You ask for a style of finish that must be ornamental and modern. But

I don't understand your meaning; shall need more definite instruction.

Is your house intended for ornamental purposes, as summer-houses,

dove-cots, bird-cages, and the like, often are? Is it to be a museum,

art-gallery, or memorial hall? Diamonds and pearls are commonly

thought ornamental to those who can afford them; from pink plaster

images and china vases to bronze dragons and Florentine mosaics, there

is an endless variety of ornaments for domestic apartments. I've heard

of a woman who was an ornament to her husband, and of a man who

ornamented a whole town; but when you ask me to furnish you an

ornamental style of finishing your house, I'm obliged to ask for

particulars. You may have curious carvings in the woodwork about the

doors and windows and on the base-boards; paint pictures, or set

bright-colored tile, grotesque and classic, on the flat surfaces; cut

a row of "scallops and points" around the edge of the casings in

imitation of clam-shells, as I have sometimes seen; or you may build

over your doors and windows enormous Grecian cornices supported by

huge carved consoles,--regular shelves, too high for any earthly use

except to remind you, by their vast store of dust, of your mortal

origin and destiny. I hold it to be the duty of the amiable architect

to carry out the wishes of his employer as far as consistent with his

own peace of mind; and if you insist on having a row of brass buttons

around all your casings, and setting your own tin-type, life-size, at

every corner, I shall acquiesce; but my sober advice is that the

interior work be simple and unobtrusive. The most perfect style in

dress or manner is that which attracts the least attention; so the

essential finish should not, by its elaborate design, challenge notice

and thus detract from the furnishing and true ornamentation of the

room. Avoid fine, unintelligible mouldings, needless crooks and

quirks, and be not afraid of a flat surface terminating in a plain

bead or quarter round. Stairways and mantels are not strictly a part

of the essential structure, and may be treated more liberally. The

doors, too, should be of richer design than the frames in which they

are hung; while on the sideboard, bookcase, or other stationary

furniture you may, figuratively speaking, spread yourself, always

provided you do not make, in the operation, a greater display of

ignorance than of sense.

Rich woodwork throughout, carved panels upon the walls, inlaid floors,

and elaborate ceilings, each separate detail a work of art,

intrinsically beautiful apart from its constructive use, would require

a corresponding treatment in the setting of the doors and windows; but

the most of what is commonly considered ornamental work, in such

cases, is wholly incongruous with walls and ceilings of lath and

plaster and floors of cheap boards. I know you will paste mouldy paper

to the walls and spread dirty carpets on the floors (beg your pardon,

I mean the paper will be mouldy before you know it, and if you ever

saw a wool carpet that had been used a month without being, like

Phoebe's blackberries, "all mixed with sand and dirt," your

observation has been different from mine); perhaps "run" stucco

cornices around the top of walls, and "criss-cross" the ceilings into

a perfect flower-garden of parallelograms with round corners. But the

inharmony remains all the same. Any great outlay of labor or material

on the casings of doors and windows or the bases, when there is no

other woodwork in the room, is surely out of place.

These are my sentiments, in general, upon the ornamental; of the

merely fashionable you already know my opinion. Not that this most

fitful dame has no rights that deserve respect, but her feeble light

is a black spot in the radiance of real fine art. When you can give no

other reason for liking what you like than that Mistress Fashion

approves, beware! beware!--trust her not. The time will come when you

will wish even the modest handmaiden Economy had blessed it. And if a

thing is really beautiful, what difference whether it was introduced

by Mrs. Shoddy last spring, or by Mrs. Noah, before her husband

launched his fairy boat? Nor is fine art unattainable, even in the

door-casings. It does not imply fine work. The size, shape, and

position of the doors and windows, and the relative proportions of

the work about them, is the first thing to be studied. Then have a

care that such mouldings as may be needed are graceful, and you cannot

go far wrong.

