDONALD HOUSE. 914 E. Main Street, New Albany, Floyd County. W. S. Culbertson original owner, John S. McDonald later owner, American Legion present owner. French Second Empire, 1867. William and James T. Banes carpenter-builders. (Page 131) 154 155 MORRIS-BUTLER-PACE HOUSE. 1204 N. Park Avenue, Indianapolis, Marion County. John D. Morris original owner. Noble C. Butler later owner, Robert M. Pace present owner. French mansard, 1859-62. D. A. Bohlen architect. (Page 131) PROBASCO-MORRISON- SILVER HOUSE. 130 McCullum Street, Knightstown, Henry County. Ralph Probasco original owner, John I. Morrison later owner, Mrs. Ralph Silver present owner. French mansard, c. 1870. (Page 131) 156 157 NISBET-KOCH HOUSE. 310 S. E. First Street, Evansville, Vanderburgh County/"'^ ^'^"'*'" W. F. Nisbet original owner, Louis J. Koch present owner. French mansard, c. 1875. (Page 131) HAYES-COOK HOUSE. 421 Ridge Road, Lawrenceburg (Greendale), Dearborn County. Ezra G. Hayes original owner, A. D. Cook and Mrs. Robert Nanz later owners, Church of Christ present owner. French mansard, c. 1865-70. Hannaford and Hannaford architects. (Page 131) Carolyn E. McManaman 158 S A MPLE-HUTCHISON-LITTLE HOUSE. 311 S. Ninth Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. Robert W. Sample original owner, Paul N. Hutchison later owner, Walter G. Little last owner. French mansard, 1865-66. Razed. (Page 132) 159 MATTHEWS-CULBERTSON HOUSE. Matthews Road, Ellettsville, Monroe County. John Matthews original owner, J. Edwin Culbertson present owner. French mansard, c. 1870. (Page 132) 160 The Neo-Jacobean Mode VIII THE NEXT architectural style to appear on the American scene was derived from what was termed in England the Queen Anne Revival or the Free Classic style. It developed abroad in the first part of the 1870's and reached our shores about 1876. Its initiator was Richard Norman Shaw, of London, who, like the other architects of the time, saw in the English buildings of the first decade of the eighteenth century (when Queen Anne ruled) an agreeable amalgamation of medieval or Tudor elements with classic Renaissance ones. This transitional style had strong appeal in the 1870's when there was a tendency to achieve more order and sobriety in designing civic and domestic architecture, while retaining a certain amount of freedom and individuality of expression as well as a touch of romantic ardor. The Queen Anne designation was appropriate for buildings erected by the first architects who adopted this style because they remained close to the original models. But in less than a decade the picture had changed. Striving for originality and relying less on his- toric antecedents, the next group of architects — particularly those in America — contrived houses that had little to do with those of the days of the good Queen. In fact, as we study their architectural fea- tures today, it is evident that most of them belong to the late English medieval architectural vocabulary'— late Tudor, principally — with other elements such as French and Flemish added. For this reason the Queen Anne designation soon lost its validity, leading Norman Shaw and others to use the term 'Tree Classic," and inducing still others to suggest 'Tree Jacobean," "Modified English Style," "American Vernacular" and "Modern American Renaissance" (when the move- ment took hold in this country), "American Craftsmen Style," and "Eastlake." The last, named for Charles Locke Eastlake, English ■::SJlIi.:,! i^^ 'n:]V--t^!-!-vMi= '•' — II— (■■J- 149 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 150 architect of the time (a man primarily interested in furniture and interior design), was an inappropriate term because no architectural works by him were sufficiently well known in this country to serve as models; and matters became so confused in the i88o's (they are no better today) that no one could say exactly when a building was Queen Anne Revival in style and when it was Eastlake. For this reason, and because the movement we are now consider- ing was as vigorous and valid as any of those of the nineteenth century (and no more derivative), it seems reasonable to rechristen it 'Neo-Jacobean." This has merit in that it implies the use of archi- tectural elements that were in vogue earlier than the reign of Queen Anne — which is true — and because it might do away with the con- fusion which has persisted for at least eighty years over the terms Queen Anne Revival and Eastlake. So much for designations. What characterizes the style? In plan, elevation, fenestration, and in silhouette it reveals a striving for an independent and creative statement based on studied informality. The floor plan tends to be an irregular square, with slightly projecting sections or bays, and with rather freely arranged, but not impractical, rooms. It is of interest to note that this is typical of late medieval English houses, exteriors of which reflect shapes and positions of rooms in contrast to the classical scheme of arranging rooms within cubical boxes. Emphasis is on a new type of stair hall, which is more like a room than the Colonial axial passageway. Projecting sections give exteriors a complex and plastic character unlike any of the preceding nineteenth-century styles, a complexity which is heightened, as seen from the outside, by the variety of openings and the diversity of wall treatments. Added to this is the irregular contour of the roof with its many gables, dormers, and prominent chimneys, features stemming from Tudor or Jacobean prototypes found in England and on the Continent. The earlier expressions of this movement are houses built on the simple L plan, a rectangular block with a projection toward the street. Gable roofs of medium pitch were used, but hip roofs for the main block of the houses were more in vogue. Since, basically, this is not an unusual architectural design, wall and gable treatments The Neo-Jacohean M.^de of a special kind were used to make the house conform to this new styhstic family, as we shall see. More typically Neo-Jacobean than the L plan above is the irregu- lar square with gabled projections and bays. The roof of this type is hipped at front and back (a most unusual custom so far as the history of architecture is concerned) instead of at the lateral ends. When viewed from the street, the roof appears to be pyramidal (the ridge is short) from which gables and dormers project. Other characteristic features, such as treatment of windows and richness of wall surfacing, are better understood when we examine and compare the illustrations of the houses themselves shown herein. A good example of the Neo-Jacobean frame residence based on the L plan is the Clevenger-McConaha house at Centerville. The projeaing gable at right is undecorated except for cut, ornamented shingles and a pair of attic windows. The base of the triangular gable flares out to form a skirt or hood over the second-story window. Small panes of diamond-shaped and square glass are seen in the windows in keeping with the old English tradition; and the comers of the projection at the right are beveled below the gable to suggest a bay. Shapes and sizes of windows throughout reveal a planned and studied informality. Greater richness of roof contour was achieved in the Hanson- Dowden house in Indianapolis, which is now the headquarters of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 22. The gable roof with a deck on top has been hipped at the ends to increase the variety of planes; a secondary gable projects from the north hip, at right, beside which a prominent banded chimney rises; and a dormer breaks the front slope. The projection toward the street, at left, has a characteristic gable ornament derived from medieval roof braces, a decorative motif which is repeated in all the gables of the house, large and small. Window dressings, too, are based on English Tudor models. A relatively simple and lucid example of a residence with its main roof hipped at front and back, as described above, is the Daugherty Tobian house at Shelbyville. There are numerous similar houses throughout the state, an exceptionally attractive one being the Wees- ner-Talbert residence on West Hill Street in Wabash. Here, again. Plate 161 Plate 162 Plate 163 Plate 164 151 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century the principal roof appears to be a pyramid, though it actually has a short ridge running from front to back. The front gable has a band of ornamentally cut shingles (based on old English tile hanging) sepa- rating the second and third stories, as well as horizontal and vertical boards that divide the outer wall into panels, suggesting half-timber construction. As on many houses of this type the ornamental shingles were cut to form various patterns: fish scale, diaper, and so forth. The pseudo half-timber technique, sometimes called banding and panel- ing, was used on numerous residences of the eighties and nineties. It might be mentioned at this point that while this is an imita- tion of medieval timber construction, it is not as superficial as it might appear. The boards are not nailed over the clapboards or siding. The "timbers," about an inch and a half thick, were nailed to the studding and the clapboards were then cut to fit