You propose to finish with "hard" wood, and ask my opinion. It

depends: if it's the hardness you want, should recommend lignum-vitae

and ebony; if the wood, economy would suggest that white-pine, and

certain other softer sorts, be not overlooked. To answer according to

the spirit of your inquiry, I should say, by all means (if you do not

mind the cost) use wood instead of putty. With all respect for white

paint and striped paint and all other kinds of paint, there is nothing

more enduringly satisfying than the natural tint and grain of the

different kinds of wood suitable for building, of which we have such

great variety in style and color, from the overestimated black

walnut, to the rarely used white-pine,--rarely used without having

its natural beauty extinguished by three coats of paint. What I wish

to say is, that finishing your woodwork without paint does not,

necessarily, require the said wood to be of the kinds commonly called

"hard." Any wood that is not specially disposed to warp, and that can

be smoothly wrought, may be used. Those you mention are all good; so

are half a dozen more,--the different kinds of ash, yellow-pine,

butternut, white-wood, cherry, cedar, even hemlock and spruce in some

situations. There are several important points to be religiously

observed if you leave the wood, whatever the variety, in its unadorned

beauty. It must be the best of its kind; it must be seasoned to its

inmost fibre; it must be wrought skilfully, tenderly cared for, and,

finally, filled and rubbed till it wears a surface that is not liable

to soil, is easily cleaned, resists the action of moisture, and will

grow richer with age. Hence, I say, by all means finish with

unpainted wood, if you are not afraid of the expense, and yet paint

and varnish are good, and putty, like charity, covereth a multitude of

sins. Nothing protects wood better than oil and lead, and by means of

them you have unlimited choice of colors, in the selection and

arrangement of which there is room and need for genuine artistic

taste. Yes; good honest paint is worthy the utmost respect. When it

tries to improve upon nature's divine methods and calls itself

"graining," it becomes unmitigated nonsense,--yes, and worse. It is

one of the sure evidences of man's innate perversity that he persists

in trying to copy certain beautiful lines and shadings in wood, not as

an art study, but for actual use, when he may just as well have the

perfect original as his own faulty imitation. What conceit, what

blindness, what impudence, this reveals! What downright falsehood! Not

in the painter,--O, no, skill is commendable even when unworthily

employed,--but in him who orders it. You may buy a pine door, which is

very well; pine doors are good; you tell every man that comes into

your house it's black-walnut or oak or mahogany. If that isn't

greeting him with lying lips and a deceitful heart, the moral law

isn't as clear as it ought to be. You may think it's of no

consequence, certainly not worth making a fuss about, but I tell you

this spirit of sham that pervades our whole social structure, that

more and more obtrudes itself in every department of life, comes from

the bottomless pit, and will carry us all thither, unless we resist

it, even in these milder manifestations, as we would resist the Father

of Lies himself. Truth and falsehood are getting so hopelessly

confused that we can scarcely distinguish one from the other.

One other suggestion in this connection. Without either painting or

graining you may get a most satisfactory effect, both in looks and

utility, by staining the less costly kinds of woods; using a

transparent stain that will not conceal but strengthen the natural

shading, and at the same time change its tint according to your fancy.

This is an honest and economical expedient. It only requires that your

lumber shall be sound, tolerably clear,--a good hard knot isn't

alarming,--seasoned, and put up with care. The cost is less than

common painting, and the effect as much better than graining as

nature's work is more perfect than ours.

Don't ask me any more questions till I've disposed of these already on

hand.

LETTER XXVIII.

From Fred.

THOUGHT PROVOKES INQUIRY.

MY DEAR ARCHITECT: In spite of your prohibition, I must pursue one or

two of the inquiries already raised, in order to understand the

answers given.

What is the objection to cheap floors, if they are always covered with

carpets? Am I to understand that you do not approve of lath and

plaster for walls and ceilings of first-class dwellings? If so, what

would you substitute?

It seems much easier to say what to avoid than what to accept; but

that, I believe, is the privilege of critics and reformers.

Why do you despise the modern fashions so heartily? Are the old any

better?

Yours,

FRED.

LETTER XXIX.

From the Architect.

CONSISTENCY, COMFORT, AND CARPETS.

MY DEAR FRED: I don't despise the new fashions. I admire them--when

they are good. Will you please try to understand that a thing of

beauty is a joy _forever_? Whatever is born of truth, whether in art

or religion, belongs to eternity; it never goes out of fashion. Will

you also remember that modern styles, modes, fashions, inventions,--call

them what you will,--are the mere average product of human thought and

labor during a few years; the old that abides is drawn from the

superlatively good of former countless generations, culled over and

over again till that alone remains which has stood the test of your

critics and reformers all along down from Adam, or up from the last

monkey who wept to find his first-born without a tail and morally

accountable.