into the spaces between. The Shelby ville house has one corner of the front projection beveled or cut away to form a small porch or lookout, and a large second-story porch has been set into the ell. The lower half of the bargeboard is scalloped to relieve its plainness. Dormers in the main roof and a second projection at the side of the house produce the kind of varied silhouette sought by the architects of the period. Plate 165 Similar, but with another treatment of the gable face, is the Gil- more residence at Greencastle, now owned by DePauw University. The lacy bargeboard, gable panels, and porch screens (between the tops of the posts) enrich an otherwise plain house. A single banded chimney rises from the center of the roof in contrast to the multiple chimneys of some other houses in this series. Basically, this house is very similar to the Shelbyville one, above, except that the front gable projection has been moved from right to left and the beveling of the corners of the projection, seen at the side of the building, forms a bay on the first story. Plate 166 A more elaborate member of this group is the Wilson-Beck house at Washington. Richness has been achieved by scroll-saw ornaments on the gables — including the one at the peak of the hip roof — and through the use of elaborate brackets, porch railing, and soffit grilles between veranda posts — the last featuring halved cart wheels. This 1 52 last ornamental device is found on several residences of this region. The Neo-Jacohean Mode Here, again, we find one of the most characteristic features of many Neo-Jacobean houses; namely, the beveHng of the corners of the projection toward the street, thus creating a bay. Ornamental brackets, containing whole cart wheels, support the lower ends of the gable roof, which in turn form hoods over the second-floor windows in the diagonal walls. The richness of the fret work and grilles, together with the restless contour of the building, is entirely in line with the taste and ideals of the times, as are the tall, banded and paneled chimneys that add to the irregularity of the silhouette. Although less showy, the WoodfiU-Robbins house at Greensburg l^latc lOj possesses many of the same features, including the beveled projection under the gable to form a bay. It lacks the carpenter's lace in the apex of the gable but shows instead a simple roof truss, which is nonfunc- tional. While the total effect is rich, it is unified in composition and rather charming in scale and pattern. The important role played by the front porch or veranda is graph- ically illustrated by most of the houses discussed in this section. Frail posts, joined at the top by a grille of turned spindles and at the bottom by a railing, give the effect of lightness and airiness, as well as an impression of warm and unaffected hospitality, unlike the solemn and pompous mien of some other types. The Kitselman house in Muncie, Plate 168 now owned by Curtis Rector, shows another porch treatment, with curving brackets between posts and a pergola at the corner. Combining a garden arbor or pergola with a veranda was not unusual at the time. The Hill-Phillips home at Plymouth has a cross-shape floor plan, "' i6g which is unusual, and a roof that is very complex with its multiple slopes and gables. The perforated gable ornament is unusually large and rich, as are the hoods over the diagonal faces of the bay beneath. So massive a roof on a story-and-a-half house gives the impression that the walls are struggling to support excessive weight. Nevertheless, the cottage has a quaint charm. Turning again to the full two-storied residences, we find several in the state that push complexity and variety to the farthest point, yet stay within the general mold of the Neo-Jacobean architectural system. The Wood-Royse-Speisshofer house, for instance, at Warsaw is fun- P/iifc 1 jo damentally the same house as the Shelbyville example, Plate 163. The ^ 5 3 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century only new feature is the small diagonally placed gable at the left front comer. The principal gable projection at the right is considerably richer in its alternating black and white areas (solids and voids) as is the main block of the house with its complexity of porches, verandas, balconies, and so forth. This is a late example, having been built only six years before the turn of the century. An equally rich and complicated architectural composition is the Plate 1 , Redmond-Healy home at Logansport. The restlessness of dormers, porch and balcony posts, and window frames gives it a decidedly ani- mated character. It will be noticed by the reader that the protruding gable and balcony at the right is smaller than that of the Warsaw house above, but that the gabled projection placed diagonally at the front left corner is larger. Plate 172 The Hignite-Wendel house at Columbus is even livelier with its white window frames, belt courses, and filigree-like porch ornaments. The horseshoe arch on the second floor is a Moorish or East Indian feature, as is the general effect of the grille work, all of which reminds us that the American verandas were inspired by those of the East Indies. The interest taken by architects in Moorish and Oriental details dur- ing the last quarter of the nineteenth century is not only reflected in such houses as this but also is seen in the architectural magazines of the time, where special illustrated articles on exotic styles appeared at frequent intervals. The sunburst over the central projection of a porch was a popular decorative motif throughout this period. The basic plan of this house in Columbus does not differ mate- rially from such a house as that shown on Plate 164. The gabled projection at the left, facing the street, has been partially sliced away to allow for the second-floor porch and observatory' tower. The left corner has been beveled to form a balcony on the second story. A pleasant pattern of light and dark has resulted in the use of belt and sill courses that encircle the building at different levels, and the presence of elaborate grilles and railings. A brick version of the Neo-Jacobean house is well illustrated by Plate 173 the Indianapolis residence now owned by Dohrman Swearingen, with its use of gray stone blocks and bands contrasting with red bricks. This I ^ A feature is regarded as a Victorian Gothic touch, particularly when the The Neo-Jacohean Mode openings terminate in pointed arches. The bold and attractive gable ornaments are based on the old English hammer beam roof trusses, which are used here for decorative purpose only. The medieval English influence took on a slightly different aspect in many of the brick urban residences that called for greater restraint and more sedate character. This is seen in the Sowder house at Indian- Plate 1 74 apolis, a brick building which, while revealing the basic Neo-Jacobean elements which we have been discussing, has not the textured walls and open-work ornamentation so typical of wooden houses. The Tudor masonry gable has been substituted for that of frame construction; and other kinds of medieval motifs were used, such as the castellate ornament over the windows in the front gable, the square false turrets at the sides of these windows, the square porch posts with Romanesque capitals, and a general effect of sturdy massiveness. Closely related is the Schmidt-Schaf house at Indianapolis, now Pwfe 1 75 the Propylaeum. The floor plan and orientation of the building are different from the Sowder house, but both stem from early English models. Use of modeled terra cotta panels in the peak of the gables and on the stone bands adds richness, as do the capitals of the Roman- esque columns of the porch and the sculptural work around the front door. A square tower seen around the corner at the right does not have a prominent part in the total composition. Closer in plan to the frame residences previously described is the Emery-Ayres house in brick and stone at Indianapolis, with its early Plate 176 English bargeboard on the gabled section at the left. The chimneys with their vertical divisions are effective, two of which ascend on the outer faces of the north and south walls of the building. The large bay at right, balancing the gable, has a dormer in its roof and the round tower around the corner terminates in a conical roof which gives variety to the skyline. The stone belt and sill courses encircling the building add decorative distinction to the whole. Another Indianapolis house, the Tate-Willis residence, of brick Plate 1 77 and stone, is designed with a smaller tower rising from a bay near the left corner, adjoining the gable. The Palladian window in the gable and the three-part Tudor window below it combine Renaissance and old English motifs. ^55 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 156 Plate 178 The large Rogers-Krieger house at Michigan City, also built of brick, is an interesting example of a design that eliminates the project- ing gable while stressing the bold, square tower. Simple rectilinear shapes and restraint in the use of ornament result in an architectural work of great dignity. The addition of towers or turrets became common practice among American architects who worked in this idiom, although original Queen Anne Revival buildings by Richard Norman Shaw did not have them. In nearly all of our native examples the tower is at one end, rather than centered, in keeping with the desire to attain asymmetry Plate 1 7g and picturesqueness, as seen in the Dale-Zook house at Goshen. This tower is octagonal, but, as shown in following illustrations, round and square ones were equally popular. Plate 180 The octagonal tower of the Knightstown house owned by Fred- erick W. Frazier is exceptionally attractive with its panels of carved designs (known as "molded" patterns because the original late-medi- eval ones were molded in plaster) related to the ornamental treatment of the rest of the house. Additional richness has been gained by metal cresting, an octagonal cupola, and a spindle canopy or soffit band be- tween porch posts on both stories. Another imposing example is the Churchman house at Beech Grove southeast of Indianapolis. The octagonal "observation" tower assumes greater importance because of its height; and the complex roof treatment, together with dormers, chimneys, and iron cresting, attains the height of picturesqueness sought by most architects of the period. In keeping with this skyline complexity the mass of the house itself is varied, with projected and recessed blocks and planes. The Orr-Richter brick mansion in La Porte County has a tower that is placed in a central position, but the gable at left with its rich ornament has no counterpart at right. The use here of pointed arches over the windows is in keeping with the second or Victorian Gothic movement that became popular at the time, principally for civic and religious buildings. A similar residence of frame construction in Plate 18^ La Porte, built by John H. Fildes, is so similar in design and orna- mentation (although it lacks Gothicized windows) that it appears to be the work of the same architect. P]r.tr The Neo-Jacobean Mode A frame house, more in the Swiss (or Scandinavian) manner so far as the tower is concerned, is the Perrin-Steill home at Lafayette. Its Pf-nr ' >■ i gable ornament, based on hammer beam trusses of old English roof construction, is very imposing. It will be noticed that the imitation half-timber construction has been used here as on some of the examples cited previously. The tendency toward the end of the century to design houses with greater restraint and to achieve added symmetry, changed the appear- ance of many residences, even when designed in the Neo-Jacobean idiom. For instance, the Smith-Kielsmeier house at Rochester is of Plate iS^ greater sobriety without entirely abandoning a free and informal design. The tower here has been reduced to a turret, and wall surfaces are plainer. Although shingles were often used on the faces of gables throughout the Neo-Jacobean period, their use to sheathe large ex- panses of walls— and sometimes the whole house — was a peculiarity of the nineties. This treatment was especially popular among archi- tects who designed seashore cottages in the East. The gable, which heretofore has been placed at one side, now caps the whole facade, its triangular area divided into three horizontal sec- tions by two flaring skirts. The large arched and recessed porch on the second floor, the medieval turret, and the strong inclination toward restraint are influences which were being brought to bear on domestic architecture by the new Romanesque Revival movement. ^57 IX The French Romanesque Mode 158 r HE NEO -JACOBEAN movement, as we have seen, was I essentially a free interpretation of late medieval English houses, even if some of our architects of the time did not realize this in their belief that they were making original creations in keeping with the popular trend of their day. The movement we will now consider was basically French medieval in inspiration. It paral- leled the former and reached its height of popularity in the 1890's. In the case of large civic and commercial structures the style has come to be known as Richardson Romanesque, named for Henry Hobson Richardson, the outstanding architectural designer associated with this late nineteenth-century movement. A careful analysis of buildings, public and private, in our American cities leads to the conclusion that during the last two decades of the century' most residences were Neo-Jacobean (or, as we have noted, what used to be called Queen Anne and Eastlake), and most public buildings were interpretations of the French Romanesque. The reason for this seems to be that the inspiration for the former came largely from old English cottages, which are pre-eminently symbols of domestic charm and livability in most people's minds, while inspiration for the latter stemmed from ponderous and not infrequently fearsome prototypes which were better adapted to courthouses, office buildings, and schools than to private dwellings. Most medieval buildings, whether castles or abbeys, were built to serve as fortifications when the need arose, which accounts for their redoubtable and massive appear- ance and for the use of large blocks of stone. The relatively few homes that one can now classify as Romanesque Revival in style are, as they should be, large, bold, and ponderous. They are usually built of rough or rusticated blocks of stone, present- ing formidable exteriors to the passer-by, and never lacking a heavy The French Romanesque Mode round tower crowned with a cone-shaped roof. Windows are severely plain, square, or round headed, deprived of ornate lintels, and aligned rather symmetrically along the walls; doors are sometimes framed with Romanesque moldings; and porch pillars are inevitably stocky, recapturing in design and proportion what they can of their medieval predecessors. Porches resemble old arcades or cloisters, and are diamet- rically opposed to the frail verandas seen on Neo-Jacobean houses of the same period. Towers and turrets reflect their original medieval functions; name- ly, means of defense. In this respect they have a very different character when compared to the towers discussed in previous chapters of this book. Along with towers, architects of the late nineteenth century borrowed other elements such as battlements and machicolations (projecting parapets supported by corbels and having openings between the corbels through which defenders could drop missiles upon their assailants). While the massing of most Romanesque Revival houses is simple and lucid — resulting from a conscious effort on the part of architects to attain straightforward and "honest" results —there is, nevertheless, much that is romantic in conception and execution. This is especially true with regard to composite styles (Neo-Jacobean combined with Romanesque Revival) and to types based on French chateaux. A new composite type was achieved during those decades by placing a Neo-Jacobean roof and tower on a Romanesque block. The Seiberling-Kingston house at Kokomo, now owned by Indiana Uni- versity, is a striking example of this. Walls are built of rough stnne and brick, strong Romanesque arches support the porch floor and cap the windows, and two strong circular bays suggest bases of medieval towers. But the frail porch, complex roof treatment, and bell-shaped cap on the tower show the persistence of the Neo-Jacobean influence. The arcade in the tower, with heavy round arches on fragile columns, should be compared to the arcaded porches on some of the houses that follow, and that are more typically Romanesque Revival. A less complex, and perhaps more satisfying, design is the Porter- Kerrigan residence at Michigan City. It is more closely related to the French Romanesque trend than the above example, due to the rather -rLTLTl. t^^ Pcn^ B A, Battlement B, Machicolations Plate 186 i'Lilc 1S7 159 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century authentic design of its tower. Although it retains a varied skyHne of dormers, roof peaks, and chimneys, and while its porch has the airy lightness of the Neo-Jacobean, its total effect is strongly Romanesque — without, however, the use of heavy stone walls. One is tempted to divide houses of the Romanesque Revival style into two categories: the chateau type and, for lack of a better name, the abbey type. The former are not numerous in Indiana. An early and Plate 1 88 rather unique one is the large Cox-Stewart brick and stone residence at Indianapolis built in 1875-76. Its main mass is similar to late Italianate designs, especially in the treatment of windows and use of brackets under wide eaves; but the pyramidal roofs on the dormers and the steep hip roof of the main tower, are northern French or perhaps Flemish in origin, judging by existing examples in that region. Plate idg Two years earlier Hervey Bates, Jr., built his grand mansion, also at Indianapolis, which must have been inspired by the majestic cha- teaux of the Loire Valley. Towers and gables spring from a steep main roof, creating a varied and animated silhouette; windows are capped by alternating light and dark blocks (stone and brick), dormers appear in the roofs of the towers, and stone stringcourses attempt to tie the restless forms together. Here, as on the Cox-Stewart house, pseudo machicolations are used under the eaves as well as under