Certainly it is easier to say what to avoid than what to accept, for

there's more of it. Broad is the road of error, and the faults and

follies, vices and sins, that wrangle and riot therein, are thicker

than crickets on a sandy road in October,--thicker and blacker. You

may catch them all day and there'll be just as many left. But the

devoted followers of truth you may count on your fingers and carry

them home in your bosom. Besides, the right thing to do cannot be told

in detail for another, since every man must manifest his own

individuality as he must work out his own salvation. In the millennium

I expect we shall find no two houses built or furnished alike.

No; you are not to understand that lath and plaster are unfit for

first-class dwellings, but there is no sense in trimming a gingham

suit with point lace. A general uniformity of value in the material of

which your castle is built is as essential as uniformity of style.

Yes; there is an objection to cheap floors, carpets or not; and now

I've gone through your last lot of interrogation-points backward,

which brings me where I left off in the former letter.

You propose to carpet the floors and ask to have them made to fit the

carpets. Would you also like the walls to fit the paper-hangings, and

the windows the curtains? Do you know what kind of carpets you will

use in each room; just how long and how wide they will be to half an

inch; the width of the borders; how much they will stretch in putting

down; how much "take up" in the making (you see I can use

interrogation-points)? Do you really know anything about them with

certainty? I ask for information, as the same request is often made as

to building the house to fit the carpets, and any attempt to comply

with it seems to me a great waste of mathematics.

Concerning, the floors themselves,--leaving the yardstick out of the

question,--even if they are covered by carpets six inches thick, it

will not pay to lay poor ones. They should be double for solidity and

warmth, well nailed for stiffness, seasoned for economy, and of good

lumber for conscience' sake. Seasoned for economy, I say, since

nothing is more destructive to carpets, especially to oil-cloth, than

cracks in the floor underneath them. Yes,--one thing; the warped edges

of the boards, that sometimes raise themselves,--that are almost sure

to do so in spruce, which is never fit for floors, though often used.

It's my conviction that spruce floor-boards, two inches thick and one

and a half wide, would contrive to curl up at the edges. If you have

good floors, furthermore, you will not feel obliged to cover them at

all times and at all hazards. I remarked that the houses built when

the good time coming comes will not be all alike. I can tell you

another thing about them, though you may not believe it; there will be

no wool carpets on the floors,--no, nor rag ones either. The people

will walk upon planks of fir and boards of cedar, sycamore from the

plains and algum-trees, gopher wood and Georgia pine, inlaid in forms

of wondrous grace. There will be no moth or _dust_ to corrupt and

strangle, neither creaks nor cracks to annoy. It's a question among

theologians whether the millennium will come "all at once and all

o'er," or gradually. I think the millennial floors must be introduced

gradually,--say around the edges,--for I do not suppose you or any one

else in New England will give up the warm-feeling carpets altogether.

And yet one who has seen a carpet of any sort taken and well shaken,

after a six months' service, will hardly expect added health or

comfort from its ministration. If your observation of this semiannual

performance isn't sufficient, and you are curious to know how much

noisome dirt and dust, how much woolly fibre and microscopic animal

life, you respire,--how these poisonous particles fill your lungs with

tubercles, your head with catarrh, and prepare your whole body for an

untimely grave,--you can study medical books at your leisure. They

will all tell the same story, and will justify my supposition that you

will cover the floors with _dirty_ carpets. Doubtless they will be

shaken and "whipped" (they deserve it) two or three times a year, and

swept, maybe, every day. The shaking is very well, but though it seems

neater to sweep them, yet for actual cleanliness of the whole room,

carpet and all, I suppose it would be better at the end of six months

if they were swept--not once! For whatever can be removed from a

carpet by ordinary sweeping is comparatively clean and harmless,--that

which sinks out of sight and remains is unclean and poisonous.

[Illustration: DUST TO DUST.]