the tims of conical tower roofs. Heavy posts and arches of the front entrance and carriage porch are in character with early French medieval structures. The second type of American domestic Romanesque is more usual in our cities. Whether built of stone or brick, it assumes the form of a cubical mass, capped with a hip roof; a large round fortresslike tower stands at one comer, balanced by what we are calling here a Tudor gable; the entrance is between them, beyond an arcaded porch. The HuU-Wiehe home at Fort Wayne is a characteristic example Piate iQ of this type in stone. The Taylor-Zent house at Huntington is almost the same design carried out in brick. A comparison of these with the typical Neo-Jacobean dwelling discussed in the last chapter shows how much more restrained and sober they are, both m relationship of archi- tectural forms and in the matter of silhouette or skyline. The tower of the Taylor-Zent building is particularly reminiscent of medieval ones, 160 with its small paired windows on the top level, a wide collar dividing The French Romanesque Mode the two upper floors, and unframed windows based on medieval pro- totypes throughout. A well-proportioned arcaded entrance ties the tower to the gabled projection on the right. More symmetrical and harmonious than any of the preceding buildings is the large Vaughan-Reath double house at Richmond. Its , z,,^^, j q , balanced twin towers, centrally located dormer and porch pediment, and symmetrically arranged windows reveal the strong tendency on the part of architects at the close of the nineteenth century to return to a more disciplined and classic approach to designing homes as well as public buildings. The extreme in midwestern Romanesque expression is reached in the Clement Studebaker mansion at South Bend, with its air of inde- Plate ig3 structibility and proud defiance. Irregular, nondressed stones set in concrete form its walls; rough stones form its arches and frame its windows (even the transoms and mullions are stone bars); and out of a complex roof arise sturdy chimneys. The large gables facing west are more Tudor than French Roman- esque, and the square tower at left is basically Neo-Jacobean, except for its turretlike bay. However, a round tower in the rear (not seen in this picture) is definitely Romanesque, as are the arches with their rough stone voussoirs (wedge-shaped blocks used in 3, series to form the arches) and clustered Romanesque colonettes supporting them. The Romanesque Revival movement expired soon after 1900. One of the last which can be dated is the SchnuU-Rauch house, 3050 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, built in 1903 for Gustav A. Schnull. Residences such as those discussed in this chapter are more to be admired for their expression of the strong individuality of their designers than for their faithfulness to original medieval examples. Their vigorous compositions mirror the people who both conceived and lived in them. If they appear to us today somewhat ostentatious and lacking in fine artistic discernment, it is because we live in a differ- ent cultural atmosphere and find it hard to comprehend that in which former generations lived. The Romanesque Revival, as a movement, was flexible and chal- lenging, and like all artistic endeavors it had its strong initiators and weak imitators. It was basically a sound and significant architectural I 6 1 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century idiom, but difficult to use in designing residences. Old fortified Euro- pean mansions were not intended to convey an impression of warm and homey domesticity. Interiors of Neo-facohean and Romanesque Revival Houses It is difficult to summarize the interior designs of residences built during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. Frequently the aim of architects and clients was to suggest, if not to imitate, such historical styles as the Elizabethan, Jacobean, ot Louis XV. But the people who wanted to be up-to-date were adopting the ideas of Charles Locke Eastlake, whom we referred to in a previous chapter, the author of a treatise on Hints on Household Taste. Eastlake advocated an honest use of materials, good craftsmanship, and originality of design, in an attempt to counteract the extravagant and lavish interiors of his day. Not only were people surrounding themselves with the strangest and most exotic decorative objects that could be found, but samplings of furniture representing different historical styles were thrown together in their rooms. A writer for the American Architect and Building News of 1876 referred to it as an age of novelties, and said that a room might contain "a Louis Quatorze cabinet, a Louis Quinze buffet, a Venetian mirror, a chest from Nuremberg, a Dutch clock, Pompeian mantel ornaments, Persian rugs, Turkish divans, and chairs in pairs gathered in out-of-the-way places from Geneva to Madrid." He failed to mention the inevitable odds and ends that came to be known as whatnots or bric-a-brac. But these items have to do with decoration rather than interior de- sign. The latter, more in line with the theme of our book on architec- ture, consists of constructional elements such as doors and windows, moldings and paneling, floors and ceilings, stairways and mantelpieces. Excluding imitative or exotic fads, it is safe to say that the tend- ency of the last quarter of the century' was to emphasize woods of high quality and of contrasting colors, and to show the greatest possible skill in carving them. Oak, walnut (black walnut), and ebonized wood apparently were the most popular, although many others were used. I O 2r Combinations devised to produce variations of color and grain were The French Romanesque Mode favored over one kind of wood throughout the interior, particularly in the composition of mantelpieces and stairways. In addition to being carved — either in the incised intaglio method or in relief — the wooden members were frequently inlaid. The average door and window of the period were framed in a rela- tively plain way, jambs and top rails being a series of moldings mitred at the top corners. In better houses a paneled dado or wainscot would be used in the hall, and perhaps in the dining room and library. Other- wise it was customary to hang paper, richly colored and boldly pat- terned, on the walls. The tops of walls terminated with an elaborate frieze and cornice in the grand houses, but patterned bands of papers served as cornices in the majority of cases. Stair halls were large squarish rooms, and unlike Colonial or Federal houses, they did not extend the full width of the building. The stairways were usually heavy in appearance, if not massive, with large newel posts, thick balusters, and handrails. Plate 1 71 Mantelpieces were admittedly the principal decorative feature among interior constructional elements. Their most marked peculiar- ity, when compared to mantelpieces of previous decades of the nine- teenth century, was the large and elaborate over-mantel construction, rising from the mantel shelf to the ceiling, and incorporating a large beveled mirror, sometimes shelves at the sides for books or bric-a- brac, and carved ornamentation. In the costly manorial residences they became unbelievably elaborate and complex. Decorated tiles framed the fireplace openings. A restrained example was in the Boyd-Love residence in Indianapolis, now razed. Plate 17^ Throughout these houses there appeared a distinct manner of designing and treating wood members which was unlike anything that preceded or followed. Posts or shafts (one hesitates to use the word column m speakmg of them) had parts which were turned on a lathe alternating with square sections — -or with square sections having beveled corners. The ' square-molded" parts were sometimes grooved or decorated with incised floral patterns. Such posts are seen on veran- das, around fireplaces, and on large pieces of furniture; and together with panels having similar incised patterns — or perhaps "molded" designs carved in relief — they constituted a blockish, angular ensemble 1^3 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century which has long been characterized as "Eastlake" by cabinetmakers and architects, both in this country and abroad. This period which we are surveying was pre-eminently one of skilful woodworking. The lathe, the jigsaw, the molding cutter were some of the mechanical tools available to the carpenter-craftsman which, together with his hand tools, enabled him to turn out com- plex architectural elements with apparent ease. We should not close this analysis of the characteristic features of these interiors without mentioning that this was the time of extensive use of materials other than wood. Stamped leather of dark colors and relieved with gold was fashionable, particularly for dados and friezes; embossed wallpapers were popular, if one could afford them; stained or art glass was inserted in windows on stair landings and sometimes in dining rooms; and floors were customarily covered from wall to wall with boldly figured Brussels or Wilton carpets. 164 i6i ■|^i<^_^b. /^^if'^S^^H H^^nl n^' r^ UK p yfj^^^^^m ^p^^% ^^^^Jl^l VJ^m^SBifl BbH B^Mi ^^mi^^i^^pH j^^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^^^^^l CLHVENGER-McCONAHA HOUSE. 200 S. Spruce Street, Centerville, Wayne County. Thomas Clevenger original owner, Mrs. O. T. McConaha present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1887. (Page 151) HANSON- DOWDEN HOUSE. 1050 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Julius A. Hanson and Samuel Dowden former owners, Structural Iron Workers Local Union No. 22 present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875-80. (Page 151) 162 DAUGHERTY-TOBIAN HOUSE. 138 W. Broadway, Shelbyville, Shelby County. Harvey H. Daugherty former owner Morris Tobian present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1880. (Page 151) 163 WEESNER-TALBERT HOUSE. 313 W. Hill Street, Wabash, Wabash Count^^ Clark Weesner original owner, William H. Talbert present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Pages 151-52) 164 GILMORE HOUSE. 212 S. Vine Street, Greencastle, Putnam County. Frank Gilmore original owner, DePauw University present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 152) 165 WILSON-BECK HOUSE. 103 E. National Highway 50, Washington, Daviess County. Nelson H. Wilson, original owner, Doris Beck present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1896. J. W. Gaddis architect. (Page 152) 166 WOODFILL-ROBBINS HOUSE. 529 N. East Street, Greensburg, Decatur County. Charles M. Woodfill original owner, Louise Robhms present owner. Neo-]acohean, 1885-90. (Page 153) 167 KITSELMAN-RECTOR HOUSE. 521 W. Adams Street, Muncie, Delaware County. Alva L. Kitselman original owner, Curtis V. Rector present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1885-90. (Page 153) 168 HILL-PHILLIPS HOUSE. 713 N. Michigan Street, Plymouth, Marshall County. Fred Hill original owner, Harvey E. Phillips present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1892. (Page 153) 169 WOOD-ROYSE- SPEISSHOFER HOUSE. 202 Detroit Street, Warsaw, Kosciusko County. Charles Wood original owner, L. W. Royse later owner, Mrs. Carl F. (Florence Royse) Speisshofer present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1894. (Pages 153-54) 170 REDMOND-HEALY HOUSE. 912 North Street, Logansport. Cass County. John E. Redmond original owner, Mrs. Nora R. M. Healy present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1890. (Page 154) 'f. Staircase, Boyd-Love House, ^ Indianapohs, no longer standing 171 HIGNITE-WENDEL HOUSE. 640 Eighth Street, Columbus, Bartholomew County. Sebert Hignite original owner, Walter Wendel later owner. First Methodist Church present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 154") 172 Fireplace, Boyd-Love House, Indianapolis, no longer standing MORRIS-SWEARINGEN HOUSE. 1422 Broadway, Indianapolis, Marion County. Charles Morris early owner, Dohrman Swearingen present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1890. (Pages 154-55) xfr'i^ SHEPHERD-SOWDER HOUSE. 437 E. New York Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Bertha M. Shepherd former owner, Robert D. Sowder present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 155) 174 175 ^^^ 1 :4i M .Wmf:-: W&^A SCHMIDT-SCHAF HOUSE. 1410 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. John W. Schmidt original owner, Joseph C. Schaf later owner, The Propylaeum present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1890. (Page 155) EMERY- AYRES HOUSE. 1204 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. George Emery original owner, Lyman S. Ayres and Frederic M. Ayres later owners, Arthur Jordan Foundation present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1878. Robert P. Daggett architect. (Page 155) 176 TATE-WILLIS HOUSE. 228 N. East Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Warren Tate original owner, Cecil L. Willis present owner. Neo-Jacohean, c. 1890. Charles G. Mueller architect. (Page 155) 177 ROGERS-KRIEGER HOUSE. 701 Washington Street, Michigan City, La Porte County. Nathaniel P. Rogers original owner, George Rogers later owner, Mrs. George M. Krieger present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1890. (Page 156) 178 DALE-ZOOK HOUSE. 114 S. Fifth Street, Goshen, Elkhart County. J. M. Dale original owner, W. A. Dale later owner, Mrs. Dorothy Dale Zook present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1885. (Page 156) 179 BARRETT-FRAZIER HOUSE. 116 N. Jefferson Street, Knightstown, Henry County. Simon Barrett original owner, Frederick W. Frazier present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1891. (Page 156) 180 CHURCHMAN HOUSE, "Hillside." 5201 E. Churchman Avenue, Indianapolis, Marion Count)^ Francis M. Churchman origmal owner, Frank L. Churchman present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1871. Dietrich A. Bohlen architect. (Page 156) 181 ORR-RICHTER HOUSE. Small Road east of Summit Road, La Porte County. William Orr original owner, Mrs. Irene Paine Richter present owner. Victorian Gothic, c. 1875. (Page 156) 182 FILDES-WILSON HOUSE. 209 State Street, La Porte, La Porte County. John H. Fildes, Jr., original owner, Robert Wilson later owner. White Nursing Home present owner. Neo-Jacobean, c. 1875. (Page 156) PERRIN-STEILL HOUSE. 1509 Cason Street, Lafayette, Tippecanoe County. William Perrin original owner, Gerry Steill present owner. Neo-Swiss, 1879. William Perrin and brother carpenter-builders. (Page 157} 184 D,tvid ir. Piat SMITH-KIELSMEIER HOUSE. 730 Pontiac Street, Rochester, Fulton County. Omer Smith original owner, Karl Kielsmeier present owner. Neo-Jacobean, 1888. (Page 157) 185 Dcrsrt O. riomji i86 SEIBERLING-KINGSTON HOUSE. 1200 W. Sycamore Street, Kokomo, Howard Couiuy. Monroe Seiberling original owner, George Kingston later owner, Indiana University present owner. Neo-Jacohean-Romanesque Revival, 1889-90. Arthur LaBelle architect. (Page 159) PORTER-KERRIGAN HOUSE. Washington and Tenth streets, Michigan City, La Porte County. Charles Porter original owner, Lucille Kerrigan present owner. Romanesque Revival, c. 1895. (Pages 159-60) 187 Indianapolis Star COX-STEWART HOUSE. looo N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Milton Cox original owner, Daniel Stewart later owner, Riley General Insurance Company present owner. Romanesque Revival, chateau type, 1876. (Page 160) 188 Indianapolis Star BATES-MCGOWAN HOUSE. 1305 N. Delaware Street, Indianapolis, Marion County. Hervey Bates, Jr., original owner, Elijah B. Martindale and Hugh McGowan later owners, Knights of Columbus present owner. Romanesque Revival, chateau type, 1874. William L. Jenney architect. (Page 160) 189 HULL-WIEHE HOUSE. 721 W.Wayne Street, Fort Wayne, Allen County. L. O. Hull original owner, Ferdinand H. Wiehe present owner. Romanesque Revival, c. 1890. Wing and Mahurin architects. (Page 160) 190 TAYLOR-ZENT HOUSE. Tipton and Jefferson streets, Huntington, Huntington County. Enos Taylor original owner, Mrs. Herbert Zent later owner, Harley M. Briggs and Mrs. Mildred Hurdle present owners. Romanesque Revival, 1898-1900. (Pages 160-61) VAUGHAN-REATH HOUSE. Double, 33-35 N. Tenth Street, Richmond, Wayne County. Frank C. Vaughan and Mrs. Mary Vaughan Reynolds original owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Reath present owners. Romanesque Revival, 1896. (Page 161) 192 STUDEBAKER HOUSE. 620 W. Washmgton Street, South Bend, St. Joseph County. Clement Studebaker original owner, City of South Bend present owner. Romanesque Revival, 1886. Cobb and Frost architects. (Page 161) Devon Phelps 193 X Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century As PREVIOUSLY NOTED, most designing and construc- l—\ tion of residences in the first part of the nineteenth century jL. \- was done by master carpenters and brick masons with the help of builders' manuals. However, pubhc buildings and large dwellings or "mansions" usually required trained architects, and if qualified men were not to be found in certain communities, they could be, and were, called from larger cities both in the state and beyond its borders. Berry R. Sulgrove, in his History of Indianapolis and Marion County (1884), states that in the capital city in the 1830's, "Not much was needed of that order of skill [architecture] , as houses were chiefly frame, and whatever they were in material they were sure to be the same square, plain structures, with no more conception of ornament or variety, even of paint, than a saw-log." This observation was made by historian Sulgrove apropos of the arrival in 1833 of John Elder, first resident architect of Indianapolis (the town was only twelve years old at the time). Elder had been living in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, his native city, and learning of the competition for designs for a state cap- itol, he made his initial contact with Indianapolis, and even though the scheme he submitted was not selected, he removed to this town. The contract to design the statehouse was awarded to one of the best-known architects in America, Ithiel Town, a partner of Andrew J. Davis, New York. His plan called for a Doric temple, strongly echoing the ancient Greek models except for a large dome on the roof. It was completed in 1835, and in all probability was the first temple- type Greek Revival building in Indiana. It received much favorable comment, but within twenty years it began to go to