There are two ways of lessening the evil without exterminating the

cause. One is to shut the room, never using or opening it, except for

the spring and fall cleaning; the other is to lay the carpet in such

way that it may be taken up and relaid without demoralizing the entire

household. Talk about the carpets fitting the rooms; there should be a

margin of two feet--a few inches, more or less, is unimportant--at

each side. Then if you have a handsome floor, the carpet becomes a

large rug--no matter how elegant--that may be removed, cleansed, and

put back again every morning if you like. You may fancy a border of

wood either plain or ornamental, the surface of which shall be level

with the top of the carpet. This is easily made, either by using

thicker boards around the edges or by laying wood carpeting over the

regular floor. One caution concerning fancy floors; don't make them

too fanciful. We don't like to feel that we're treading under foot a

rare work of art, and I've seen certain zigzag patterns which merely

to look at fairly makes one stagger. Thresholds are on the floor,

but not of them, nor of anything else, for that matter, and though

somewhat useful in poetry, are often provoking stumbling-blocks in

practice. Necessary at times, doubtless, but we have far too many and

too much of them. Even where rooms are carpeted differently they are

not needed. If you must have them, let them lie low and keep dark.

[Illustration: WOOL AND WOOD.]

If you paint or paper the walls, as you will if they are plastered,

keep this in mind: the trowel finishes them as far as use is

concerned. Whatever is added is purely in the nature of ornament, and

must be tried by the laws of decoration. If you enjoy seeing "a

parrot, a poppy, and a shepherdess," bunches of blue roses, and

impossible landscapes, spotted, at regular intervals, over the inner

walls of the rooms, you will choose some large-figured paper. Perhaps,

if the pattern is sufficiently distinct and gorgeous, you will think

you need no other pictures; and the pictures themselves will be glad

to be left out if they have any self-respect. I'm sure you don't enjoy

any such thing. Some of the fancy paper-hangings are artistic and

beautiful in design; for that very reason they ought not to be

repeated. I would as soon hang up a few dozens of religious-newspaper

prize-chromos. The general effect is the point to be considered. Why

not have both? Because you can't. When you have a picture so pretty

and complete as to attract your attention and fix itself in your

memory, the general effect is lost if you discover the same thing

staring at you whichever way you turn. 'T is the easiest thing in the

world to have too much of a good thing. Sometimes the better the thing

the worse the repetition. This general effect which we must have is

well secured by a small, inconspicuous figure, or by those vine-like

patterns, so delicate and wandering that you don't attempt to follow

them. Better than either are the plain tints, which give you, in

fact, all you require; a modification of the cold white wall, and the

most effective background for pictures and other furnishing. As much

ornament as you please in the border at the top, and at the bottom,

too, if the rooms are high enough. All horizontal lines and

subdivisions reduce the apparent height of the room. Indeed, you may

use trimming without limit, either of paper or paint, wood and gilt

moldings, provided they are well used. Color, after all, is the main

thing. If there is any good reason for putting this upon paper and

then sticking the paper to the wall, I've not learned it. It is

cheaper, cleaner, and better to apply it directly to the plastering,

either in oil or water-colors. Oil is the best; water the cheapest. In

any case, the best quality of plastering is none too good. For the

papering it may be left smooth, but for painting, especially with

distemper, the rough coarse-grained surface is very much the best. The

chief objection to stucco arises from its being a cheap material,

easily wrought. It is so often introduced as if quantity would

compensate for quality,--a common error in other things than stucco.

Though often desirable and appropriate, as a general rule the more the

worse. No amount of gilding will give it anything but a frail, often

tawdry appearance, that does not improve, but deteriorates, with age.

[Illustration: WOODWORK ON PLASTERED WALLS]

Wainscoting is always in order; it is a question of harmony, when and

where to use it. What you have in mind is really an extended and

ornamented base. Of course, it enriches the room, but it begins a work

to which there is no limit. It should be supplemented by a

corresponding wood cornice at the top of the room, and between the two

as much decorative woodwork as you can afford; until "the walls of

the house within, the floor of the house, and the walls of the

ceilings" are carved with "cherubims and palm-trees and open flowers."