pieces. The soft stone and stucco steadily crumbled until the building became both unsafe and unsightly and had to be torn down. The present State- house was built between 1878 and 1888. I 8 I Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century In the following summary of the activities of architects we will concern ourselves primarily with men who were qualified to designate themselves as such, in contrast to carpenters, masons, and master builders. According to the historical sketch by Lee Burns, Early Archi- tects and Builders of Indiana (1935), the earliest designers and builders in the state known by name were Hugh and William Shaw who erected Isaac White's home, "White Hall," near Vincennes in 181 1. The designation of them as master carpenters, as the author does, implies that in addition to doing the woodwork they supervised the general construction and may have drawn up the original plans and elevations — a relatively easy task in this case. At the time White's home was being built, Dennis Pennington was erecting the pleasing stone courthouse at Corydon, which later was used for a few years as the state capitol. Fortunately, it is still standing and cared for as a historical shrine. "White Hall" was torn down many years ago. The next men we hear about are John E. Baker and James Paxton who erected the first Marion County Courthouse at Indianapolis between 1823 and 1824, and Peter Johnson whose name is given as the architect for South Bend's first courthouse (1832). Johnson was both builder and cabinetmaker. We know practically nothing about Mathew Temperly who, with his sons William and John, built the McKee-Powell-White house at Madison (Plate 5); and the same can be said of Edwin J. Peck, designer and builder of the original Second Presbyterian Church at Madison (1835), one of the most charming Greek Revival structures in the state, now used as the city's com- munity center. To these isolated names we might add that of Charles B. Freeman, who with his son Thomas built the pleasing John W. Wright house west of Vevay in 1836 (Plate 43). They were experienced shipbuilders and carpenters from Nantucket, who had arrived in Vevay in 1818. When we get into the next decade, that of the 1840's, the picture is clearer — at least less fragmentary — so far as architects and their work is concerned. Some half dozen men who can qualify as knowl- edgeable architectural designers and building supervisors have taken I O 2 up residence in the state. And enough work is known to help us form Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century a fairly clear picture of their abilities. They are John Elder (mentioned above), Francis Costigan, George H. Kyle, Joseph Willis, Edwin May, and Henr)' Williams. John Elder was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 2, 1796. In the 1820's he was livmg and working in and around his native city, but, as mentioned above, the announcement of the com- petition for designs to be used in the erection of the state capitol at Indianapolis attracted his attention, and he not only submitted a scheme but he decided in 1833 to make this his home. His activities are better known to us todav than those of most architects because most of his account books and diaries have been preserved. They served as the material for an article by Kenneth Loucks, "John Elder: Pioneer Builder," in the Indiana Magazine of History, March, 1930. His buildings were almost entirelv public structures such as stores, banks, hospitals, churches, courthouses, and prisons. Only one residence is recorded, the one he built for Henn,' Ward Beecher in Indianapolis, which has long since disappeared. Like many others of his day. Elder joined the California gold rush in 1850, and died in Sacramento seven years later. Judging by the superior qualitj' of his work, Francis Costigan was the state's outstanding architect in those formative years. He was born in Washington, D. C, about 18 10; he worked as a carpenter- builder in Baltimore and doubtless learned there the rudiments of an architect's trade; he came west and settled in Madison in 1837. The town was growing prosperous, and Costigan was able to meet the challenge of designing and erecting residences and other buildings worthy of the community' and its citizens. Much of his work there and in the near-by region has yet to be identified, while the tendency of people to assign houses to him without substantial evidence has added to the problem of accurately cataloguing his life's work. His finest residences in Madison are the James F. D. Lanier mansion (Plates 73 and 74) and the Charles Shrewsbury' house (Plate 72), both built in the 1840's. In his own home on West Third Street in Madi- son he solved the interesting problem of fitting a stately dwelling onto a very narrow lot. St. Michael's Catholic Church, which was started just before Costigan arrived in Madison, was taken over by him and I 8 ^ Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century 184 completed in 1839. How much he contributed to its final appearance is not known. It is a Gothic Revival building (the earliest in the state) and the report that Costigan supervised its construction at a time when he was immersed in the spirit of the Greek idiom is intriguing. In 1851 Costigan left Madison for Indianapolis. He was asked to serve as supervising architect of the Institute for the Blind, replac- ing John Elder; later he assumed the same duties in connection with the Hospital for the Deaf and Dumb and the Hospital for the Insane, the last having been begun by Joseph Curzon and Joseph Willis. He also designed the original Odd Fellows Building. All of these have been razed, and several residences which he built have met the same fate. He died in Indianapolis in 1865. George H. Kyle's career began at Vevay around 1840. He was a native of Virginia. His works suggest that he had had some sound architectural training because of their superior craftsmanship and good design. This is especially true of the Dearborn County Court- house at Lawrenceburg and the Baptist Church at Vevay. Private residences in Vevay built from his designs are the Ulysses P. Schenck house (Plate 70), the old Thiebaud home (replaced by a filling station), the Hill-Craig house, and the large Benjamin F. Schenck dwelling. These range in dates from about 1845 to 1873, and strik- ingly reveal the evolution of an architect's taste from the Greek Revival to the late Italianate style — the same evolution Costigan went through during the same years. In 1885 Kyle left Vevay for Memphis, Tennessee, where he died in 1895. Joseph Willis appears but vaguely among the architects of the 1840's, since dates and places of his birth and death are not known. He was at Logansport around 1840, erecting the courthouse, but after a couple of years he was released from the contract, presumably because he was unable to complete the building at his estimated cost. In 1847, in Indianapolis, he replaced John Elder as architect for the Hospital for the Insane, but five years later was replaced in turn by Joseph Curzon. The old Masonic Hall that stood diag- onally across the street from the statehouse was Willis' most pop- ular creation. In contrast to Willis, Edwin May is a more distinct personality. Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century He was born at Boston in 1824. When he was about sixteen years of age his parents brought him to Madison, Indiana, and then, a few years later, to IndianapoHs. He started his architectural pro- fession early. In 1849 he had the contract to build the courthouse at Franklin based on drawings by John Elder, which suggest that he got his training in Elder's drafting room. One might reasonably dub May a courthouse builder; he designed and built six in the state, not counting the one at Franklin. He also won the competition for the new statehouse at Indianapolis, but he died in 1880 soon after the first stage of its construction was under way. If he took time to design private dwellings, none have survived, or if they have, they are not now identifiable as his work. Henry Williams, the last of the architects of the 1840's men- tioned above, practiced in Fort Wayne. Practically nothing is known of his life except a report that he came from the South. He appears on the architectural scene in 1838 as the designer of the Hugh McCulIoch residence at Fort Wayne and he later designed and built the imposing Samuel Hanna homestead in 1845 in the same city (Plate 38). Both reveal exceptional skill and ability. As might be expected, the rapid growth of population in the years before and after the Civil War resulted in an equally rapid increase in available architectural talent. In the 1850's Indianapolis had six professional architects: Francis Costigan, William Tinsley, Dietrich A. Bohlen, Isaac Hodgson, Joseph Curzon, and Edwin May. In Madison, one of Indiana's most prosperous and progressive towns, there were the partners Cochran and Pattie (Costigan had left for Indianapolis in 1851); and in near-by Lawrenceburg Jesse Hunt was practicing. At Evansville, a competing river town, there were James Roquet and Robert Byrd. Samuel McElfatrick was beguming his work at Fort Wayne as the decade of the fifties came to a close; and J. T. Smith of Rush County received recognition on the basis of his drawings for the Jeremiah Beckner house (Plate 142) which won a prize at the Indiana State Fair of 1852. In the i86o's the number of architects (or at least of designers who called them- selves architects) triples. The Indianapolis directories list a total of eighteen compared to the six in the preceding decade. Five of these I O 5 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century six who continued to practice are included in the eighteen, Tinsley being the only one no longer listed. In other towns over the state the same situation prevailed. Space does not permit lengthy biographical sketches, but some remarks about a few of the men might be of interest. Of the Indian- apolis group named above, Francis Costigan and Edwin May have already been discussed. William Tinsley, a native of Ireland (born at Clonmel in 1804), was in Cincinnati before coming to Indiana with his family in 1853 or 1854. He was attracted to Indianapolis by the prospect of designing and building Northwestern Christian University. His work in Indiana included Center Hall at Wabash College and Christ Church at Indianapolis, the last regarded as Tin- sley's finest ecclesiastical building in America by John D. Forbes, author of Victorian Architect: the Life and Work of William Tinsley (1953). Sulgrove, in his History of Indianapolis, speaks of the architect's designs of asylums and better business blocks, but few of these can be identified now. Dietrich A. Bohlen, whose name appears in the first Indianapolis directory (1857), came to the town in 1853. He was born near Hannover, Germany, in 1827, migrated to the United States in 1852, reaching Indianapolis a year later. He was in Costigan's draft- ing room a short time before establishing his own practice. The firm he established has been in operation since his time, having been successfully continued by his son and grandson. To list all of Bohlen's work, and that of his firm, during the five decades of the nineteenth century is beyond the scope of this review. Residences designed by him are fewer than public buildings, and only four or five can now be identified. Two of his most distinguished designs have been razed: the E. C. Atkins and J. C. Ferguson homes that formerly stood on North Meridian Street, Indianapolis. Two others, still standing, are included in this book: the Morris-Butler- Pace house (Plate 155) and the large Churchman place (Plate 181). Isaac Hodgson and Joseph Curzon, the remaining two of the six Indianapolis architects of the 1850's, deserve more recognition than they have received in the past — and also more than they will get here. x86 Both were born abroad: Hodgson in Belfast, Ireland, in 1826, and Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century Curzon in Derbyshire, England. They were about the same age, they arrived here around the same time — in the early 1850's — and they must have been competitors for a number of good commissions which were awarded for public and private structures at that time. Both practiced in and around Indianapolis until the mid-eighties. Hodgson built a number of county courthouses in the state, in- cluding the second one at Indianapolis, as well as college buildings (Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute, for instance) and other institutional structures. In the i88o's he had as his partners Charles A. Wallingford and John H. Stem, both of whom had been operating independently here before the merger. Many private dwellings de- signed by Hodgson and his firm are known by the names of their original owners, through listings in the then current architectural magazines such as the Inland Architect and Builder. However, few of them are still standing or can now be identified. Curzon's first important commission was the city's first union railway station, replaced by the present formidable Romanesque structure in 1888. His well-designed Second Presbyterian Church has also disappeared from the Indianapolis scene. One of his most impos- ing residences, the Albert E. Fletcher house, still stands, however, on North Pennsylvania Street (Plate 137). Nearly every large town in the state had its local architect or master builder during the decade following the Civil War. Most of them are listed in the city directories (when there were directories) or in the Indiana State Gazetteer, but in very few cases can their work be identified. A cursory list would be: J. K. Prick and Henry Mursinna (designer of the Heilman house, Plate 138) at Evansville; Samuel McElfatrick and D. J. Silver at Fort Wayne; Jesse Hunt at Lawrence- burg; S. Marsh and John L. Smithmyer at South Bend (Smithmyer designed the fine old courthouse there which was completed in 1866); Joseph Brown at Lafayette; A. W. Cornell, George Hoover, and Arte- mus Roberts at Richmond; A. M. Connett and his brother at Madi- son; and James A. W. Koonz at New Albany. The scene becomes so complex in the last quarter of the nine- teenth century that only a suggestion of the extent of architectural activity will be made here. Increasing population, growing wealth, I 8*7 Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century and swelling ambitions throughout America were reflected in what now appears as a building fever of large commercial and civic build- ings, as well as costly and pretentious houses. In 1870 the editor of Architectural Review and Builder's Journal anticipated this building boom in this observation: The season before us is one of great promise^ whatever dearth ofoffce business may exist compared with former years. Therefore, there is no reason for despondency among architects generally. There is tmlimited capital in the country ready for investment, and there is likewise a growing comprehension of the greatness which vast, chaste and elegant construction confers upon a rising nation like ours. To the roster of architects in Indianapolis in this period several names were added. Some of the established men had died or moved away, but a dozen or more younger (and in many cases better-trained) ones arrived in the capital city between 1870 and 1900. One who became conspicuous and who established another local "dynasty," was Robert P. Daggett, one of whose fine residences is included in the illustrations (Plate 176). Others were William H. Brown, designer of the old Vance Block and the Dr. Luther D. Waterman residence in Indianapolis, both now razed; George W. Bunting, another designer of county courthouses (at Crawfordsville, Washington, and Liberty), and presumably some dwellings; B. V. Enos, whose specialty seems to have been churches; Bernard Vonnegut, whose partner in the 1890's was Arthur Bohn; Louis Gibson, of Ketcham and Gibson, who, in addition to being an architect, wrote an essay on Indiana art which included a section on architects and architecture; Adolf Scherrer who was in Edwin May's drafting room and succeeded May in the erection of the statehouse, and who designed many educa- tional and religious buildings; and Herbert W. Foltz, who appears on the scene not long before the century comes to a close. Out through the state activity was equally great and the increase of new architectural talent likewise marked in the seventies and fol- lowing decades. Records indicate that Fort Wayne had the largest number of resident architects outside Indianapolis, including F. B. and Charles E. Kendrick, J. F. Wing and Marshall S. Mahurin X 8 8 (designers of the HuU-Wiehe house, Plate 190), H. M. Matson and Indiana Architects of the Nineteenth Century Brentwood S. Tolan (designers of the Allen County Courthouse), and Alfred Grindle. Two of the leading Richmond architects were William S. Kauf- man and John A. Hasecoster; Arthur LaBelle practiced in Marion and Kokomo (see Plate 186); A. D. Mohler at Huntington; John Link and H. L. Nichols at Bloomington; James F. Alexander, George S. Brown, and Alonzo Fleming at Lafayette; and S. R. Berry at Pern. Active in Muncie were George H. Keeler and Edwin M. Cramer; Joseph E. Grain, of Grain and Krutch, and J. H. Rhodes were work- ing at Logansport; W. H. Floyd (Floyd and Stone), Charles N. Gould, and Alfred N. Austin at Terre Haute (Austin was selected to design the Indiana Building at the Columbian Exposition of 1893); also in Terre Haute — and in Evansville — was Josse A. Vrydagh, a native of Belgium, who was well known as a designer of schools and courthouses; John W. Hammond was at Frankfort and J. N. Jones at Goshen. J. W. Gaddis of Vincennes designed two houses which can be identified now as his work, both in Washington (see Plates 150 and 166); N. Weaver and his son practiced at Elkhart; George Pearson was at Attica, where several of his houses are identified by names of owners in the Inland Architect and Builder in the mid-eighties; and James W. Reid and his brother Merritt of Evansville built residences in Henderson, Kentucky, and in Princeton and other southwestern Indiana towns. Reid was one of the charter members of the Indiana Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, organized at Indian- apolis in May, 1884. The formation of the Indiana Chapter was a significant milestone in the history of architecture in the state. It helped to give architects a more