A costly wainscot at the base of the walls, with paper and stucco

above, seems to me a great lack of harmony. I would spread my richness

more evenly. In using different kinds of wood, the raised portions,

being more exposed, may be of hard varieties, the sunken portions of

softer materials, even lath and plaster, which may be frescoed,

covered with some rich colored plain paper, or hung with violet

velvet, according to your taste and means. The old-fashioned

chair-rail seems to me a sensible institution It occupies the

debatable ground between use and beauty, and may therefore be somewhat

enriched. The plastering beneath it may be given a different tint from

that above, and when the walls are high its effect is good. It is

really carrying out the idea of panelling, to which there is hardly a

limit in the way of variety.

Some of your questions have led me a little way from the building

toward the furnishing, but I've tried to dispose of them

categorically, and am now ready for another lot.

LETTER XXX.

From Miss Jane.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURE, POTATOES AND POSTSCRIPTS.

MR. ARCHITECT: Dear Sir,--After so long an indirect acquaintance

through our mutual friends, it is quite time we were formally

introduced. Allow me to present myself: Sister Jane, spinster; native

of New England, born to idleness, bred to school-teaching; age not

reported, temperament hopeful, abilities average; possessor of a

moderate competence, partly acquired, mainly inherited; greatly

overestimated by a friendly few, somewhat abused as peculiar (in

American idiom "funny") by strangers; especially interested in the

building of homes, and quite willing to help Mr. Fred carry out his

ambitions in that direction by any suggestions I am able to make.

[Illustration: "SISTER JANE, SPINSTER."]

I've taught school, and I've taught music; sold goods in a store and

worked in a factory; run a sewing-machine, travelled with

subscription-books, and hired out to do house-work; and I solemnly

aver that the only time I was conscious of genuine enthusiasm for my

work, or felt that I was doing myself or others any actual good, was

while keeping house. In school I was required to teach things I knew

little and cared less about, and to punish the dear children for doing

precisely what I would have done myself had I been in their places,

losing all the while in amiability more than was gained in mental

discipline. My experience in a factory was limited to three months.

From working with the machines and as they worked, hardly using more

intelligent volition than they, I began to fancy myself becoming like

them, with no more rights to be respected, no more moral

responsibility, and left without even serving my notice. Clerking I

tried "just for fun." If all people who came to trade were like some,

it would be the pleasantest, easiest work imaginable; if all were like

others, the veriest torment. It was an excellent place to study human

nature, but made me somewhat cynical. My sewing-machine had fits and

gave me a back-ache, so I've locked it up until some one invents a

motive-power that can be applied to house-work, washing, churning,

mincing meat and vegetables, driving sewing-machines, and--if it only

could--kneading bread, sweeping floors, washing dishes, ironing

clothes, and making beds. My book agency was undertaken for the sake

of travel,--of learning something, not only of the land we live in,

but of its people and homes. If I had gone from house to house and

with malice aforethought begged an outright gift of a sum equal to my

commission on each book, I should have felt more self-approval than in

asking people to buy what I had not the slightest reason to suppose

they wanted.

Now I'm sure you are beginning to think me one of the disagreeably

strong-minded, who think the whole world has gone astray when it's

only themselves who are out of tune, but, truly, I'm not; only I don't

like to be or to feel idle and useless, nor yet to be constantly

striving to do from a sense of duty what is positively distasteful.

Like many other important discoveries, my aptness for house-work was

found out by accident. Our next neighbor happened to be thrown,

without a word of warning, into one of those dreadful whirlpools in

regard to help, to which even the best regulated households are

liable. My services, charitably volunteered as temporary relief, were

gladly accepted, and the result on my part was two years of pleasant

and profitable labor. All I earned was clear profit, and I had the

satisfaction of knowing I saved the family many times over what was

paid me. I'm converted beyond the possibility of backsliding to this

truth: that there is no work so fit and pleasant, so profitable and

improving, to the mass of womankind,--rich or poor, wise or

unlearned, strong or weak,--yes, proud or meek,--as the care and

control of a home; none so worthy of thorough study, none so full of

opportunity for exercising all the better bodily and mental powers,

from mere mechanical and muscular skill, up through philosophy and

science, mathematics and invention, to poetry and fine art.

Homes and How to Make Them · 第 5 / 9 段