professional standing in their communities by regulating practices based on high principles, good craftsmanship, and superior design. The nine charter members were Isaac Hodgson, C. A.Walling- ford, J. H. and A. H. Stem, J. W. Reid, Charles Eppinghausen, B. V. Enos, Charles Miller, and F. W. Vogdes. The last three were associ- ate members. Wallingford was elected president. In spite of the many first-rate architects in Indiana several good commissions went to out-of-state men during the nineteenth century. I O Q Indiana Houses of the Nineteenth Century Mention has already been made of Ithiel Town, of New York, who designed the statehouse in 1831. William LeBaron Jenney, noted Chi- cago architect, designed the imposing Bates-McGowan residence at Indianapolis (Plate 189); and Bruno Schmitz, of Coblenz, Germany, submitted the winning plans for the Soldiers and Sailors Monument. In other cities of the state we find, for instance, that W. Russell West, of Cincinnati, designed the Episcopal Church at Madison (1850); Sidney J. Osgood, of Grand Rapids, planned the First Pres- byterian Church at Richmond; Cicero Hine, Chicago architect, built the George Brown residence at Chesterton; Samuel Haimeford of Cincinnati designed the First Baptist Church at Muncie, as well as residences at Lawrenceburg, including the fine Hayes-Cook house (Plate 158); E. O. Falls of Toledo built the Montgomery County Courthouse at Crawfordsville; while Cobb and Frost of Chicago were the designers of the ostentatious mansion at South Bend built for Clement Studebaker (Plate 193). Another Chicago architect and builder, T. Tilly, drew up plans for the large Anson Wolcott house at Wolcott (Plate 140), according to the recently published Wolcott Centennial History. 190 Acknowledgments A BOUT ten years ago the Indiana Historical Society under- /_ took a statewide survey of Indiana nineteenth-century JL \^ architecture. Many persons throughout the state have gen- erously co-operated in this project, and a large file of material has been gathered. This has been of great help to the author in the prep- aration of the present volume. All of the material that has been collected will be preserved in the Indiana Historical Society's library along with the correspondence, photographs, and other items that the author has assembled in his research. The help of the following persons in this undertaking is gratefully acknowledged. Margaret W. Askren, Indianapolis; Mrs. Otto Baker, West La- fayette; Will Ball, Logansport; R. E. Banta, Crawfordsville; Cecil Beeson, Sr., Hartford City; Evelyn Bevan, Mooresville; Mrs. James A. Bevan, Crown Point; Margaret Billingsley, Rising Sun; Mrs. George W. Blair, Mishawaka; Thomas R. Booher, Muncie; Bob Brant, Shelbyville; Mrs. Yale Butler, Franklin; Viola Macy Butts, Winchester; Bernice Carver, Columbia City; Orpheus O. Cauble, Salem; Peter Certia, Fort Wayne; Mrs. Mabelle Nichols Collins, New Albany; Hermine W. Colson, Bluffton; Mrs. Ruth Demmary Cowgill, Williamsport; Lulie Davis, Salem; Virgil E. Davis, Brook- ville; Mrs. Fred Deal, La Grange; Mrs. C. R. Demmary, Williams- port; Thomas J. Dillingham, Boonville (deceased); Clyde F. Dreis- bach. Fort Wayne; Clarence A. Dryden, Hanover; Edward R. Dun- lap, Plymouth; Mrs. Bess V. Ehrmann, Rockport; Helen Elliott, New Harmony; Mrs. Alfred N. Ellis, Dana; Kate D. Emery, Bed- ford; Howard Ewbank, Rushville (deceased); Charles H. Fieldhouse, Elkhart; Pearl Finley, Brazil; W. A. Gumberts, Evansville; Catherine T. Geisel, Williamsport; Mrs. Lora Gore, Shelbyville; Frederick P. Griffin, Corydon; Theodore G. Gronert, Crawfordsville; James IQI Acknowledgments Guthrie, Bedford; Mrs. James F. Halberstadt, Sr., Decatur; C. V. Haworth, Kokomo; Harry C. Hougham, Franklin (deceased); Paul Huber, Greensburg; Mrs. Harry V. Hyatt, Washington; Mrs. Car- roll A. Johnson, Bedford; Mrs. Louis Johnson, Attica; Mrs. William R. Johnson, Martinsville; Mrs. J. J. Kemper, Morristown; Mrs. Rue Green, La Porte; Julie LeClerc Knox, Vevay; Roscoe R. Leak, Liz- ton; Mrs. W. H. Lykins, Covington; Alameda McCullough, La- fayette; Mrs. James T. McManaman, Lawrenceburg; Mrs. Frank E. Martin, Bedford; Mrs. B. B. Mayhill. Delphi; M. D. Meiser, Elk- hart; James P. MuUin, Brookville; William D. Murray, Lawrence- burg; C. W. Nelson, Chesterton; Arthur C. Nordhoff, Jasper; Jane M. North, Rising Sun; Lamont O'Harra, New Castle; Margaret E. Paddock, Greenwood; Ethel R. Palmer, Rising Sun; Juliet Peddle, Terre Haute; Walter Pickart, Gary; Carrie E. Pierce, Greencastle; Mary Myrtle Posey, Rockport; Mrs. Blanche Richey, Shelbyville; J. Ray Ross, Columbus; Mrs. Paul L. Ross, Richmond; Jennie A, Russ, Michigan City; Ruby Tate Rynearson, Connersville; Mrs. A. G. Saxon, Connersville; Lorenz Schumm, La Porte (deceased); Goldie Shanahan, Rising Sun; Mary Shultz, Logansport; Dr. A. B. Smith, Elkhart; Mrs. Clara Crawford Smith, Williamsport; Harry M. Smith, Connersville; Mrs. Norbert Smith, Valparaiso; Ruth Helen Snyder, Rockville; William H. Stemm, Elkhart; Elsa Strass- weg. New Albany; Mary Toohy, Rising Sun; Mrt,. Harry T. Watts, Vincennes; Mrs. William West, Peru; Vesper Wilkinson, Peru; John T. Windle, Madison; Mrs. Walter Wintin, Shelbyville; Elmo S. Wood, New Castle; Wilk H. Works, Vevay; Harold Zisla, South Bend. 192 Index by Towns Arlington, 126; Plate 142 Attica, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 123; Plates 42, 60, 69, 71 Aurora, 126-27; Plate 143 Avoca, 18 Battle Ground, 92; Plate 92 Bedford, 15, 16 Bentonville, 118-19; Plate 98 Bloomington, 14, 15; Plates II, 15 Brazil, 121; Plate 108 Brimfield, 45 Bristol, 45; Plates 46, 48 Brookville, 13-14, 16, 17, 130; Plates 8, 19, 147 Cambridge City, 17, 48, 127; Plates 62, 145 Cannelton, 13 Centerville, 14-15, 91, 151; Plates 13, 89, 161 Chesterfield, 16 Chesterton, 190 Clinton, 121, 122; Plate 118 Cloverdale, 93-94; Plate 93 Columbus, 154; Plate 172 Connersville, 18, 41, 126; Plates 26, 30, 139 Corydon, 11, 13, 182; Plate 3 Crawfordsville, 14, 16, 43, 44, 46, 88-89, ^^3' ^9°'' Plates 10, 17, 36, 39, 84, 122 Danville, 87; Plate 77 Delphi, 46, 88, 125; Plates 53, 83, 134 Dublin, 18, 47; Plates 25, 57 Dupont, 46; Plate 49 Edinburg, 123, 124; Plate 127 Ellettsville, 132; Plate 160 Evansville, 49, 123, 126, 130-31, 131-32, 187; Plates 68, 123, 138, 148, 152, 153. 157 Fairbanks, Plate 83 Fairfield (Oakford), Plate 109 Fort Wayne, 13, 16, 43, 44, 47-48, 123, 125, 126, 160, 185, 188-89; Plates 38, 61, 124, 190 Fountain City, li; Plate 4 Franklin, 87; Plate 79 Glenwood, 46; Plate 52 Goshen, 41-42, 126-27, 156; Plates 31, 144, 179 Greencastle, 152; Plates 146, 165 Greenfield, 118; Plate 97 Greensburg, 87, 120, 153; Plates 75, 102, 167 Guilford, 13 Hagerstown, 119; Plate 99 Hanover, 13, 87; Plate 78 Hartford, 15, 42; Plate 33 193 Indi ex 194 Howe, 45; Plate 45 Huntington, 122, 160-61; Plates 121, 191 Indianapolis, 94, 121, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 151, 154-55, 156, 160, 161, 186, 187, 188, 190; Plates no, III, 112, 129, 133, 137, 151, 155, 162, 171, 17?. 174. 175. 176, 177, 181, 188, 189 Jasper, 17; Plate 21 Jeffersonville, 16-17; Plate 20 Kendallville, 122; Plate 117 Knightstown, 92, 120, 131, 156; Plates 91, 156, 180 Kokomo, 120, 121, 159; Plates 104, 109, 186 Laconia, 37, 38; Plate 29 Lafayette, 42, 44, 88, 121, 122, 125, 132, 157: Plates 32, 41, 82, 114, 159, 184 La Porte, 14, 120, 156; Plates 12, 105, 182, 183 Laurel, 13 Lawrenceburg, lo-li, 13, 119, 125, 126, 131-32, 190; Plates 2, loi, 135, 158 Lewisville, 47 Liberty, 47, 123-24; Plate 128 Logansport, 42-43, 94, 121, 122, 123, 125, 154; Plates 35, 113, 119, 132, 171 Madison, 11-12, 12-13, 15, 38, 40, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 182, 183-84, 190; Plates 5, 6, 7, 14, 19, 28, 44, 54, 67, 72, 73, 74 Marion, 42; Plate 34 Michigan City, 156, 159-60; Plates 178, 187 Michigantown, 120; Plate 103 Muncie, 153, 190; Plate 168 New Albany, 39, 119, 122, 123, 131; Plates 100, 120, 125, 154 Newburgh, 15-16; Plate 16 New Carlisle, 94, 126; Plate 141 New Castle, 49; Plate 66 New Harmony, 46, 89; Plates 55, 86 New Haven, 44; Plate 40 Newport, 95 Noblesville, 18; Plate 23 North Vernon, 43; Plate 37 Oakford, see Fairfield Oldenburg, 13 Paoli, 40 Patriot, II Pennville, 90; Plate 88 Perrysville, 47, 48; Plates 59, 64 Peru, 46, 130; Plates 50, 149 Plymouth, 153; Plate 169 Raleigh, 94; Plate 95 Richmond, 123, 124, 125, 161, 190; Plates 126, 130, 136, 192 Rising Sun, 16, 39, 42, 125; Plates 18, 131 Rob Roy, 14; Plate 9 Rochester, 87, 157; Plates 76, 185 Rockport, 94; Plate 94 Rolling Prairie, 45, 47; Plates 47, 56 Rushville, 45, 91-92; Plate 90 St. Paul, 13 Scipio, 47; Plate 58 Shelburn, 18 Indi ex Shelbyville, 122, 151-52; Plates 116, 163 South Bend, 88, 161, 190; Plates 81, 193 Terre Haute, 18, 39, 94, 120, 121, 187; Plates 24, 106, 107 Tunnelton, 121; Plate 115 Valparaiso, 94; Plate 96 Vemon, 48; Plate 63 Vevay, II, 13, 16, 18, 44-45, 46, 49- 50, 89, 127-28, 182, 184; Plates 22, 43, 51, 65, 70, 85 Vincennes, 10, 19, 37-38; Plates I, 27 Wabash, 89-90, 127, 151-52; Plates 87, 146, 164 Warsaw, 153-54; Plate 170 Washington, 130, 152-53, 189; Plates 150, 166 Westfield, 120 Williamsport, 88, 123; Plate 80 Wirt, 47 Wolcott, 126, 190; Plate 140 195 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 033227114